September 30, 2014, 11:53:32 AM

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 - risc32

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 33
Site Information / Re: Banning ankorwatt
« on: September 04, 2013, 10:17:14 PM »
so you're saying ankorwatt is/was openly "mickael", and now he's gone?

Adobe: "To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013."

For how long?

Does it imply that if one signs up later than December 31, 2013, one will get a higher price from there on? I suppose there will be an option for those, even without PS.

So anybody joining in at a later stage will pay more?

If so, why should I believe that the price is not the "To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price" i.e. there will exist two pricing for the same thing after the December 31, 2013. If there are co-existing 2 pricing, I suppose they become the same at some point, supposedly the higher one taking over?

Looks to me, it is a try to get the owners of a CS 3 or higher on board with a limited time offer and they need to pay more than 10$ after a while.

So by saying it is not an introductory price they seem to be implying that you would get $10 forever so long as you never stop paying at any point (unless they are being real weasels and mean that is not an introductory price in that it will not always be introductory for $10 for a few months for everyone but only for those who sign up by December and then they get a special price of $10 for a few months or something, that would be really stoatish way to expect it to be parsed though, not sure even Adobe would pull that??).

It still doesn't seem like anything special, if you only ever used PS and never lightroom, compared to the old model. This is $360 every three years. That seems to be, at best, no worse than before, and potentially a fair amount worse.

And this whole magic cloud talk is just so ridiculous. How the heck did many people get the products before. Downloaded from the internet from Adobe. How do you get the magic 'creative' cloud version you download the same thing from the internet from Adobe. What the heck is the difference? It's the exact same thing 100%! How is something that is the exact same as formerly existed creative? The only difference is that they now charge per month with no continued usage and before you paid and owned it.

Rental vs ownership that is THE only difference. They should call it Adobe Rental not Adobe CC.

The whole cloud thing is such a big bunch of nonsense made up by marketing psychologists to come up with pretty terms to manipulate customers.


EOS Bodies / Re: 70D vs D7100 ISO Comparison at 100%
« on: August 31, 2013, 12:01:50 PM »
probably because that swatch turns orange at all iso settings except red at iso800 on the nikon. i'm not on a calibrated monitor right now, and i can't say what is more accurate, but certainly iso 800 looks much different then any of the others.

congrats to both of you. 

from my exp, i had the most luck with sticking a flash or two somewhere in the room, opposite from each other, then using another flash on camera as master, running full auto TTL with the oncam flash not firing during hte exposure. good luck.

Canon General / is expensive sensor tech paying off?
« on: August 27, 2013, 04:07:26 PM »
I'm referring to Sony, and their sensors. I'm wondering if in the marketplace, thus far, they are coming out ahead. I'm making no judgments, just an open question to you guys who certainly know more than me.
have their large financial investments earned them a larger piece of the worlds sensor pie? have they improved their share in the DSLR market? has Canon, thus far anyway, held their own without large spending?

as you might know, many big budget motion pictures and broadcast television shows have been shot in whole or in part with DSLRs. So while it's not Imax, it's being used for professional, commercial work. And you can be sure they are focusing manually.

you have to be fairly accurate with a drill, and solder, but it's not so bad.

i googled it again and i found text, but the photos were gone. so i snapped a few on my own. yes, they are of amazing quality.

sorry, i said PC terminal. i meant to say 1/8th inch mini jack.

yeah, i don't get what the odin is there for.

BTW- i added a PC connector to my 580. There is a little "how to" somewhere on the net. Pretty easy to do. if i remember correctly it was just a couple solder joints , drilling a hole, and perhaps an inch or so of wire. I wish all my flashes were 580s for that reason alone.

Lenses / Re: Sigma lenses
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:35:57 AM »
i think they are already almost as good optically as Canon/Nikon. I think the fear of a lens of that expense not working on future camera bodies keeps many away. I would guess that easy lens firmware updates and mount swapping ability will cure most of that. From my perspective all they would need to do then is stop updating lenses every other year. Most people don't want to go to resell a lens after 3years of use only for it to be 2 generations old.

135mm all the way. I use a 5dmk3 with a 70-200mm2.8 in low light levels all the time. With action you want all the speed you can get. Btw- the 135mmf2 has nothing to fear from any 70-200mm for portrait work. Honestly, sometimes the advise given out is very odd.

For volleyball, the 70-200L 2.8II would be my choice. Focus is nearly instant on a 1Dx and the zoom would be a must for me.
I shoot a lot of actor/performer headshots, and while I wouldn't give up my 85LII or 135L for portraits, the 70-200LII is also a great portrait lens...distance to subject to background being key factors.

I'm not saying the 70-200 can't do portraits, it can just fine. but the guy above said to get it over the 135mm in part because then you'd have a "killer" portrait lens. wells that's just silly. the 135mm would have to be considered a better portrait lens.
   I'd still take f2 over f2.8 in a dark venue, zoom or not(actually i choose 1.8 over either). i bet the 70-200 does focus fast on a 1dx, but the OP is looking at a 6d, so i doubt that matters much to him. i haven't used a 1dx or a 70-200IS V2, but i have a ton of exp with the 70-200mm 2.8 with many camera bodies (not the 1dx). it's AF is pretty good but the 135mm is better.

135mm all the way. I use a 5dmk3 with a 70-200mm2.8 in low light levels all the time. With action you want all the speed you can get. Btw- the 135mmf2 has nothing to fear from any 70-200mm for portrait work. Honestly, sometimes the advise given out is very odd.

I read that the 1DX has the 100000 RGB Metering while the 5D3 reuse the 63 dual layers from the 7D.
I wonder if anyone has more info on this.

1) How does it affect image quality or
2) Does it just affect the exposure metering?

1Dx is the best sports/action camera ever made. 5D3 is a poor man's 1Dx that has neither speed nor IQ.


Software & Accessories / Re: External HDD for backups
« on: August 18, 2013, 01:30:59 PM »
currently i have one HD in my computer in a 5.25 bay in a "trayless" removable thingy, and i have a secondary HD sitting on my desk. The second HD actually sits in a HD cloning device as the "target" drive, and every week or so i pull a lever in my main HD enclosure and slap it in the cloner, and i clone it to the secondary. If my main HD ever drops dead i'll be up and running at full speed within maybe 30seconds. Then i'd just use it as the main and buy another secondary. I know it's not perfect, but it's easy, with no monthly backup fees, and i could easily knock out another clone and have it offsite if i wanted. I also post nearly everything on my flickr account, so i consider myself pretty well covered.

BTW- i've got a copy of norton ghost and i can't get it to work properly.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 33