October 25, 2014, 07:21:35 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 207
31
Quote
Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.

Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.

I'm guessing that the gear you're using is completely different to that which I use on a regular basis as you have different regular operating requirements.

Possibly, but since you brought up a 70-300, I presume we're talking about long lenses, in which case my experience applying the aforementioned techniques (sturdy tripod, cable release, mirror lock) with a 70-300L, 70-200 f/2.8L, and 100-400L are still applicable to the discussion.

Actually, the tripod itself is not as important as the head that is mounted on it because not all heads are the same when it comes to ball heads.

Don't know how many read this:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8192473209/battle-of-the-titans-top-ball-heads-tested

32
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.
That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.
And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.
Not as much as a proper ball head. ;)

haha! Yes, indeed :)

33
Quote
Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.

Yeah, keep blaming the gear, buddy. I've shot with heavy long lenses without tripod collars more times than I can count. A sturdy tripod, a cable release, and locking up the mirror works wonders.

I'm guessing that the gear you're using is completely different to that which I use on a regular basis as you have different regular operating requirements.

34
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.
That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.
And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.

35
Here ya go, dilbert:
...
Yes, then I'll be able to come back and taunt you all with pictures that your Canon cameras can't match :D
...

I don't see a vow anywhere in that text.

36
The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

This has left me confused - how would you know that? Or are you just talking of the number of posters in this thread?

There were close to 14 million dSLRs sold last year.  How many of those people do you think know what low ISO DR is, much less care about it?

I did forget to mention an intermediate (but still minority) group...those who know what it is, care about it, but do not think it's the most important factor in camera performance or even in image quality.  Based on posts from members of this forum, I suspect even that group outnumbers those for whom DR means everything about IQ and camera performance.

Thinking of the percentage of DSLR owners I know personally (not on forums), I am going to go with about 5%, 700K. I would also guess that there are 12 million of them that never get past the point of using the running man, head or mountain settings.

Yup!

But if I might contrast this with a recent survey, of the first 30-something images on flickr's front page, roughly 1/3 were at ISO 100 and about 1/16 were ISO 1000 or greater.

37
...
My attempt to keep things on a scientific/theoretical/factual/evidentiary basis was itself eventually used against me.

If you tried to have a conversation with a devout catholic about the lack of scientific evidence that there is a God, is it going to be a fruitful discussion? I suspect not. And thus being "anti-DRone" has become a religion for some meaning that...

Quote
Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes.

Exactly this.

Quote
As far as I am concerned, the DRones vs. anti-DRones is exactly that: people vs. people. The last month or so, it hasn't really had anything to do with hardware or science or evidence. It's had to do with the anti-people being anti-people, about a certain group of people. That's just wrong. OF COURSE that's going to increase tensions. Of course that's going to lead to the opposing side ratcheting it up, and getting personal about things themselves. It's all a mess.

But it doesn't need to get personal, in fact there is never a need for it to get personal. And we both know who is the worst when it comes to making insinuating comments/personal insults/remarks on this topic that are completely uncalled for. But it is how they think they can win the debate: divert attention away from the subject at hand and attack the person presenting the material/topic. By attacking/discrediting the speaker they thus hope to undermine the assertion that they disbelieve. I see this time and again here and to me, it is childish politics that is not at all intellectual, never mind mature. But seemingly, some people don't know how to behave or communicate in any other way, so what do you do? Nothing but ignore it or call it out.

Quote
The simple fact of the matter is the DR issue isn't going to go anywhere until Canon makes it go somewhere. To many people, it matters, to some people it matters a LOT. This community is going to have to come to grips with that. It doesn't matter if you agree...there should always be a way to be reasonable about it. Flinging insults, insultingly calling people DRones, constantly being spiteful, etc. isn't the solution.

Agree 1000%.

38
...
If you disagree with someone, you can just call them a "DRone" and label them as talentless geeks who shoot lens caps all day.

It won't be resolved. This is the internet after all, where pigheaded people can argue all day, and forget everything about a civil discussion.

This is the sad truth.

39
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.

40
  • The people that are never satisfied no matter how good their gear is.
  • Trolls Trolls TROLLS will you stop feeding the TROLLS ALREADY. 

In this case, imho it's rather easy to tell trolls apart from people really struggling with the sensor:

There's a fix for low dr at low iso available, it's called Magic Lantern, it gives you 14.5ev+, installation only takes a couple of minutes and it's free. Unless someone has tried ML and evaluated if this software fix works for him/her, crying that one's pictures are crappy because of low dr is trolling.

Sorry, but needing to go to 3rd party vendors to maximize the potential of your camera should not be required. It also puts the warranty of the camera at risk = there are very good reasons to not use ML.

41
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'd love to be proven wrong. dilbert has vowed to post images that makes Canon shooters envious once he switches to SoNikon.

Strange, I don't recall ever making any such vow.


Quote
For his sake, hopefully that new camera will come in a bundle that includes a functioning ballhead and cable release.

Actually, what it will come with is a tripod mount that attaches to the lens, thereby shifting the center of gravity and the weight that the ball friction needs to keep horizontal. As it stands, in the 70-300 range, I'm only aware of the Canon 70-300L having a lens collar for tripods.

42
...
Not even good (i.e. not intended to purposely put Canon in the worst possible light, i.e. properly ETTRed) evidence matters any more....and that's something I've found to be rather odd and confusing.

It's not really that odd and confusing. Prior to there being good evidence, people could just shout louder about DR not being a problem. Since good evidence has been introduced, they are faced with admitting that they were wrong or continuing to shout loudly or even louder and nobody likes admitting that they were wrong.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 09:00:33 AM »
...
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

...
And this:
...
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
...
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20990.msg448151#msg448151

44
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:47:39 AM »
The pricing of this lens is out of alignment with it being an f/4. Several factors could contribute to this:

1) difficult to manufacture in quantity
2) Canon perceives that there is a large, pent up, demand for this lens given how desirable it is to use the Nikon 12-24 plus adapter and thus lots of people willing to pay handsomely
3) the IQ is exceptional and Canon don't want to "give it away"
4) any combination of the above 3

Best advice in reaction to this lens is to wait a year or so and see what happens with the street price - similar to how the price corrected for the 24-70/f4L IS USM

45
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 12:06:56 AM »
This seems to be the growing canon user sentiment; switching to Nikon is too costly, the Sony a7R looking more and more like a viable option. My a7r demo unit arrives this week, will be putting it through its paces shooting mostly architecture, studio ads. For editorial work and other  high iso projects, my 6D is a capable tool.

Will be most interested to read what you have to say about that!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 207