September 01, 2014, 05:03:18 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 - distant.star

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 98
1126
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Is this a G1X killer?
« on: June 06, 2012, 11:21:25 AM »
.
While this provides an alternative to the Canon S100, it's hardly an S100 "killer." And as for the G1X, I was in a Best Buy store last week and asked in the photo department to see a G1X -- they don't't even know what it is. Never heard of it. I think it has hardly any relevance to this Sony product.

As the dpreview piece points out, this is aimed at DSLR users who want/need a not-so-good alternative they can realistically put in a pocket. We in the Canon DSLR world have just that in the S95/S100 product line. I don't know the Nikon line well enough to know if they have such a product; if not, this may be aimed more at that segment.

The one real advance I see over the S100 is the memorized custom settings. You can set up to three sets of variables (just like on a better DSLR) and instantly recall for a particular shooting situation. I'd guess this will force Canon to provide that option in future S100 type products. I'd love to see that. Making changes through the menu system can be pretty tedious.

While dpreview had no RAW files the JPGs did not impress. That seems odd since I've seen and used Sonys and the image quality has always been good. Have to wait for the RAWS to really make any judgement about that.

Well, the train is coming. Off to make new images!

1127
EOS Bodies / Re: What's your acceptable price for the 1Dx
« on: June 04, 2012, 08:49:17 PM »
.
I wouldn't take one at any price. It's far more camera than I need. I'd be wasting the resource.

I'd probably take a 5D3 at $3K.

1128
Canon General / Re: Food Processing Factory Photography?
« on: June 04, 2012, 01:12:30 PM »
.
Timothy:

First, congratulations on your keen interest in photography. Sounds to me like you have a good attitude toward learning and enough confidence to try new things. Don't let negative ninny type comments discourage you. Focus on what is possible! The winners in life take chances.

Second, I've had a lot of experience with such things so I'll throw out a few suggestions:

1. People trump machinery every time. A picture of a human working with a machine has an interest element that a machine-only picture does not. And this does not have to be the whole person. Sometimes a picture of hands interacting with machines/process/products tells a great story in itself. Looks for instances where humans seem to dominate the machine or vice versa. Maybe there's a huge butter churn in there being operated by a person who is dwarfed by the machine. That can be a great point of contrast.

2. All the standard photography rules are in effect -- numbers, lines, symmetry, etc. Those sorts of things are all over factories.

3. Look for what makes this unique from other "factory" environments. You mentioned condensation on the walls -- that's great, and I'd try to incorporate it into the images if possible. A focus on the condensation with something factory/cheese related in the background may work. Or it might be taken further with some post-process. That focused condensation/factory shot layered over a cows-in-pature image may be possible.

4. Movement is an element of factories and machinery. Don't let pictures be static. Show motion and movement -- in all the many ways photography can do this.

5. Look for the little details. A closeup of a big start/stop button smeared with cheese layered over weeks/years of use. Worn spots on a floor where people have stood for hours and days and years. Clothing/equipment that workers use -- coveralls on a hooks, boots, gloves, safety eyeglasses, etc. Safety notices on machinery. Stacked boxes or other supplies. You may want to walk the factory floor sometime when it's shut down to really look and get ideas.

That should give you something to think about. Again, stay positive and enjoy the challenge.

1129
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Bad news for Camera retail in the UK
« on: June 01, 2012, 07:52:07 PM »
.
"Administration" appears to be what we'd call bankruptcy. What is "high street"?

1130
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]
« on: May 30, 2012, 11:50:47 PM »
.
Isn't this really an episode of The Twilight Zone?


1131
.
"I have been given a bit of information as to why it may be difficult to address."

The historical imperative.

In WWII the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers had a motto:

"The difficult we do immediately. The impossible takes a little longer."

Maybe Canon should bring in the Corp on a consulting basis.

1132
PowerShot / Re: Pogue Trashes G1 X
« on: May 24, 2012, 08:05:13 PM »
.
I didn't "want to hear" anything. I have no interest in that product whatsoever. Again, I was glad he agreed with my initial reaction on its looks; beyond that I don't really care what he has to say about it.

Anyway, the "summary" is, yes, he trashed it. He's a reasonably smart tech guy, and he's not given to much hype. His bottom line is that Canon needs to start over on that model.


Basically, what I read was it did not make a fashion statement, and that you need to know what you are doing to use it.  Some of the other things would be obvious to most, it does not include a f/1.4 lens, so no shallow depth of field, and other blather like that.
 
I do agree that its way over priced, even at $500, I might balk.
 
Here is his summary.  Does it really sound like he is trashing it, or is that just what you wanted to hear?
 
O.K., I admit it; I’m harping on the flaws. There’s a lot of stuff to love in this camera, too: fantastic ergonomics, buttons just where you want them, and superb photos, among other things. (You can see some sample shots here.)

1133
PowerShot / Pogue Trashes G1 X
« on: May 24, 2012, 06:09:24 PM »
.
David Pogue of The New York Times doesn't think much of the G1 X. He confirms my first assessment -- that it looks like it was designed in a blacksmith shop.


http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/the-canon-g1-x-big-sensor-major-disappointments/?ref=personaltechemail&nl=technology&emc=edit_ct_20120524

1134
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D Mark III
« on: May 23, 2012, 06:51:24 PM »
some crook is trying to rip someone off...

It's okay. He pulled the trigger. Crook's dead now.

1135
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 06:48:27 PM »
.
Damn, now I'll be making pancakes for breakfast tomorrow!! That stack looks too good.

1136
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 20, 2012, 02:49:50 PM »
.
Great quote. I love Feynman, such an iconclast. As an artist himself (he would sit around and make drawings in topless joints) he had an artistic appreciation and insight often missing in his colleagues.

Completely off topic, since we're drifting there anyway, Loren Eiseley was another scientist with a strong artistic side. His essay, "How Flowers Changes the World," should be mandatory reading for any human being.





For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice

This reminds me of a quote from a famous scientist:

Quote from: Richard Feynman
I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
― Richard P. Feynman

1137
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 19, 2012, 07:31:33 PM »
.
For those who think they need a "scientist" to tell them whether they should like a picture, poet Walt Whitman had some advice:


When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before
   me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and
   measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with
   much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.


1138
EOS Bodies / Re: What to do?
« on: May 18, 2012, 06:21:54 PM »
.
The "Great American Novel" is yet to be written. Same with the great Canon complaint. Glad to see you're on it!

If you hadn't wasted all your money on that defective 5D3, you could have hired a pro consultant to help define the ultimate Canon complaint.

Best of luck! I'll be looking for your work here.

1139
EOS Bodies / Re: Loss in Resale Value of 5D Mk3
« on: May 16, 2012, 10:38:58 PM »

.
Would a letter from Fujio Mitarai saying he feels your pain make you feel better?

Corporations care about things like profit, market valuation, return on investment, etc. A reduction in your personal 5D3 "investment" is not likely to make it onto their corporate agenda.

Life is difficult.



Shouldnt Canon be somehow more responsible in this Light Leak issue - even if its not an major issue - they have made it a big enough issue by statements they have issued along with affected serial numbers. New buyers dont seem interested in purchasing any of the 1X or 2X serial models. So we early adopters have been penalized by what something Canon is totally responsible for. If you tried to resell your camera that you bought last month you may have already lost a couple of hundred dollars because of the light leak issue. Apart from setting the price of the new Mk3 out of the reach (esp when compared with the D800) they have now reduced our investment, and dont seem to care.

1140
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 16, 2012, 03:05:10 PM »
.
I believe leGreve's incisive comments are dead-on. And you probably shouldn't take umbrage when your spade is called a spade.

If you did not intend to frame the whole thing comparatively and as a competition, you would have titled the thread something like "Sometimes I Like Flim Too." Believe it or not, everything in the world is not a win/lose proposition.

I like to read books. Sometimes I read them on an e-reader, sometimes on paper. Neither one "beats" the other.



You assume that digital is striving to be like film? Why would  you assume that?

The feel is nothing but nostalgia, and is as such useful for anything else than recreating a certain feeling.

Digital is its own... Otherwise you might take the step further and say that a Kodak film anno 2012 is not quite achieving what the old camera obscuras could achieve.

If you want the film look by all means go ahead, but film is not hard to beat... it's been beat years ago. Both in pixel count terms and qualitywise.
Besides digital is far more efficient to one's workflow and you have photoshop to help you make what ever look you want. Don't try to make digital into film or compare it to eachother... there's absolutely no point.

I'm assuming nothing of the sort. How much detail can be resolved on film depends on many things.  Size of frame and type of film.  For example, ilford Pan 50 can outresolve many Digital cameras in its 120 format.  Shooting film also forces you to consider more before you shoot.  I use many platforms, from 6 x 7 based film, 645 film and 35mm digital and MF digital.  Film has more variation in its colour forms.  If you use Velvia 50 it will be very different from other colour films.  Velvia is very difficult to work with and I love the look of the Reala 100 which is much more forgiving.  Ektra 100 is also excellent.  Digital can seem one dimensional in comparison.  With film you can give a very different look without it looking over processed.

Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 98