January 31, 2015, 08:08:57 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 204
376
Lenses / Re: Did Canon Leak the EF 11-24mm f/4L?
« on: November 11, 2014, 01:26:44 PM »
I'd use it - but not very often - as a "specialty landscape and UrbEX lens" and want it as wide as possible ... for UWA effect.

A 15mm fisheye defished is the equivalent of a 5.25mm rectilinear.



No it isn't.

Real examples show it isn't even close to that, I'd put it closer to 11mm judging from the defished images I have when compared to my 17mm TS-E shift stitched images that do equate to 11mm.

It does become subjective when you look in the corners as to what is acceptable IQ, but I have always been surprised at how good the old Canon 15 fisheye is when defished, indeed it beat the pants off the two Canon 14mm MkII primes I have used.

377
minimum wage earners won't be prime target group for USD 2000 or Euro 2500 lenses ... anywhere.

The numbers don't apply purely to minimum wage earners, people that earn more spend  more to get the same coverage. My actual health insurance bill each month is over $800, but with tax breaks etc I pay less, if I earned more I'd have to pay it all. And that isn't for a high end policy.

Besides, I know a couple of fast food workers that are very keen photographers and both have 70-200 f2.8's.

378
The other thing to consider with pricing, as I pointed out in another thread recently, is income and what you get for your tax deductions.

In the USA minimum wage for many states is $7.25, in the UK minimum wage for over 21's is $10, for that $10 the UK worker has their health insurance paid from which the UK worker pays tax and National Insurance to cover health insurance, the USA worker doesn't, and the cost of that varies greatly but I pay $300 a month and get a very good deal.
Ftfy.

Don't be naive, from that $7.25 the USA worker also has tax deducted, and they still don't get health coverage.
No. Your post implied that they earn minimum wage and get free health insurance, which is blatantly untrue - they pay for it.

That certainly wasn't what I meant, and I didn't mean to imply it either. I am English though live in the USA, and I paid PAYE and NI for years so I well understand how it works.

My point was, even after deductions the average USA earner still has a lot more out of pocket stuff to deal with.

379
The other thing to consider with pricing, as I pointed out in another thread recently, is income and what you get for your tax deductions.

In the USA minimum wage for many states is $7.25, in the UK minimum wage for over 21's is $10, for that $10 the UK worker has their health insurance paid from which the UK worker pays tax and National Insurance to cover health insurance, the USA worker doesn't, and the cost of that varies greatly but I pay $300 a month and get a very good deal.
Ftfy.

Don't be naive, from that $7.25 the USA worker also has tax deducted, and they still don't get health coverage.

380
The other thing to consider with pricing, as I pointed out in another thread recently, is income and what you get for your tax deductions.

In the USA minimum wage for many states is $7.25, in the UK minimum wage for over 21's is $10, for that $10 the UK worker has their health insurance paid, the USA worker doesn't, and the cost of that varies greatly but I pay $300 a month and get a very good deal.

381
Can anyone tell me if I would need to or even if there would be any sort of firmware up-date needed to drive this thing now ?
I would expect it would work a treat with the 7D2 ... but what about older cameras ?
I have a 1D4 and a 5D2.

It will work absolutely fine with your 'older' cameras. It will work with pretty much every EOS camera ever made, including the even older EOS film cameras, that is one of the coolest things about the EF lens system.

382


You make the simple assumption that there can't be any issues with the 7D II AF. What if there is? What if it is a firmware issue that needs to be addressed? You jump right out and accuse the people who are actually using the camera and noticing things about it's performance that they are crazy. You make the assumption that they are misusing the AF system. If there is a problem, how else is it going to be found, reported to Canon, and dealt with unless people test, push the system to limits, and talk about it?


None of us are going around assuming everyone else is an idiot, and proclaiming such. Guys like you, Keith, and a good number of others? Your constantly going around telling everyone who doesn't agree with you, the seasoned craftsman, is crazy for caring about details. What is it going to take to get you guys to just leave us the hell alone? I mean, do you even get it, that we want to be left the friggin hell alone? Or do you prefer to play the role of antagonist, constantly drudging things up and making an issue out of it?

You really do like the sound of your own voice don't you.

Anyway, I made no assumptions and am well aware that there could be a genuine issue with any new release, or a problem with a specific manufacturing batch, indeed nowadays it seems unlikely that there won't be some kind of issue, contrary to your belief I do not live in denial. But that doesn't mean there isn't a little craziness around some of the time!

I don't assume everybody is an idiot, I know some are, and I know many are way smarter than me (which isn't that difficult), there are many threads where I suspect i could call bullS___ but don't because I am just not knowledgeable enough in a specific area to comment.

I care about details, but not in and of themselves, I know the answer to where the magic bullet is, it is inside each of us, it is not in one more stop of DR, better AF or anywhere else connected to the gear; I am not suggesting  for a second gear doesn't matter, of course it does, and in some shooting situations it is paramount, but even the best gear in the hands of somebody without the time and knowledge to use it won't deliver. And that is what I feel many of the rants are about, the unrealistic expectation and the unwillingness to commit the time needed to master a hobby, any hobby. I know that if I get the same rod and reel, or gun as a fisherman or hunter I am not going to get the same results, it isn't about the type of bait or cartridge I use, it is because I have spent fifteen minutes fishing in my entire life, I don't feel the fish or the deer.

I am not surprised you shoot thousands of images birding, but I don't understand why you think you should get tens of images to "work", 99.9% of them are not worth the time or effort, those that are, are worth the time and effort! Unrealistic expectations.

When will I leave you alone? When you stop making what I see as outlandish or farcical claims that you either can't illustrate, make no difference to the actual images people shoot, or when you stop mistaking example Canon images for Exmor ones! I am not out to antagonise you, indeed you have sought out this contretemps, I have said I see myself a bit of a balance to some of the sillier claims (8"x10" prints) and to add a little to a few other threads.

383
Portrait / Re: Engagement Session from Saturday 11/8/14
« on: November 10, 2014, 04:16:53 PM »
You know what you are doing so you don't need my input, but as you asked, and it is real nitpicking.

In the first image I don't like the join in the pavement going through her leg; in the second shot the columns in the background are distractingly bright. I really like the third one, actually I like all three I was just offering constructive comments. I agree with you about the cooler tone and it works well.
I agree; I wish I had underexposed the background in the second image by two full stops instead of just 1.3 - would have muted the columns a little more. The first shot is 'whatever' and more obligatory - but I rarely 'use' shots where the subjects are so small in the frame. It's more of an establishing shot to use film terms. I didn't want to share a dozen photos; so it's no accident I went with wide/medium/close.
Thanks for your feedback.

You are welcome, I understood the scale and think the first image works well, and I can see it's strength as a 16"x24" print on their wall (or your studio wall as a sales booster), maybe it is the resistance to the 'classic' railroad track shot that made me flinch from the crack  :)

The third image is a very strong image, the processing and dof are spot on in my opinion.

384

He'll leave you in piece the second Canon does it as well or better and not a minute before.

Just like Keith Reeder. The guy who helped drove some people away from posting and bashed everyone a thousands times over bring up the 'nonsense' about banding and how only lab bound fools look for banding and blah blah blah, well guess what, now that the 7D2 fixes up banding super well, he is going around ragging on anyone who doesn't bring up banding and trashing DxO for penalizing the 7D2 for not reporting that it has a lot less banding! :D

Pretty rich. He slammed and trashed and tried to get people banned if they mentioned banding and he'd go on and on about how it makes no practical difference and is meaningless and now suddenly that a couple Canon models, especially the 7D2, handle banding super well again now he suddenly is all for bringing up banding and he trashes anyone who fails to mention how important is and how fails to mention that it's an incredible major improvement from Canon. :D

I believe I am more consistent than that, but whatever, like I said, I only see my input as a counterpoint, not a personal objection to Jrista or anybody else.

385
I just don't like having to invest so much time in making my photos great,

That is what I said, and as a professional in another area I can understand why you feel like that, but I think it is disingenuous and bogus. If we could all do everything as well as anybody else there would be no value to anything.

However that doesn't invalidate how we do things...it's simply different than how you do things. Some people care about minutia...even if their viewers don't see these small differences, we do. Maybe we couldn't just pick out a D800 image from a 5D III image...at least, not until we were sitting in front of a computer working the data. Then I guarantee you the differences would be blatantly obvious to many of us.

I agree, your opinion is no more invalid than mine, or valid. I am about the image, I don't care if it is a Nikon or Canon file, it is about the end use image, if I couldn't get the results I need to pay my bills from seven year old Canon gear I'd buy something else, it is as simple as that.

So, you call us crazy for caring about minutia. I can't help but think someone such as yourself is crazy for caring so much that we care...and constantly reminding us that were crazy because were not like you. Can you not simply leave us be in peace, and let us care about the things that we have decided matter to us?

No, again, that isn't why I called you* crazy (I never said you personally either, you have just taken issue with the comment). I called it crazy that you are criticizing the AF when used in as diametrically opposed case use as it is designed for, I was saying that you regularly demand this and that of Canon, invoking the wildest of claims about their future if they don't deliver this or that feature, then when they do deliver you use it in the most inappropriate series of settings imaginable, that is all.

Why should I care? Well I don't care about you personally, I do care that many of the people that read some of the craziness here actually believe it and think that 5D MkIII's can't be used for prints above, what was it you said? 8"x10", well some people read that and believe it, so I just see myself as a needed counterpoint to much of the deluded hyperbole that rampages through here sometimes. I also disagree with fanboys who make silly claims about Canon capabilities, things like "unique look" etc, but you don't comment on those posts..........

* I would point out I never called you, Jrista, crazy, you just seem to have taken offense like you so often do.

386
Portrait / Re: Engagement Session from Saturday 11/8/14
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:41:04 PM »
You know what you are doing so you don't need my input, but as you asked, and it is real nitpicking.

In the first image I don't like the join in the pavement going through her leg; in the second shot the columns in the background are distractingly bright. I really like the third one, actually I like all three I was just offering constructive comments. I agree with you about the cooler tone and it works well.

David duChemin does a very good series of critique videos somewhere, I think they were Peach Pit podcasts, there are about 20 of them and they were free. I highly recommend them for people who have got past the gear thing and are into the core of the job, picture creation. I saw another critique on composition that referenced Turner's 'The Fighting Temeraire' and how he used tonality, separate from the use of colour, to supreme effect, and your second image made me think of that talk.

387
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS - Discontinued?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:08:26 PM »
no no no no no, I wasn't diminishing the differnce between 105mm and 70mm folcal length. This is a huge difference, obviously.

But in an earlier post people were joking about spelling mistakes and number mistakes, and in one post it was stated that the difference between 105 and 70 was 45. To me, 105-70 = 35 "only" ...

 :P
Sorry, I missed the earlier comment. My apologies  :)

388
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I took the cheap road to FF
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:04:22 PM »
I picked up a used 5D for a 2nd body a few months back for $300.  It was too cheap to pass up.  I happened to use it just this morning, but haven't developed the raw images yet.
 
There is a Canon fix for the mirror, it is prone to come loose and can ruin the sensor among other things.
 
Canon will fix it at no charge, so that's the very first thing to check on before you use it.  You may be able to call them with the serial number and find out.  The person who sold mine told me the fix had been done.
 
If it has to go in, you should get it back with a clean sensor.  You can clean the sensor yourself if its dirty, there are lots of instructions on this forum and online.

You can see if it has been done, the redo puts little black bars on the side of the mirror, the original was just stuck down. There are several different fixes and all involve a physical attachment on the mirror, if you can see any thing on the mirror edges it has had the fix, if you can only see clear mirror it hasn't. There are lots of example images on line.

Interestingly my wedding photographer was shooting with a 5D and his mirror fell off during the event!

389
With the greatest respect, you guys are crazy.


I can only assume you have never had problems with noise on Canon cameras. If so, then that's wonderful...for you.


However, not everyone has had a luxurious ride when it comes to processing Canon data. In the case of landscapes, I have the option to do HDR. I don't like doing HDR, it has it's own tradeoffs, but I have the option. In all the rest of my photography, I can't do HDR...it's action photography. I do everything I can to minimize dynamic range and best utilize the DR of my cameras, but I am not always able to achieve that. In many cases, I cannot move because the bird or animal I am photographing knows I'm there, and would bolt/fly if I moved.


So, as much as it may seem crazy to you, there are those of us to whom these factors of sensor IQ matter, and matter legitimately.

I learnt how to expose Velvia 50, every digital camera ever has been easier; I learn how to focus by hand where a good critically sharp keeper rate for action was in the 10% range, even modest cameras AF rates are 80-90% and top of the line gear 95%+ even with world class action sequences. I shot weddings when our "cards" took 36 exposures and if we didn't shoot for the timed instant could blow through that in less than four seconds and miss the next moment in the 60 seconds it took to reload out film.

I learnt this stuff when photography, whilst struggling to be an art most of the time, was a craft, I believe I am a craftsman nothing more. I do not have sympathy for bleeding hearts that want to pick up a finely tuned tool and bemoan the fact that they can't get the same results without investing a fraction of the time many have.

Guess what, I can't program like you, I can't shoot astro like you. It seems you can't take normal pictures with current gear and get results like me, I am not special and most of my images are boring images for commercial clients, I just did the 10,000 hour (and then some) bit, so did Sporgon and a host of other shooters here.

But that wasn't the point, as lintoni noticed (thanks). The point was specifically about the AF not performing as expected on a static object in one shot mode when that use has to be as diametrically opposed to the intended target use of that particular AF. I wasn't saying it shouldn't work, just expressing surprise at the way you guys think, act and test.

390
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS - Discontinued?
« on: November 10, 2014, 02:08:23 PM »
folks, folks, folks, letters and numbers... zzzzz

PS:
I don't want to be fussy, but the difference between 105mm and 70mm only seems to be 35mm to me...

 :P

Wow, sorry but that is a silly thing to say, 35mm is 50% of 70mm, that is like saying there is not much difference between a 400mm and a 600mm, or a 16mm and a 24mm.

Now if you can't see the difference between 16 and 24, or 400 and 600, then you probably don't need to be shooting an interchangeable lens DSLR.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 204