September 21, 2014, 06:14:26 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 -

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 100
EOS Bodies / Re: Do you think the 5D II will stay around
« on: February 28, 2012, 09:32:57 PM »

Since none of us really have any idea what Canon will do in the next week, month or year, I think it's impossible to know if the 5D2 will remain.

I am glad one person at least can tell us that Canon production lines have limited capacity. That makes it tough to compete, I'm sure, against those companies that have infinite capacity production lines. Poor Canon; I feel for them.

EOS Bodies / Re: Just got word the 5D III isn't coming this week
« on: February 28, 2012, 05:23:51 PM »
When the wife sent me packing I got the cameras. She got the money.

Maybe she's buying a 5D3.

EOS Bodies / Re: No press invite yet for March 2nd
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:30:00 PM »
They've already been successful with one mythical camera -- last year's 1Dx.

Why not a mythical 5D3?

And since it's only a mythical camera, why not a mythical press announcement?

I made images today with what I believe is a real Canon camera, but maybe it's ALL in my imagination.

Canon General / Re: online gallery/website
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:15:39 PM »
I've used Smugmug for several years now; no complaints.

I like what I see with people using Zenfolio; I'd certainly explore there.

As for Wordpress, that might be an option. I use them for my Web log -- just rants, not much visually. But Wordpress seems pretty aggressive, and I'd be surprised if they weren't getting into visual storage/presentation.

EOS Bodies / Re: Pre-Order Canon 5D Mark III
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:09:45 PM »

Not at that price.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5DX/III really being announced on 27/28 Feb?
« on: February 26, 2012, 01:15:04 PM »

Looks like we now know the answer to this question!

The world of rumors can be so heartbreaking.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 26, 2012, 01:12:12 PM »
I've mentioned before a contact I have here. Usually I see him at the local taproom. He has a contact in Tibet; they communicate using the Internet.

Last night, over a couple of boilermakers, he told me Tibet can't commit to a date or camera name, but he is certain they will be releasing this new blockbuster camera in an array of "brilliant international colors." Quite a departure for the high end camera market.

Some of the new colors he mentioned:

Pacific Pearl

Sierra Silverlode

Riviera Razzle Dazzle

Mt. Fuji Fuchsia

Jersey Tomato

Sapporo Saphire

Mumbai Mango

Barcelona Blonde

Helsinki Heliotrope

Toronto Topaz

Vancouver Vermilion

I think this is big news -- and Tibet rarely gets it wrong!

Looks like a colorful year for Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 26, 2012, 12:23:03 PM »
Is there any word on the battery the new camera will use? There will be a lot of pissed people if they make this camera with a new battery design,  think of all those video people that have banks of batteries.

WTF, people are talking about shooting themselves over the additional 2 day wait (jokes, but still), everyone wants the camera to be ridiculously cheap, and now you're complaining that it may use different batteries? 
You have to compromise somewhere and accept that there may be a few things about the camera that you won't like....

I dont give a S___ if it's $4000 body only with a battery no one has, I'm still getting 2 of them and I'm not going to complain like a bitch.

Yep, sometimes I just laugh and think the average poster here must be a member of the menopause brigade!

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]
« on: February 26, 2012, 12:09:07 PM »
I remember when ISO 25 was low and 400 was for desperate types sigh….  :-\

That makes me smile!

I just shot a couple rolls of B&W ISO400, and it felt like digital 3200 or more.


That's one damn fine image, Brian!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5DX/III really being announced on 27/28 Feb?
« on: February 25, 2012, 04:55:09 PM »

Apparently not all views are appreciated, Ramon.

As I suggested once I won't be standing by the wireless waiting for word from Canon.

Local weather is forecast to be sunny and uncommonly warm. I may go to Atlantic City and see what faces on the boardwalk come before my lenses.

Is the 5DX/III really being announced on 27/28 Feb? There has been little real evidence such as leaks/press invites etc. We're just some hours away from the proposed date and things seem a little quiet  :o

Your views would be much appreciated.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 25, 2012, 12:15:12 PM »

Thanks, Av.

This is a comprehensive explanation that makes a lot of sense to me.

In short, I'd ask you this: what, precisely, of the following chain of events is substantially different between still and video?  And which of that is not already a requirement of consumer cameras?

1. Expose sensor
2. Read data from sensor
3. Demosaic
4. Encode a frame
5. Save to media

Really, I don't get it: why is video not just a (nearly) free bonus?

I am no engineer.

But as I see it:

For video, a sensor with 2 megapixels (FullHD - 1920x1080) is all that is required. Videos are viewed on monitors or on screens/beamers - all of which offer - at best! - Full HD.
The sensor+readout+processor needs to be able to handle an ongoing massive stream of data without any interruption. Image quality of single frames however is a secondary requirement at best. 
The sensor needs to be of a type that can handle capture incoming light for "indefinite periods" of time. Cooling that thing is a major hardware issue.
These requirements preclude certain sensor types (e.g. CCD-FT) from being used in regular video-enabled cameras altogether. This narrows the choice of image capturing device and layout friom the start to a much narrower field than for "stills capture only".

For photography (stills) hat is needed/wanted?
Sensors with the highest possible resolution [currently 36 MP+ on 36x24mm "FF"sensor size], with the best possible S/R [translating into good DR, low hi-ISO noise, and all other goodies us photographers want). Image quality of each single frame/capture is paramount, speed is a secondary concern - 10 fps more than good enough for virtually anything. Exposure times are typically fractions of a second, typically max. 30 seconds, and only in very rae instances minutes. Cooling is much less of a concern than in video use ... and yes, live view has is blurring that requirement a bit. But bottom line: the whole data readout/processing pipeline needs to be geared to highest "single capture performance" vs. "streaming performance". 

These two sets of reuirements are not 180 degrees opposite of each other, but there is a significant rift betwenn them. Fulfilling both requirements necessitates an enormous amounts of compromises (on bioth ends .. video and stills capture!), making the final product significantly more diffcult to design, test, manufacture = more expensive, more prone to defects, less good in each of the 2 disciplines.   

"Video" in DSLRs of all things  with all the mechanical S___ (anything inside the mirror box) and a lot of the optical stuff (prism, viewfinder and assorted stuff) really *in the way of video* rather than complementary is an aberration in camera design. Looking at mirrorless cameras changes the pictures a lot, but for DSLRs ...

The only reason HDSLRs got popular with videographers  is their relative pricing compared to the "traditionally outlandish prices" for (realtively) large-sensored videocameras. a 2000 body will offer a sensor that can rival old-school videocams at 100.000. That is the appeal in HDSLRs. It is a boon for videographers for sure, but not for photography/stills capture! Because HDSRLs are highly affordable to a large group of aspiring moving images people, they have to and are of course willing to put up with all the disadvantages a HDSLRs bring to their work. Basically, all they use of a HDSLR is the sensor and the data processing pipeline. They (generally) don't want AF but will rather add "follow-focus" contraptions and all sorts of bulky rigs around the poor little HDSLRs. They don't need or want an optical viewfinder (with heavy/bulky, costly glass prism) - none of it! Basically, 50% of the cost of an HDSLR is "wasted" on them.  Or, put another way, the money put into AF, mirrorbox, prism, optical viewfinder should go into even more video-suitable sensors+data processing capabilities. No reason, why there should not be 2k video cams with an FF sensor and an EF/PL mount in front. Without AF system, no OVF, but top notch EVF. Yes, exactly - a videocam. Something like a C300, but at $ 2000 not at $ 16000 $.

At the same time there is no reason, why stills shooters should not get a 5D II with 24 MP FF "stuills-optimized" sensor [whatever type/design may be best for that], top-notch AF, top-notch optical viewfinder but minus all video capability in the entire processing pipeline for $ 2000. 

I guess that should answer  the question, whether video-capability is just "a little freebie" on a HDSLR. It is not. It is a product design aberration  from the very start!     

Great fun!


Canon General / Re: Large Prints
« on: February 24, 2012, 04:47:05 PM »

That's a great image!

I rarely print, and almost never large, so I'm looking forward to reading an interesting discussion on this topic.


Funny, I just went through this last week for some billboard ad gig...

First of all - here is the ad I shot (this is just the photo without the text portion of the ad):

The required billboard size was roughly 10x10 feet, and I shot it with 5DMk2. The printing place required a PSD file @150DPI. Needless to say, 10 feet of width @ 150 DPI - you're talking about 16,000px+ horizontal resolution. So I up-sized my Mk2 file using photoshop's "bi-liner smoother" algorithm I believe, and dropped it in the 150DPI template file that the printing place provided. Then I sharpened the hell out of it.

The reason I figured I could get away without shooting medium format here is because 60% of the billboard real estate was taken up by text. So the dog artwork only needed to occupy about 40% of the 10 foot backdrop. Therefore I didn't need to up-size it more than about 200%.

Now of course, the 150DPI requirement helped out too. Such large prints are meant to be viewed from a distance, so you don't need anywhere near 300DPI at all. Of course if you were to come close to the billboard and pixel peep, it wouldn't look all that great, but that's not normal viewing distance, so it doesn't matter.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Why the hate for video capable DSLRs?
« on: February 24, 2012, 02:13:34 PM »

In all the years I worked as a business journalist, I rarely, if ever, saw a major company do what you suggest with a major product. Next product cycle, yes, but not current product; such a move would generate too much ill will.

Small business might get away with it, but not a company the size and stature of Canon.

Canon was surprised by demand for the video capability in the 5D2. They probably sat in meetings for two years saying, "Damn, if we'd know it would be this popular, we'd have priced it at $3K or more." That's simply how business works....

"How business works" is if Canon truly thought that, they would have gone ahead with a price increase ... as other  manufacturing companies do all the time.

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 100