March 06, 2015, 11:50:26 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 - noisejammer

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 24, 2014, 08:19:20 AM »
No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.
Nonsense! Canon's only incentive (like all the others) is maximising shareholder value. Innovation and product improvement are happy side effects of this. Innovation helps when you are trying to attract new customers (which is why there's such a turnover of models at the bottom end of the market.) It may help to secure brand loyalty when customers go from one lens to (say) four. After that, the customer is locked in and you give them the minimum that will prevent them from walking away in disgust.

The slow turnover at the top end is a result of the manufacturers knowing their market - if users find change between models significant, the captive user may upgrade. If not, they will probably sit on their hands and wait for the next model before reconsidering. This is a difficult field to play in. If a disruptive model comes along - say the A7 series - you may suddenly find a number of high end customers changing brands at very low immediate cost.

But the more system unique equipment a photographer owns, especially if expensive, the less likely they will switch to another system....

Of course, the camera manufacturers might not like this freedom.  Locking in customers is a good business practice. You don't make money by making it easy for your customers to go elsewhere.  8)
Yay.... at least one other person gets it!

Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:26:48 AM »
Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.
No, it isn't nonsense. If there is only ONE sensor supplier, then you either pay what the supplier wants or you don't get their sensor, then you have no product. It would in reality simply raise prices for the end user.
Contracts end and have to be re-negotiated, companies sell off divisions, the buying companies may and very often do have a very different vision, it’s not nonsense. ‘Ransom’ isn't exactly the best word though.
Of course contracts can end and they can be re-negotiated. On the other hand, they can be set up to protect both parties. For example, an option can be sold on a specified product to be delivered at a specified price on a specified date and with a specified performance. You can agree to terms that will be acceptable if either party cannot fulfill their part of the deal. The important part about contracts is you can't break the laws of physics and you can't break the laws of of a country. Everything else can be negotiable.
Competition makes everyone better and can only benefit consumers. There are always better ideas and our money helps move technology forward.
I'm not convinced this is either true or applicable. It certainly works when the item or service is fungible but it's complete bs if one source has access to technology that excludes the others from catching up. It's also bs if circumstances prevent the customer from changing supplier.

The camera market finds both circumstances. Firstly, technology is heavily protected through patent law and second, users cannot migrate because their lens "investment" constrains them to using a single source for camera bodies. Now, if third parties - say Sony - would start offering EF or F.2 mount cameras, everything really could change.

Lenses / Re: Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?
« on: September 21, 2014, 11:35:16 AM »
I think I see both sides of the argument. I think both are bogus.

I'm unconvinced that innovation would being stifled - whether Sony was the single source or not, I assume they would want to sell more sensors. This means their customers need to offer better imaging performance which - to the extent that the sensor dominates things - means the sensors need to develop.

Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.

There is risk because Sony could close their fab plant... Struggling companies do not close or sell business units that make money. If it's a profit centre, it is safe. This feeds back into my first point - to continue making money, Sony needs to continue selling sensors which means more innovation.

On the different "look" offered by various cameras - I think this is bogus too. Most on the forum will know how to change the colour mapping. (If not, download Lightroom and move the sliders around or look for a preset.) Secondly, a lot of Canon's "warm look" arises from the lenses. If you switch to Zeiss glass, suddenly your images are quite cool.

I like the Canon ergonomics, I do not like the Nikon's. I have lots of EF mount lenses and none with an F.2 mount. I have adapters that let me use legacy lenses on my Canon camera but they would not work on a Nikon. You might say I'm locked in... and I really would like to have a Canon camera with a sensor similar to that in the D810.

Judging from the published performance of the 7D2, Canon is still doing its own thing. That's ok too. Their business is selling cameras not making me happy....

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D II specs appear at Snapsort
« on: July 21, 2014, 12:30:47 PM »
There's a line that says "Announced March 2013".

That makes it _so_ authoritative.  ::)

I've tried with an Epson V750... it's a real p.i.t.a. Here are two alternatives that will work

An easy way would be to purchase an old Olympus OM slide copying jig. This would cost you around $500-ish, take the photos and then resell it. You can also decide whether to copy at 1:1 or crop the image (I think it supported 4:1 but my memory is vague.) It works best if you slide mount your images.

Another alternative would be to do the same with a Nikon Coolscan 4000 or 5000. These cost more (~$800 and ~$1200 respectively) but are easier to resell. If you do this make sure you have the SA-21 attachment and a film holder.

Black & White / Re: Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
« on: July 01, 2014, 01:11:09 PM »
I grabbed this while riding the ferry from Toronto Island. It's a 3-shot composite. 5D2 & Zeiss ZE 50/2.
Toronto Waterfront by NoiseJammer, on Flickr

That has to be a first here.... someone who's not interested in image quality. :D

I've used the EF 40/2.8 on a 5D2 - I was impressed.

Compact - provided an electronic viewfinder is ok, you could also try the Fuji X-E2 which has the same sensor but is a lot more compact. I have one and the image quality is comparable with my 5D2... so maybe not quite as good as a 6D but close. If you add the XR 27/2.8, the combination will fit in a jacket pocket.

Since you enjoy shooting at 80mm lens (or maybe 80mm equivalent), one of the OM lenses would be about as compact as you might find. I have the 85/2 and 50/1.8 - neither is particularly startling as lenses go but you did say image quality was secondary.  ::)

Trying to turn a negative experience plus the requirement to expend significant additional cash doesn't translate in my mind to a satisfied customer base.

A $ from an unsatisfied customer is worth as much as from a satisfied one. Actually, an unsatisfied customer upsold to newer or more expensive gear is preferable unless....
I think there's merit in both perspectives but converting camera upgrades into grudge purchases does not strike me as a sustainable business strategy.

I don't use DPP so I shouldn't care whether it works with my previous generation cameras. For some reason I do. (Maybe this is because Canon's telling me my cameras are 4 years old and so I need to pony up another pile of kilodollars if I want to consider myself a valued customer.)

It all makes me less than gruntled...

I'd focus on not being tied into one manufacturer, so my ZE lenses would all be gone but I'd still have a 21, 50MP. I'd ditch the 25, 28, 35/1.4 and 100MP then maybe get a 15 and 135. All would have Nikon F.2 mounts. I'd pick high end adapters.

I'd still use a TS-E 17, 1.4x III, 70-200 II and 400/4DO. These have no competition which ties me to Canon bodies. With this selection of lenses, a 5D2 does fine but I might take a 5D3. I'd keep the Hartblei 80/2.8 but again, I'd change to a Nikon mount.

For film, I'll stay with my OM 3Ti (assuming I could find another at a sensible price), 16FE, 28/2, 40/2 and 100/2. Each of these is great on the 5D2 anyway. I'd spend quite a bit of money on the adapters. I might replace my OM 2N with an OM 4Ti ... but I might not.

My rangefinders could go to the happy hunting ground and I'd use the cash to upgrade my 1D4 to a 1DX. Or maybe I'd try a Sony in a year or three once they sort out the ergonomics a bit.

So having done that, I would have made my gear more flexible but also less convenient to use. I'd then see whether I could live with the result. I'd probably hate it.  :-\

Lenses / Re: Looking for an wideangle lens about 20mm
« on: June 12, 2014, 01:27:52 PM »
OP - I have a Zeiss 21/2.8 - it's a fine lens but I strongly recommend you read this article before purchasing one. . People can say what they like about KR - in this case he nailed it.

If you're planning to use the lens for landscapes rather than enhanced perspective, I'd recommend a really good 35-80 mm + stitching rather than a wide lens. I've tried this with a variety of lenses and the Zeiss 50/2 seems to offer a good compromise of image detail, file size and usability. On this topic - If you go to a longer lens, don't loose sight of the problem that atmospheric haze can create with image resolution.

Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision.  If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination.  The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17.  The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17.  I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor.  I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.

I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much.  Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).
I did a direct comparison of the TS-E 17 + 1.4x against the TS-E 24. I set both up at f/8 and focused using a live view and a loupe. My images demonstrated conclusively that the my 17+1.4x combination was equally sharp on axis and at least twice as good in the corners.

There is a difference however - I found that field curvature plays a significant role in determining which appears to be sharper. To get around this, I focused each lens in the region I was examining.

I didn't try to compare the images with the lenses tilted or shifted. Maybe I'll try this experiment sometime.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EDC gear
« on: June 05, 2014, 05:38:00 PM »
Right now, my EDC is an OM-2 with 16FE, 28/2.8, 40/2 and 100/2 in the bag. In lieu of SD cards, there are a also a couple of spools of Acros...

My 5D2 does the commercial work and my X-E2 does for digital playing.

Lenses / Re: Night Pollution Filter
« on: June 02, 2014, 07:37:15 AM »
If you really want an 82 mm light pollution filter, Hutech offers one. Here's the link .

I have a 72mm version of this filter - purchased a couple of years before clip in filters became available. While the Hutech is probably the best on the market, I'll second the suggestion for the far more versatile (and much less expensive) Astronomic clip-in offerings.

A word of caution - it's wise to manage your expectations. These filters cannot suppress all the light pollution in an environment. If there is light in the bands of interest, it will leak through. Similarly, if you use an objective filter on a wide angle lens, light pollution will leak through for off axis targets while the bands of interest will be suppressed.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:02:13 AM »
BTW, I'm sure there are been people who sometimes complain about their 1D IV, but nobody has ever complained about his/her 7DII, so we can induce that the latter is better from a KarlPopperian point of view.
You assume this on the basis that 0/0 > 1/10000?
L'Hopital is horrified. :D

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 15, 2014, 08:45:08 PM »
How can I possibly dissuade you? The very first camera I used was a Rollei. I think I was 4... might have been 5! It's not pristine but that same camera is a treasured heirloom.

I was out pottering in the park with it a while back - I was approached by a yl who asked me "What is that thing?" She wasn't impressed with it being a 60-odd year old camera.

We're only 11 years from the 10D hitting the streets - I get the feeling that the digital business is now using mature technology. After seeing so many companies chuck it in, my main concern is whether any film will be available in 10 years. Sadly, I fear not.

Software & Accessories / Re: Convertible tripod/monopod options
« on: April 11, 2014, 08:17:23 AM »
You may want to look at - they have a few models that offer a detachable leg. If memory serves, they are stocked by B&H.

On your choice of lenses - my experience is that you need a very robust tripod for a 400mm but can get away with a reasonable monopod. (For the physics inclined, a long lens / camera combination has a large moment of inertia. This interacts with the torsional stiffness of the tripod to lower the resonant frequency.... and low frequencies tend to have large amplitudes.) A monopod is much stiffer in torsion, so it doesn't feel the pain.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12