November 20, 2014, 09:45:33 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 -

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 104
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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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
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.

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.

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.

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.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Typical Small Camera Question
« on: May 15, 2012, 10:43:16 PM »
S95 is only one I have experience with -- couldn't be better.

Bought it last year on sale at Canon refurb -- less than $250. I think it's now around $280 there.

I can put it in any pocket and it's trouble free. A good 16G card lasts forever, even shooting RAW as I always do. Can't recall the last time I took the battery out for charging. It just takes good pictures and doesn't complain.

As I said, I shoot RAW so I can't say what experience you'd have with JPG.

And here's what they were saying two months ago:

"With a surging yen and a struggling Europe, Canon is looking to cut costs — and it's doing it with robots. According to Japanese paper Nikkei, as reported by Reuters, Canon wants to save 400 billion yen ($4.82 billion) over the next four years. And to do that it will be increasing its use of industrial robots, which will be used to produce printer toner, and possibly camera lenses. No other cost-cutting measures were revealed, and it's unclear how this move will affect the company's current workforce. In addition to reducing costs, Canon is also reportedly hoping to boost sales by around 41 percent over the next four years."

I'm with Brian; I think it's a pointless question.

I will buy any camera Canon sells that meets my needs as a photographer, as long as I believe the price is reasonable and warranted.  For example, I would buy a 5D3 today if it were priced at $3K US. They could have a flower pot attached to the side of it for all I care.

All you folks living in the fantasyland of what you would do if you ran Canon, Inc. would be better served playing computer games -- at least there you can experience some measurable progress.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Waiting for the EOS-1P?
« on: May 11, 2012, 01:04:11 AM »
I did not say or suggest I was incompetent or unable to correctly use the camera. I said it was defective.

I know how sophisticated AF systems function, and I know how to use them. In the original post I said many images had NO focus at all. I said images of the exact scene back-to-back with the same settings came out different -- in good light with fast shutter speeds. I said I tried turning off AF altogether and used solely manual focus. I was using SLR cameras before AF even existed so I actually know how to do that. I have and use an EOS-1V very effectively so I know what a great AF system can do.

Yet, it is obviously inconceivable to some of you that the camera could be defective. Walk past the entire original post and the whole point of it -- to simply suggest there could not possibly be a fault with the 7D. I believe the psychology community calls your affliction "cognitive dissonance." For my part, I think you simply need a few good lessons in reading comprehension.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Waiting for the EOS-1P?
« on: May 10, 2012, 07:55:09 PM »

I wrote a really long reply but not really bothered.

1: Learn to use the more complex camera, in my experience this is often a problem when people go from S___ tier to upper mid tier.

4: buy my 1D II if you want a fast focusing camera that works. It's been tried and tested and has a new shutter, only 500 frames.

You're the first graduate I've come across from the Don Rickles School of Salesmanship. Hope that works out okay for you.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Waiting for the EOS-1P?
« on: May 10, 2012, 02:06:08 PM »

Given that I'm an upstanding CHAP (Canon Heavenly Assurance Program) member, I know one day I'll be using the EOS-1P (Paradise). However, at my advanced age, I'm starting to lose hope of getting a great Canon camera before I die.

As I've posted previously I was patiently waiting for the 5D2 successor since I want better/faster AF than I have in my now two-year-old T2i. The 5D3 seemed to answer my need, unfortunately, Canon exceeded my skinflint factor. If I gave them all that money, I'd feel used, and I don't like feeling used. So, I scaled back and decided to go with the 7D and live in the 1.6 crop world. It's not a bad place to live.

Last week, thanks to CR, we got a link to a down and dirty 12-hour sale and I got a 7D for $1199 (from a highly reputable seller). Even with free shipping it arrived overnight, and I got out and happily starting making pictures. Unfortunately, the camera was defective. While the AF was the blazing fast I want, it could not deliver consistently focused images. Most had no focus at all. I tried all the AF options. I tried manual focus. In good light using the same lenses that give me great images from the T2i, the 7D could not deliver. Images of the same scene back-to-back would not be the same. So, I sent the 7D back, too leery of the whole thing to make an exchange.

The few decent pictures the 7D did deliver also made me wonder. At low ISO (100, 160) there was far more noise than I'd ever seen in the T2i -- and yet the sensors are essentially the same. While that 7D had some defect, this reminded me of all the comments I'd heard about 7D noise. I can shoot the T2i all day (and night) at 800 ISO and get good images. Any noise is easily compensated in LR, and I'm always happy with the results. Anyway, this is making me question the whole idea of going the 7D route. Even if I can get a good 7D, am I trading better AF for overall lower image quality?

So, then I start rethinking the 5D3. While I HATE the idea of pulling my pants down and bending over for Canon, do I have any alternative? But now I start reading about low ISO noise from the new 5D3 sensor. Shoot at ISO 100 and still have to process noise? Another image quality compromise I'd have to make? What is going on here? Canon is starting to seem like the "soup nazi."

Anyway, for the time being I'll continue happily making pictures with my trusty and reliable T2i -- and waiting. Unless someone can offer powerful reasoning otherwise, I'm back in a holding pattern. Maybe year's end will bring an acceptable solution. But then, that's six months closer to my EOS-1P. Surely, Canon can do better than this here on earth!

Disclaimer: I'm not trashing the 7D (or the 5D3 -- for some it IS worth the money) or the retailer who sold the defective 7D or CR or Canon -- and I haven't even mentioned Nikon (not interested). This is just part of a thought process in getting myself to good image quality with decent AF performance without giving up an unreasonable amount of money.

Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 104