November 27, 2014, 02:41:22 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - weixing

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 23
136
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 10:27:26 PM »
I feel sorry for Nikon owners.
It doesn't matter what model they buy, even when first released, as a few months down the track, Nikon will bring out a new and improved version of it making your current model obsolete and now worth substantially less than it cost you. Remember the D600 then the 610?
Canon does hang onto models much longer, and hence they have better re-sale value later on as say, after 3 years, your Canon may be just superseded, but if you had an equivalent Nikon, it would be 3 models old and practically worthless.

I'm not saying that Nikon cameras are no good, in fact, they are very good indeed, but constant model updates is not how you keep up the perceived and resale value of products.
It also makes it more difficult regarding spare parts too, as many models mean lots of parts and distributors only have so much space and money for parts.

I feel sorry for people who buy cameras based on how much they can sell them for.

If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.

While I can understand this for lenses....for camera bodies, they are a depreciating asset. Every camera body I have bought has dropped in resale value over the three years I have owned them. The lenses i have bought have generally been worth more over time due to inflation and increasing prices year on year. My 16-35IIL cost me £850 new, it's still worth close to that S/H and new they are nearly £1200. My 85 f1.2 II L cost me £1200, it's worth nearly that S/H and it's new price is between £1500 and £1800 depending where you buy it.

Camera bodies are electronic devices like your iPad, iPhone, iMac and depreciate accordingly as their function degrades.

I sometimes wonder if the people that care most about the resale value are those that are always running with a month to month non-$0 debt on their credit card and thus see the resale value as being a way to gain back that lost debt, so to speak.
Hi,
    Some of us (me included) always sell the old camera to fund the new camera, so that we don't need to pay the full price for it when we upgrade our camera. In the idea scenario, when a new model come out, we should have save enough $$ to pay for the difference after we sell the old model.

    If the new camera "refresh" too fast, we might not save enough $$ to perform the "sell old, buy new" upgrade especially for a mid range full frame DSLR like D800 which is not cheap, so we wait... By the time, we ready to perform the upgrade, a new model launched (may be D900) and the value of our old camera drop even further...

    Hmm... may be this is the reason why Nikon don't sell as many camera as Canon as their model "refresh" too fast which make the resale value of their camera drop so fast that it's make no sense to perform upgrade, so Nikon user will just use the camera longer until they save enough $$ to buy a new one at full price.

    Have a nice day.

You upgrade your camera when there is a significant functionality boost over the old camera, not because of minor changes. A three year old camera is a three year old camera, the loss of value over that time will reflect that. As with any product, there is  premium to be paid for something that is new out of the box rather than used, and resale will lose you that premium. If you upgrade every 12 months for some minor improvement, then yes, you are going to be losing a lot more money than if you upgraded every three years because you are giving up that premium three times instead of once. It is not Nikon's fault that you choose to do this.
       Yes, a 3 year old camera is a 3 year old camera, but as long as your camera is the still current model, your resale value will not drop as quickly as a model that has a replacement model on the market...  When a new model is launch, the price of the older model will drop even if the different between the new model and the old model is just the colour of the camera... A model with a replacement model in the market will sound older than it really is.

      Have a nice day.

137
Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 26, 2014, 11:37:22 AM »
Hi,
    Everyone got their personal preference... some like extreme sharp lens, some like lens which might not be the sharpest lens, but produce an unique look, some like lens that produce smooth bokeh, some might like the pentagon bokeh certain lens produce, some also like the donut bokeh mirror lens produce (must be quite an interesting image if use a mirror lens to shoot a donut... all the bokeh are also in donut shape... ha ha ha), some even like the result of lens that produce all sorts of aberration on the image... there is no right or wrong answer in photography and IMHO, it's this type of diversity which produce those interesting images... just imagine if every images we saw is extreme sharp, clear and all give the same look, then it's must be very boring after a while...

    Have a nice day.

138
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810!!!
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:14:31 AM »
I feel sorry for Nikon owners.
It doesn't matter what model they buy, even when first released, as a few months down the track, Nikon will bring out a new and improved version of it making your current model obsolete and now worth substantially less than it cost you. Remember the D600 then the 610?
Canon does hang onto models much longer, and hence they have better re-sale value later on as say, after 3 years, your Canon may be just superseded, but if you had an equivalent Nikon, it would be 3 models old and practically worthless.

I'm not saying that Nikon cameras are no good, in fact, they are very good indeed, but constant model updates is not how you keep up the perceived and resale value of products.
It also makes it more difficult regarding spare parts too, as many models mean lots of parts and distributors only have so much space and money for parts.

I feel sorry for people who buy cameras based on how much they can sell them for.

If your camera is in good enough condition to be sold as "mint" or "near mint" condition then you obviously haven't used it very much.

While I can understand this for lenses....for camera bodies, they are a depreciating asset. Every camera body I have bought has dropped in resale value over the three years I have owned them. The lenses i have bought have generally been worth more over time due to inflation and increasing prices year on year. My 16-35IIL cost me £850 new, it's still worth close to that S/H and new they are nearly £1200. My 85 f1.2 II L cost me £1200, it's worth nearly that S/H and it's new price is between £1500 and £1800 depending where you buy it.

Camera bodies are electronic devices like your iPad, iPhone, iMac and depreciate accordingly as their function degrades.

I sometimes wonder if the people that care most about the resale value are those that are always running with a month to month non-$0 debt on their credit card and thus see the resale value as being a way to gain back that lost debt, so to speak.
Hi,
    Some of us (me included) always sell the old camera to fund the new camera, so that we don't need to pay the full price for it when we upgrade our camera. In the idea scenario, when a new model come out, we should have save enough $$ to pay for the difference after we sell the old model.

    If the new camera "refresh" too fast, we might not save enough $$ to perform the "sell old, buy new" upgrade especially for a mid range full frame DSLR like D800 which is not cheap, so we wait... By the time, we ready to perform the upgrade, a new model launched (may be D900) and the value of our old camera drop even further...

    Hmm... may be this is the reason why Nikon don't sell as many camera as Canon as their model "refresh" too fast which make the resale value of their camera drop so fast that it's make no sense to perform upgrade, so Nikon user will just use the camera longer until they save enough $$ to buy a new one at full price.

    Have a nice day.

139
Lenses / Re: The sharpness curse!
« on: June 24, 2014, 01:55:32 AM »
Hi,
   I saw someone using the new Sigma 50mm Art lens on his 5DIII and I look at a few images from his 5DIII LCD screen is very sharp, but I think it's may be a bit too sharp for my liking... for example, the edge of the catch light on the eye is too well define... IMHO, look a bit not natural.

   Have a nice day.


140
Hi,
Here comes the lens cap story
   When you shoot with lens cap on, current Canon DSLR will produce an image with mean value of 2048. Nikon DSLR will give a mean value of 0, so the "black" of current Canon DSLR start from 2048 and Nikon DSLR start from 0.

   Have a nice day.

141
Photography Technique / Re: Need advice: 60D + 100-400L
« on: June 21, 2014, 09:45:17 PM »
Hi,
    Do you use any filter on the lens?? If yes, try remove the filter and try again.
    Also, is the weather hot when you took this image?? Do you notice any turbulence when you shot this image?? I once shoot in a very hot afternoon and the image come out with similar result.... low contrast and blurry.

    Have a nice day.

142
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600
« on: June 16, 2014, 06:29:12 AM »
Hi,
    IMHO, tripod will always give you the sharpest possible IQ out of the lens. If you going to use flash with flash extender, tripod will be recommended. Handheld will give you the freedom and fastest reaction. There is no right or wrong way, it's depend on your preference.

    For your reference, I just came back on a short birding trip with the Tamron 150-600mm on 6D. Since I'm taking public transport, I decided to bring only a monopod and not to bring my gimbal head and tripod as it's quite bulky. I like the freedom (you can go places where tripod is difficult to setup) of hand holding the lens as you can "take cover" and change shooting angle easily, but sometime I miss my tripod especially when you are trying to point your AF point on a small bird jumping all over the place which is just slightly "larger" than your centre AF point on the viewfinder... even with the IS, sometime I find it difficult holding steady and long enough for the AF to lock on it especially later in the day when you are tired. I use my monopod when in such situation and it does help.

    Anyway, I prefer hand holding, so must practice more hand holding technique and may be train my arm muscle... ha ha ha  :P

    By the way, if you going the tripod way, go for a gimbal head.

   Have a nice day.

143
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 09, 2014, 02:58:44 PM »
Hi,
    For your reference, below are some of my lightroom screenshot (at 100% view) of birds I took using my Tamron @ 600mm F6.3. All are without processing (just open using lightroom and took the screenshot):





   Have a nice day.

144
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 09:45:27 PM »
Hi,
   One thing to note is that if you use the Tamron 150-600mm in a hot day, make sure the lens is cover with lenscoat or something... I realised that if I remove the zoom barrel lenscoat (must remove if you want to zoom) and there is direct sunlight hitting the zoom barrel, it's get hot very quickly and AF accuracy and contrast will drop quite significantly... may be this is why Canon Super Telephoto are white??

   Have a nice day.

145
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 09:42:27 AM »
Hi,
I want a 600mm focal length for zoos on my 5d3 but I can't afford the big canon glass.

The options I'm considering are:

Tamron 150-600 @ £950

or

Sigma 120-300 Sport @ £2500 + a 2x TC

I can afford either of these options but not both. My question is, which will be better at 600mm? considering, IQ and AF speed.

I have the canon 70-200 2.8ii so the sigma for its 120-200 range doesn't excite me (neither does the cost or weight). but 300mm f2.8 excites me, so does 400mm f4 but I not sure about 600mm via a 2x TC.

Have anyone come across a direct comparison of these two routes to 600mm?

All opinions greatly welcomed.
thanks in advance.
Alex
    600mm for Zoo?? IMHO, 600mm is too long and minimum focusing distance is too long for Zoo unless the animals in your Zoo is kept very far away... IMHO, I think your canon 70-200 2.8ii with 1.4x TC or with 2x is good enough. Anyway, if you really want a 600mm, Tamron 150-600mm is a very good choice since it had a short minimum focusing.

   Have a nice day.

146
Hi,
Nikon announced the 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR lens.  It's an update, but not a MkII version – it receives the designation FL because it now contains two fluorite elements.  So Nikon's new lens incorporates something that Canon has been using for many, many years.  Woo hoo.

Even more interesting, check out Nikon's updated glossary.  There's now an entry for fluorite (FL) touting it's advantages, but apparently they forgot to update their entry for ED glass, clearly intended to bash Canon's use of fluorite, where they state, "In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics - specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index."  Despite that easy cracking and adverse effects on focusing, they're now saying it's great for their telephoto lenses. 

Make up your minds, Nikon…or at least pay attention to your own ad-speak.  ::)
    May be they mean that "their new AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing"... ha ha ha  ;D

   The funny part is that DPReview said that "Nikon’s 800mm F5.6 FL ED VR and 400mm F2.8 FL ED VR lenses earn the 'FL' in their names from the coating of fluorine applied to the lens elements."... ha ha ha  ;D

   Also, Nikon’s 800mm F5.6 FL ED VR don't have a flourine coating as the AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR and AF-S TELECONVERTER TC-14E III is the first to have it... just wonder does DPReview check their facts before publish their article??

   Have a nice day.

147
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 27, 2014, 12:20:45 PM »
Hi,
   IMHO, the only advantage of mirrorless camera is the smaller size. By decreasing the price of entry level DSLR, the entry level lenses, entry level full frame DSLR, making smaller DSLR and lenses and making good high end compact camera (G16 and G1X Mk2), I think Canon had successfully "limit" the grow of mirrorless market share... only those who want a mirrorless camera or those who really need a small interchangeable camera will go for the mirrorless camera now.

   Just my $0.02.

   Have a nice day.


148
Hi,
    I had this on my 6D and will AF (not reliable), but the 1.4x TC is not reported (the 1.4x TC is reported when use with EF400 F5.6L).

   Have a nice day.

149
Hi,
In today's cameras I agree with you that live view is not conducive to action photography.  It is rather slow. I do believe that we'll see more movement in this direction as dslr's incorporate more video features.  Now my crystal ball is about as good as yours, but I could see the functionality I described earlier available with an evf. In that case you could use a joystick on camera to select the focus spot then let the camera track. That could solve your hand held request.
    I don't think 7DII will have an evf... if so, I think a lot of wildlife photographer will be disappointed as a lot of wildlife photographer use the viewfinder a lot even when not taking photo and most of them won't be happy if they need to bring a lots of batteries.

   Have a nice day.

150
Software & Accessories / Re: Gimbal Head: Wimberley Vs Jobu
« on: May 08, 2014, 11:57:11 PM »
Ihave the BWG-Pro Gimbal and it's can convert to both side mount or full gimbal mount. But I prefer the full gimbal over the side mount because you can adjust the center of gravity with a full gimbal... useful when you mount a flash or a mic on your camera which change the center of gravity.

    Anyway, I prefer when I point my lens at any angle, the lens stay there when I release my hand without the need to tighten the tension knob or lock it down.

I don't understand.  Mounting a flash or a mic on the camera, putting a flash on a bracket with a radio trigger on the camera, adding a TC behind the lens, using a different lens or camera – all of those change the center of mass for the load, and both a side mount and a 'full' (bottom mount) gimbal can compensate for that (provided your lens plate is sufficiently long, as the RRS replacement feet are).  When the load is correctly balanced on either type of gimbal, the lens stays where pointed when you release it, with no tension/locking.

The only difference with a full gimbal, where the height is adjustable, is that if you so choose, instead of fully balancing the load, you can intentionally unbalance it (center of mass below the pivot point for the pitch dimension) such that when you release the lens it returns to horizontal instead of remaining at the angle at which it was pointed.
    After reading your reply, I try again and no it doesn't work... :(
If there is no mic, the side mount will point and any angle when release without tension.
But if there is mic, the side mount will not balance when I point at any angle other than horizontal without tension... for example, if I point up and release my hand without tension, the lens will continue moving up until the camera body hit the gimbal base.

    Anyway, it'll work if I applied a bit of tension, but sometime you forgot to applied the tension in the field (especially after some actions) and release the camera...  :P

   Have a nice day.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 23