November 20, 2014, 09:42:36 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 235
1
Incremental sync speed is vastly over rated and not the panacea many seem to think it is. Besides, the 1D from 2002 synced at 1/500 and the 1D MkIV syncs at 1/300 AND, speedlites like the 600-EX-RT, 580 EX II, Nikon SB910 etc have full power flash duration in the 1/250-1/350 range anyway, shorter shutter speeds actually cut your power even when you are not in HSS.
I disagree. A FF camera with a sync speed @ 1/500th at that price would be a game changer. The X100 is already a hit with many strobists. It means I can stress my speedlites less, better battery life, and less headaches of battery pack swaps.

Of course you do.

However the X100 sync is a work a round that has it's own limitations, anything short of a true shutterless sensor read exposure and very short flash duration is. The real game changer in this area for serious pros has not been the X100 but the Profoto B1 Air kit, sync at any speed and any aperture, true HSS with a decent amount of power.

And now the Chinese are coming out with their own versions of powerful HSS enabled integrated battery powered studio strobe crossovers at a fraction the price, that is where the strobists that want to push boundaries should be looking, not at leaf shutter hacks.
The history of photography would say otherwise. The game changers have and will be when shutters and strobes will both reach a normal sync at insane speeds at normal prices. Right now, still a compromise with HSS. Scoro Broncolor packs and Schneider LS lenses is what serious pros look to, the average pro would like that eventually and a 1/500th sync FF camera is a good first step.

Edit: The X100 makes your argument against faster sync speeds irrelevant. It already works better than HSS w/o the workarounds.

2
Incremental sync speed is vastly over rated and not the panacea many seem to think it is. Besides, the 1D from 2002 synced at 1/500 and the 1D MkIV syncs at 1/300 AND, speedlites like the 600-EX-RT, 580 EX II, Nikon SB910 etc have full power flash duration in the 1/250-1/350 range anyway, shorter shutter speeds actually cut your power even when you are not in HSS.
I disagree. A FF camera with a sync speed @ 1/500th at that price would be a game changer. The X100 is already a hit with many strobists. It means I can stress my speedlites less, better battery life, and less headaches of battery pack swaps.

3
Lighting / R.I.P Metz Speedlites.
« on: Today at 03:52:02 PM »
Very sad day for a strobist. One of the best makers of alternative speedlites is going under.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6718942318/lighting-equipment-manufacturer-metz-files-for-insolvency

4
Meh. They basically took large format parts, added an iPhone and wham 40000$+. MF will still take massive lenses if you use the naive lenses for the platform. This could be of benefit to still life or LF shooters but then again, they'd like real thing of the bellows and such. Now if Pentax did this for that 7000$ range and had LS lenses, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

5
IBIS was only the next natural step. They've had it for awhile now in the axx series cameras.

Now if Sony could get their sync speeds to 1/500th or faster, I would adopt one asap. I don't think it's ready to replace my DSLRs until they address the issues with the whole mirror less platform.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I took the cheap road to FF
« on: November 19, 2014, 01:02:22 AM »
If I had to start over again with little to no budget, I'd never buy a crop camera when 5dcs are 400$. Add an eg-s screen with your primes and you'll wonder why the 5d3 doesn't have it. It's really goodm

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Custom Dials - what do YOU do with it?
« on: November 12, 2014, 08:48:35 AM »
I should be using these but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

8
I tend to do this when I put my camera down. Bad habit?  Situational dependent? Or just muscle memory?

Do you do this? And why/ why not?

9
Hasn't Hasselblad had the multishot series for awhile now? It doesn't move the color filter but it does move the sensor to get the full color information. Still it's pretty slow, clunky and requires still subjects but the idea of moving around something to extract more information isn't new.

10
Well it's something to build on and extended to the next Gen FF sensors, canon should be able to make the difference even more negligible between nikon.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: do you hope for sony sensors in the 5D MK 4?
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:40:43 AM »
I could careless.

12
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:35:26 AM »
It's about time. Now is when I'd flip the version 1 to get the most $$$$ for it to prep for the version 2.

13
Macs are indeed more expensive, they do break, and when they do break parts are more expensive. Good luck with your software running 4 years from now, IE: let's see if cs6 will be running on whatever OSX apple releases then but I know for sure it will still be supported on Microsoft win X release by then.

I've got no problems with 2008 iMac and Mavericks . . . did you read any of the other parts of my posts?

1) Hardware matters, get good hardware
2) Don't put crap software on your computer and it won't bog down

I wasn't crapping on Win7, just stating that it's not quite as bad as you're making it out to be. *sigh*
The issue is running software not built for the new release. For example, I have an old copy of parallels for osx 10.4 on disk I had to run XP. I'm positive that I couldn't run that on the new osx mav without having to buy a new parallels again. I also have a copy of filemaker pro 7 that I'm positive won't work on mavericks either and I'd have to buy new software.

This is a virtual non issue with win 7. I can use legacy software if I need to and not have to buy another copy. I have a copy of Office 2003 that I still run! Because I for the small amount of office work and .xls sheets I do, it works fine. This goes for Adobe's legacy CS suite and many other programs I paid good money for.

14
No, Windows is never cheaper.

Ahahahahahaha

I built my windows machine for $600 including SSD, processor, MB, RAM and video card. I didn't use bleeding edge components but it can do anything I can throw at it, fast.  Granted, I had some components from my previous build but that's part of the cost savings of upgrading. Even without that, you can get a ripper bare bones system for under $1000 that will do virtually anything you want it to.  A comparable Apple system will cost you 2-3 times as much for the priviledge of a glossy white bezel. Unless you are doing a ton of video or 3D rendering or some such, there is no reason for anyone to absolutely pay for the top end current system and no reason at all to pay a premium for style.

AFAIK, bezels are all black, if they have them  :o

I meant you pay it all back, every bit, in time, troubleshooting or virus scans, but you can take it at face value, tell me: what were the Motherboard and processor brand/specs? Video card?

I'm guessing you are, in reality, choking at the bus, meaning you're not getting your full worth out of the SSD speed and a Hybrid drive's speeds would suffice. Ran into that with lower-end macs/PCs.  When you group-process a set of 300 RAW in LR (not really a huge load), that's when you start hitting transfer limits and slowdown starts.  I'm sure what you've got will do that fine enough, but push it beyond that where there's a lot of read/write going on and you'll see what I'm talking about (or not, if you're just going to go the route of saying that anyone buys one for it's bezel).

The two 'over-charge' in Macs is that:
1) they use laptop components, which are, yes, smaller, but more expensive
2) The monitor because it's built-in, not as high-end as the highest-end IPS monitors, but better than the $175 ones you get

If you take the entire post I had at face value, you'll see that the argument that savings on cheap hardware is paid back somewhere else, usually in user time.
I built a 3k system a year ago that is as fast as when I built it. It scores just as high or higher than the equivalent mac pro, that I got to use a year before it was released,  has 64gb of ram, 10TB of storage and will be future proof for at least 4 years. Now even more important, is that the software I have will still be able to be used in 4 years from now and win 7 provides me that. The only down time it's ever had was when I moved it to another room. :)

Macs are indeed more expensive, they do break, and when they do break parts are more expensive. Good luck with your software running 4 years from now, IE: let's see if cs6 will be running on whatever OSX apple releases then but I know for sure it will still be supported on Microsoft win X release by then.

15
I have been a Canon user my entire life.  I love the product, including DPP which is my RAW converter of choice.

I presently shoot with a 1D Mark IV and a 5D Mark III, which are fully supported by my present version of DPP.  The 7D Mark II requires that I update my DPP.

Here is my problem with that.....

The newer version of DPP does not support my operating system.  I run Vista 64.  Updating my operating system requires that I go to Windows 8 which needs a clean install.  Huge job.  Also, I'm not sure that a lot of my current software will run on Windows 8.  I have CS4 as well as plugins such as NIK, Neat Image and a slew of other free standing applications.

As much as I was not comfortable with the user interface of Lightroom when I tried a demo last year, I thought I would now have to go that route.  Guess what?  Right.  It's now only available under CC and I refuse to rent software on a monthly fee basis which is why I still run CS4.

I'm 72 years old so I guess my 1D4 and 5D3 will have to do me the rest of my life or until my computer cr@ps out and I have no choice.

All Canon had to do was continue to support the operating system and I would have added a 7D2 to my bag.

Okay..... rant over.   :D

sounds like a good time to switch to apple

i was a long time windows user and bought the mac due to superior build
still ran windows via bootcamp for a few years while i adjusted to it now i still have windows 7 via parallels for
the very rare occasion i need it but now i could imagine going back to a windows os

it did take me a couple of years and lots of swear words at apple to get used to mac os though so its not as straight forward as the marketing BS suggests. And every time i hear someone say mac just works i want to stab them. As macs do crash and although far less frequently than windows but its usually a spectacularly annoying crash when it does happen.

I have used windows 8 on my parents computer and it really is so badly made i just want to throw the thing out the window its that frustrating.
I did the exact opposite. I dumped apple in 06 because of them being like apple is. Out date the hardware and software over a short period of time forcing users to buy new machines. IE: G5 iMac users at the time when apple moved to intel.

OSX is free now but before adobe and apple have this thing where the newest abode software required the newest OSX,  which meant another reason I'd have to get a new machine just to run  new version of PS. For what reason? I saw windows users being supported for XP for eons but 10.4 tiger now lacked support?

I knew of a print shop still running CS2 creative suite because he bought a slew of G5 Imacs but didn't want to upgrade because now he'd have to buy all new machines. He eventually moved to win7 machines and never looked back knowing he'll get software support for years.

Apertures user got left hanging, FCP X had a backlash, Mac pro users no longer can use PCI peripherals internally anymore (pro audio cards) and now have to buy external solutions, and the list goes on and on.

However, OSX is a very beautiful OS.  It's fast and efficient but so is win 7. For me, I loved apples design of software and hardware together for a time but now they dropped the software part for professional users. What's the point?

BUT, you must admit the IBM -> Intel switch was a one-time thing.  The only people that say you have to upgrade is your software vendors.  When Apple got rid of Rosetta, they finally had a fully 64-bit OS.  The biggest complaint about windows about people who understand what is going on under the hood (other than the fact that the registry even exists) is that there's so much legacy garbage moving forward.

Honestly, if the shops had even tried to upgrade those G5s when the new hardware came out and sell the old, the transition wouldn't have cost that much; it's not the same thing as 'investing' in PCs.  First of all, we're talking 2005; if they're high end ones and still working, they are still worth around $200.

For a business (and even at home) it's not a one-time purchase.  If you need high-end machines, you're better off either leasing or building your own and constantly swapping out parts when new technology comes out, that way you can sell 'last years' model for a nominal difference.  Macs are like High-End video cards: there's a used market and the value drop is pretty predictable.

The problem is, even in the company that I work, they don't treat hardware as a rotating cost, and use older equipment until it literally dies, then sometimes repair it.  If they were to analyze productivity loss over the years, they'd realize that keeping hardware at the front of the curve is much cheaper than using it until it dies.
Wintel machines are simply cheaper, run just as good or better, and don't have the BS apple and their devs have for the abandonware for older OSes. Not saying that wintel machines haven't had abandonware but I you can't say that Microsoft is as bad as apple in ditching there support for previous OSes or devs for ditching older releases of windows. It'd be financial suicide to not make software for Windows 7 being now it's replacing XP in market share. Which is great for me the end user because I know my software will be supported for years.

In short, apple lost me years ago. I see no reason to return.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 235