July 31, 2014, 10:30:09 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 - jebrady03

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 25, 2014, 11:30:22 AM »
Wow... You kids ever heard of "private messaging"? Maybe a phone call? Good gracious... Get your squabble out of the public eye. It's pathetic.

All others, carry on with the same ol' DxO bashing/defending and enjoy your day!

2
Lenses / Re: Year of the lens....a joke....?
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:00:04 PM »
Amazing to me that people take speculation on a rumors site as fact and then express anger toward Canon because the rumor was wrong.

The so-called "year of the lens" was always completely speculative. People shouldn't believe everything they read on the internet.

Welcome to the club of people who realize this. That brings the membership up to about 4 people. LOL

3
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 13, 2014, 05:46:46 PM »
According to the Wall Street Journal DSLR sales fell in fiscal 2013 by 10%.  Pocket size point and shoot cameras by even more and DSLM (mirror-less) cameras by only about 3%.

All of this is in part due to smart phone cameras of course.
*emphasis mine

Other aspect of the article have already been shown to be false.  I wanted to address this.

1) Prove it.  And...
2) I think not.

Let's put our thinking caps on here... how many people think a smartphone is a substitute for a DSLR or capable MILC?

I'm not going to wait for the vote tally to come in, I'll answer the poll.  NO ONE.

This conclusion of yours is GARBAGE.

Where you got it mostly right is where you said "in part due" because there are multiple factors involved in the lack of sustainability in the DSLR market.  Saturation is possibly the main culprit.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Announcement September 5, 2014?
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:17:37 AM »
So... it seems pretty much everyone has accepted the rumors as fact that there will be a 7D replacement announced around Photokina, right?  Are there any rumors to suggest otherwise?

5
And a pony. No pony is a complete dealbreaker.

You're really aiming low with the pony.  My threshold is a unicorn.  But not your ordinary petting zoo unicorn.  No, I want a unicorn who farts rainbows (pot of gold at the end included - leprechaun too!) and poops glitter.  And not just regular old glitter.  This is the most beautiful glitter you've ever seen with 48 stops of dynamic range and it's incredibly sharp too!  It's sharpness is so otherworldly that the DxO charts turn black instead of intense green.  But there's a built in safety protocol with this glitter so that users don't get cut - it disappears when you touch it, like an exploding bubble.  And when it explodes all it leaves behind is visual euphoria, like when you saw boobies for the first time.

This unicorn dispenses hot fudge from it's horn.  Why hot fudge?  Because the tripod mount dispenses your favorite flavor of ice cream whenever you rotate the mode dial all the way around in a counter clockwise motion.  THAT'S WHY!

THEN... I'll buy it.





Maybe.

6
Canon General / Re: Should we tell them?
« on: June 27, 2014, 09:41:33 AM »
Hi jebrady.
I think when I offered advice, I started out with ,
"Hi I'm sorry to intrude, but I notice you seem to be battling with the camera for control of the flash? Would you like a little tip to give you the upper hand?"
It seemed to work, a little lighthearted humour seemed to work, of course the pop up flash is probably the easiest subject to tell they could use a tip!
I'm glad to see that some of you would offer unsolicited advice, I know if I was struggling and someone offered me advice I would gladly accept, I doubt I would ask for fear of them being unappreciative of the interruption!

Cheers Graham.

PERFECT!  Social etiquette goes a long way!  :-)

7
Canon General / Re: Should we tell them?
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:42:27 PM »
I have no problem helping complete strangers.  I see offering some unsolicited photography advice much the same as I see holding the door for someone, picking up something the dropped and bringing it to them, etc.  You're just being polite.  And I think as long as you do it in a nice way there shouldn't be any problems with practically anyone.  Saying something like: "hey, that's a nice camera.  I'm a bit of a tech geek, do you mind if I ask what model it is?  **they answer**  Oh cool!  I've heard a lot of good things about that model - what do you think of it?"  That right there will usually uncover frustration on their part.  Then I'd say something like "if you're interested, I might know a way to help".  If they say no then I'd respond with something like "yeah, like I said, I'm a tech geek so I don't like people touching my stuff either" then I'd smile and tell them to have a good day.  If they take offense well... that's a reflection on them, not me.  But more than likely, you're going to end up helping them.

8
If you're on APS-C and you're going to shoot at f/2.8, don't bother with either of these 50's.  Get the 60mm macro.  Similar performance but more versatile.  And substantially cheaper than the Sigma.

But, if you want to shoot at f/1.4, the Sigma is the obvious choice.  The Canon 50/1.4 does decently well at f/2 - if that's enough of a distinction to warrant the purchase over the 60 macro.

1.4 (even on crop) is really thin so IMO, this isn't a lens for everyone.

9
Software & Accessories / Re: Inconspicuous Messenger Bag
« on: June 19, 2014, 09:26:17 AM »
I have the Lowepro Event Messenger 100 for my super small carry around bag.  It fits my 70D plus any of my lenses attached except the 55-250 (85/1.8, 50/1.4, 40/2.8, 35/2 IS, 15-85, 60 macro) plus one other (or 2 if I pack the 40).  It's TIGHT to get the camera in there (height of the camera tests the bag specs).  Obviously this isn't the right bag for your situation but Lowepro makes the Event Messenger 250 which might work for you.  Maybe even the 150 (but I doubt it).  http://www.lowepro.com/eventmessenger

I also use the Tamrac Rally 5 for carrying the camera and up to 5 lenses plus the flash (in the front pouch).  The Rally 6 might work for you though.  http://www.tamrac.com/products/rally6/  If not, there's always the Rally 7.

I don't think either of these "look" like a camera bag, but others may disagree.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:42:28 AM »
Random speculation on my part: I wonder if a higher than expected MP count could be somehow related to some successor to the dual pixel AF system?

That was the first thought I had as well.  If I remember correctly (and it's more likely than not that I don't), I believe there were rumors of a 40mp sensor for the 70D which really just turned out to be a 20mp camera with split photodiodes.

I wonder if this is another DPAF sensor, or perhaps TPAF or QPAF or like someone else mentioned, a Foveon like sensor.

11
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 17, 2014, 07:04:09 AM »
yes, Canon would be smart to also sell a CAMERA to go with this "kit lens".  ;D

HA!  Yeah, no doubt!  Interestingly, this lens WAS announced in the EU where the M2 was NOT announced.

For the U.S: Canon might not be selling this lens AT ALL.   ;)

It's possible.  In fact in my earlier post I said...

If I were heading up Canon USA and I KNEW an M with a DPAF sensor was coming, I'd hold off releasing this lens.  Then, when the new M with DPAF hits, I'd release it and I'd also release this lens and the 11-22.

We'll see what happens now that the day is starting here...

The MTF charts look FANTASTIC for this lens!

12
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 17, 2014, 06:28:08 AM »
f/5.6 --> f/6.3 is 1/3 of a stop.  REALLY people?  You're going to ***** and moan about 1/3 of a stop?  Seriously?  OBVIOUSLY, the point of the M is to shrink things down as much as possible.  1/3 of a stop throughout the focal range is a "duh" kind of compromise.  As in... DUH... DO IT!  (when talking about mirrorless)

Yes, I do take issue with f/6.3 - beecause in practice it likely means T/7.9
Instead of filter thread 52mm, Canon shouild have made it f/5.6 and 55mm or f/4.0 and 58mm filter thread, even if that wozuld have meant 50 grams more or 100 grams more weight and 50 dollars or 100 dollars higher price.

Sony sells a BUTT LOAD of their similarly spec'd lens because it's a kit lens, bundled with their cameras. That's exactly what Canon was going for. And they're smart to do so. There's a MUCH larger market for that than there is for a large, heavy, telezoom. They're going after volume, not pleasing the less than 1‰ on the forums.
It's an intelligent business decision.

13
Lenses / Re: EF-M 55-200 4.5-6.3 IS STM Coming Shortly
« on: June 16, 2014, 08:45:56 PM »
f/5.6 --> f/6.3 is 1/3 of a stop.  REALLY people?  You're going to ***** and moan about 1/3 of a stop?  Seriously?  OBVIOUSLY, the point of the M is to shrink things down as much as possible.  1/3 of a stop throughout the focal range is a "duh" kind of compromise.  As in... DUH... DO IT!  (when talking about mirrorless)

If I were heading up Canon USA and I KNEW an M with a DPAF sensor was coming, I'd hold off releasing this lens.  Then, when the new M with DPAF hits, I'd release it and I'd also release this lens and the 11-22.

Honestly, this lens, IMO, COMPLETES the M ecosystem (WITH a DPAF M) for the AVERAGE US consumer.

Of course, being able to add the EVF from the G1XII as well as a couple of small primes would help round things out for the rest of us.

This lens is almost EXACTLY what I was saying Canon should shoot for.  A small tele zoom, even with a limited range.  My suggestions were 55-150 or 75-150 and max aperture at f4 or f4.5.  As long as Canon prices this similarly to their other lenses MSRP (not the street price, the MSRP) then I think they have a winner!

Nice job Canon!

Here's a quick comparison to another well known, similarly spec'd lens...

Canon EF-M 55-200 IS STM f/4.5-6.3 vs Sony E-mount 55-210 f/4.5-6.3

Weight: 260 grams vs 345 grams
Length: 87mm vs 108mm
Focal range: 55-200 (88-320 FF equivalent) vs 55-210 (82.5-315 equivalent)
Aperture: f/4.5-6.3 vs f/4.5-6.3
So, the EF-M lens is 25% shorter and 20% lighter!  NICE!  The focal range is a tad longer (even worth mentioning the difference?) on both the wide and tele ends of the lens and the apertures are equal - the only difference may be where the actual max aperture stops are on the focal range - I would assume they're similar but possibly not.

Also, the EOS M is 298 grams and the EOS M2 is 274 grams.  This lens should balance VERY well on the M family!

The EF-S 55-250 STM is actually just a touch longer than the E mount Sony tele lens mentioned above (3 mm longer) and heavier (30 grams heavier).  But, if you're talking about mounting the EF-S 55-250 to the M, you obviously need the adapter as well.  You're adding an additional 28mm and 110 grams.  So, here's the final comparison...

EF-M 55-200 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM vs EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM + EF to EF-M adapter
Weight: 260 grams vs 485 grams
Length: 87mm vs 139mm
Focal range: 55-200 (88-320 FF equivalent) vs 55-250 (88-400 equivalent)
Aperture: f/4.5-6.3 vs f/4-5.6
So, the EF-M lens is 37% shorter and 43% lighter!  Obviously, the EF-M 55-200 is 1/3 of a stop slower at the wide and tele end and is slightly lacking in the "reach" department.  The diagonal angle of view at 320mm is 7.7 degrees and the diagonal angle of view at 400mm is 6.2 degrees.  So, 1.5 degrees.  Significant... but also NOT significant.

Hope this helps to put things into perspective for some who were over reacting...

14
Software & Accessories / Re: 1-Hour Photo iPhone App - Why?
« on: June 11, 2014, 01:11:54 PM »
Maybe it's to save the rest of us from being inundated with pointless, terrible "in the moment" images on social media. I'd like it if this was standard.

15
Canon General / Re: 9 Sins of a Newbie Photographer
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:49:06 PM »
Seems to me like the OP is on this site to drive traffic to his own website. Looking at one page of his recent posts shows spammy links like this one as well as 2 or 3 regurgitated compliments from one thread to the next.
I've noticed that, too.  Maybe it's time to respond...
Done :-)  Reported to moderator.  We'll see what happens.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16