Messages

31

Street & City / Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!

« on: May 08, 2013, 10:59:32 AM »

Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

Really constructive criticism(!)

If you want to make your photos stand out, there needs to be something special about them, be it style, composition, post, etc.

I suppose dawn/dusk/night photos that are long exposure is a phase that photographers go through.

So my advice is go take a bunch more long exposure night time photos and get it out of your system.

Perhaps true, but then civility is a phase most adult humans eventually grow into. Stay on the path, and eventually you get there.

Thank you for your comment. Now would you like to add to the discussion about the photo?

32

Street & City / Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!

« on: May 08, 2013, 10:56:59 AM »

Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

I just looked up your profile for more inspirational photos and found this one

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5334.msg103060#msg103060

I guess difficult for anyone to take this?

Personally, I liked your photographs of SF - thank you for posting them.

Do you have any pictures of penguins, so we can make a fairer comparison to dilbert's work?

Eh, that penguin pic was not a "look at how good this pic is" rather a "for once noise is very well controlled at ISO 3200 in the dark". Go figure.

33

Street & City / Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!

« on: May 08, 2013, 10:45:16 AM »

Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

Really constructive criticism(!)

If you want to make your photos stand out, there needs to be something special about them, be it style, composition, post, etc.

I suppose dawn/dusk/night photos that are long exposure is a phase that photographers go through.

So my advice is go take a bunch more long exposure night time photos and get it out of your system.

34

Street & City / Re: San Francisco Long Exposure Cityscapes!

« on: May 08, 2013, 07:09:47 AM »

Anyone could have taken those photographs as there is nothing special about them.

35

Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.

« on: May 07, 2013, 04:34:33 AM »

17-40/F4 USM II
21/anything USM
24-105/F4 USM IS II (one that doesn't have huge distortion at the wide end and isn't soft in the corners)

i.e a wide angle prime lens between 17mm and 22mm that doesn't suck because of field curvature, soft corners, etc, and doesn't have a curved front element like the 14-24 will.

36

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 1.4 compatibility with future canon cameras

« on: May 04, 2013, 04:31:21 AM »

While there would be backlash, do not think companies are afraid to do so.  For proof, just look at what Canon did in 1987 with the development of the EF mount.

Sure, but when they went from FD to EF, every FD lens was made "obsolete", so it wasn't just 3rd party lenses but also Canon lenses.

I think that it is reasonable to assume that if the Sigma 35/1.4 ever becomes incompatible with Canon cameras then whatever change brought that about will also introduce a lot of other incompatibilities - probably also with Canon lenses.

37

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZE in Stock at B&H

« on: May 03, 2013, 11:33:58 PM »

I have Zeiss Distagon 21mm 2.8 ZE and I love it!

An autofocus version of this or a Sigma Art series version would find a permanent home in my lens collection.

38

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Looking for an Mirorrless or Compact for climbing/high altitude hiking

« on: May 01, 2013, 07:05:20 PM »

Note, I would recommend against using/taking a DSLR because you will want to have it attached to various buckles, etc, so that in the event that you slip, tip, etc, that the camera doesn't end up in a ravine. And similarly, you don't want it on a long lead where it will swing and smash into the side of the mountain.

39

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DRe: Looking for an Mirorrless or Compact for climbing/high altitude hiking

« on: May 01, 2013, 06:56:09 PM »

You might find this interesting reading ...
http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/choosing-the-right-kit-for-nature-photography/

I don't know the photographer and I have almost no experience with the Olympus OM-D but you might want to look into it for your needs.  The  OM-D is weather sealed, and I hear the Olympus 9-18 and Olympus 12 prime are good for wide angle. Not sure if those lenses are weather sealed though, and not sure about fitting within your budget.

+1 Olympus OM-D or Sony NEX-7 or similar.

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Firmware 1.2.1 Available for Download

« on: April 30, 2013, 07:00:18 AM »

11. Fixes a phenomenon in which the lens firmware cannot be updated properly.

I'm confused by this.

Have there been firmware updates for Canon lenses that are loaded through the camera?

Or does the camera update lens firmware each time the camera/lens is turned on?

41

EOS Bodies / Re: 70d out in time?

« on: April 29, 2013, 12:26:26 AM »

Get a camera with GPS.

42

Lenses / Re: Lens sharpness and distance from subject

« on: April 27, 2013, 07:41:37 PM »

I was wondering whether and how much the distance from the subject affects sharpness of the image taken by different lenses (on same sensor). Is there any website or source where such information may be available for Canon lenses?

Look up what "atmospheric distortion" means.

43

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D7100 ... Will Canon meet this specs?

« on: April 27, 2013, 01:26:45 PM »

Will the 7D2 or the 70D meet this Specs? I hope so....

A 7D replacement I suspect will match or beat the D7100's framerate.

Quite likely.

It's possible canon will use the 1Dx AF unit which would make for incredible coverage on APS-C (and if it has dual processors maybe it could be fully functional unlike the 5D3).

Unlikely. Canon doesn't work like that.

The 7D Mark II needs to be clearly inferior in every way to the 1DX.

That is the Canon way.

I don't think either will be quite as good as the D7100 when it comes to high sensitivity, and would bet the house neither will have an equivalent to Nikon's flash system (sad - would be exceedingly easy to implement).

Yup!

44

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Why do we buy Canon? What idiots are we?

« on: April 27, 2013, 01:11:52 AM »

Every time Canon comes out with a new DLSR that isn't a top-end camera, it is always a question of "what have Canon cut out of it to make it different to the more expensive thing." It is as if they are protecting some sort of imagined status of those with the most expensive models by allowing them to have a "something" that the purchasers of the cheaper cameras do not.

Then you look at other companies, for example, Nikon, and what do you see? The design for their autofocus system from their top model (D4) camera ends up being in the consumer edition cameras (D7100.) Not only that, you find interesting innovation that benefits photography such as different auto-ISO ranges to coincide with focal length and so on, vs the latest consumer bling that Canon delivers.

Does purchasing a Canon camera somehow require you to have a lobotomy and become an imbecile? Or is that the prerequisite for actually buying Canon these days?

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 26, 2013, 04:15:28 AM »

High definition video is approximately 2 megapixels. Most of Canon SLRs are 18 megapixels or more. 4k video is 8.3 megapixels. Why don't all the current body's feature 4k or higher video resolution?

Because they're not fast enough.

When you play back a BluRay video on your computer, how hard does it have to work?
Or if you don't have a BD-ROM drive in your computer, if you download a 1080i/1080p video, how much of your computer's CPU goes into decoding that video to display on your screen?
And how many GHz does your computer have in order to do that?

Encoding and decoding of video are CPU intensive tasks. Even with offloading of certain parts of the workload, there is a lot of data to move around and through the computer.

Note that when you go from 2k (BluRay or 1080i/1080p) video to 4k video, the amount of video doesn't double, it quadruples.