November 24, 2014, 10:20:01 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 235
16
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.

17
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.

18
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.

19
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.

20
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?

21
Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: October 15, 2014, 03:26:26 PM »
I have a sekonic L508 I paid 300$ used. In tandem with the built in light meter in my cyber commander, I've have sped up my lighting at least double the speed when working with 3+ light sources. It takes a different mind set than shoot/chimp/histo check but in the end, the results require less time in post and look better.

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 08:54:25 AM »
It has to be able to take that abuse and keep working, same for lenses. It also has to function satisfactorily under stressful, rushed situations.

Is a Hasselblad MFD a "pro" camera?  Does it meet your above criteria?  If the answer the first is yes, and to the second is no, then your criteria may be indicative, but are not definitive.
It can't be a pro camera because it has a pop-up flash. XD

23
Photography Technique / Re: My wedding photography job.
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:09:43 AM »
I like that flash contraption you have. I have no idea if it helps but just looking at it looks like it could light the entire earth.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 10:13:38 PM »
The person holding it.
And making money with it.

Yes to Neuro's point, but not necessarily yes to RL's.

Not every professional makes a living (or any money at all) using their camera. Think of all the fantastically talented hobbyists out there, or perhaps fine art photographers. These are "professionals" in terms of their knowledge, capacity and portfolio quality, but it's not necessarily about money.

That said, I'll concede to RL that "professionals" are often described by some associations (ASMP, for instance) as those making a living with their camera.
I'm positive that there are many photogs who don't make money that are 100x better than most pros, but nonetheless they are not professionals. They are advanced amateurs, which is not a bad thing.

A professional takes pictures and makes money with the photos. Some pros are absolute garbage, others not so bad but consistent and others are really good. I have overhead costs that involve things such as extra taxes, a LLC,  insurance and other stuff that being a pro is required (or recommended for good business.) The line is blurred some with weekend semi-pro shooters but they still are professionals who get paid.

so a pro camera is the camera that makes me money.

25
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 03:43:09 PM »
The person holding it.
And making money with it.

26
Windows 7 x64. It's just works and It will end up living a very long life, possibly like XP.

Windows 8 wasn't ready yet and windows 9/10 will polish everything up to make it a proper release.

27
I watched whole video and some points made sense. Then I figured this person must make some great photos and visited his website. Dear lord! I visited his fashion portfolio section, I'm lost for words in the tone mapped, HDR haloed photos. After that, I took this video as an ad for Sony or possibly an ad for his workshop.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 06:03:56 PM »
I've seen moire in my 5d3 files before,  I'd imagine it'd be worse without one.

29
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.
That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.
And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.
Not as much as a proper ball head. ;)

You know that if one person says it does not matter at all and the next says it is all important they become opposites.
In this case both are wrong.

One says that you make poor pictures because you do not have a body with more DR.
The other says you focus to much on DR and your pics are crap.

I read the arguments and think both of those individual's pics are probably lacking because neither concedes any ground and say that it is the combination of all things that make great pics.

There are work arounds for not having a good ball head, there are work arounds for DR.
The difference is does the person work around them. In dilbert case, not so much and why I said DR is the least of the problems others and I have observed with his photos. Which in kinda like ignoring the gaping hole in the wall to work on a miniscule paint chip.

But I'm sure he'll get a high DR body and his photos will still continue to be what they are. That's the real tragedy here.

30
I'd say for every 2 out of three drones, the photos they actually produce are garbage. Now I'm speaking about the drones that come here to complain so fiercely that when we actually scrutinize the photos the produce, they fall flat on their face.

Careful. I get flamed every time I make a similar observation. According to some of the most vocal DR "advocates," most people seeking more DR do indeed produce stunning images.......it's just that they keep those images top secret, and no one is allowed to see them.
I think you mistake that I want to be correct on that statement. I really hope that I'm wrong and a Droner can prove me wrong. IE: dilbert.

I'm probably just like everyone else where probably less than 3% of my images are what I'd call "postcard" quality.
That sounds like you have a lot of work on and DR would be the least of those things.

Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop.
And I'm sure DR is only a miniscule part of making those photos.

No but it helps.
Not as much as a proper ball head. ;)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 235