Messages

31

Lenses / Re: What can tilt-shift lenses do that post-production cannot?

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:52:19 AM »

I really should post more sample images taken with this lens, I've been kind of busy working on other adapters and playing with other lenses I'm working on making conversion kits for
IMG_4959.jpg by Ontarian, on Flickr

Other adapters I sell include
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/170785828179?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1681wt_1385
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180871581032?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1948wt_1385
and
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180855493584?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

I'd try to dig some up from my flickr photostream but I'm just out the door on a family errand right now.

I was looking at the super tele's at the bottom and couldn't help but notice... Whats holding them up? There's no shelf.... Like $$$$$ in tele's just floating there... 

32

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:05:54 AM »

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

33

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 11, 2013, 08:55:54 AM »

So, if you'd rather buy the software and pay the same? Who's being greedy? You or Adobe?

Adobe has revoked policy's before if enough users speak out with their wallets and words, it could be reversed. Now, if CC is irreversible, I will be using CS6 until an alternative is found. That right there is $$$$ out of adobes CC's pocket.

34

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 11, 2013, 08:37:53 AM »

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:54:36 PM »

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:45:20 PM »

Ok let's examine history to determine who's correct.

35mm film vs MF film. - MF wins.

Canon 1ds vs kodak DCS MF back - MF wins. (Available on Luminous landscape)

Canon 5D2 vs Hasselblad MF backs 40MP variety - MF wins.

D800 vs IQ180 - MF wins.

D900 56MP camera vs next gen MF 120+ MP - MF will win.

This is because MF is bigger than 35mm. MF has a specific use for low ISOs and slow subjects. There is no replacement for displacement. The bigger sensor/film will always serve better in those situations.

I can only imagine what will be possible when MF will move to full CMOS tech, then you will have the pixel density of a d800 + all the advantages of MF. It's just a better tool for what it does.

Doesn't matter.

Exactly.

37

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:17:00 PM »

^
http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

And that's not even full Frame MF, That's a past Gen MF. An IQ180 would utterly destroy d800.

Those tests you showed the OP said not to take them seriously and I don't.

38

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:13:21 PM »

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

If I have the money, need the sw and have the option to own it, I would pay the whole sum and keep the sw. Who doesn't? But in any other case renting doesn't seem so bad as people are trying to pretend here.

Who doesn't? Adobe doesn't want you to own those retail CD's. It's less money in their pockets because you, the consumer, will decide if the next upgrade is worth buying. You own the copies, you have the power to decide if and when you will invest more into adobe.

In turn, Adobe has to provide good solid updates to each version to get your cash. It's incentive for them to try harder. A subscription model will dull that edge and adobe will have less incentive to do so.

I think a Subscription model alongside side a perpetual license is a good thing. People will little cash can subscribe and heavy users can get the retail copies they need. If enough users petition adobe (which I have), I believe they'll let both co-exist.

39

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 10, 2013, 07:49:46 PM »

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

40

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 07:47:16 PM »

So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year  (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently.  I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of  2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be --  beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2.   is anyone anticipating more than this?

Apparently, any photo can be taken by any camera at all, a pinhole camera is a good as a 1D X.  So, who cares about a 7DII or high MP body - it's just gear...so it doesn't matter.   

Right on. I've seen superb pin-hole photos and lousy 1Dx frames. 

And obviously, any photo taken with one could be taken with the other, right?  Because gear doesn't matter.

I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 07:33:38 PM »

So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year  (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently.  I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of  2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be --  beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2.   is anyone anticipating more than this?

Apparently, any photo can be taken by any camera at all, a pinhole camera is a good as a 1D X.  So, who cares about a 7DII or high MP body - it's just gear...so it doesn't matter.   

Right on. I've seen superb pin-hole photos and lousy 1Dx frames. 

42

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 10, 2013, 07:29:25 PM »

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse enginnered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

Who said anything about photo's? What about designs? Painted Artwork? 

Well I'm on the forum about photography so I'm talking mainly about photos. Are you a professional making money by Photoshop? In such case $240 per year should be really small investment for you which you can easily put to your costs. Even as hobbyist from much poorer country I can imagine paying that if I really need Photoshop to get the best from my hobby.

The rant about Adobe's business decission reminds me all rants about Canon vs. Nikon, about Canon not releasing something, etc. The core of these rants is to make some disappointment look like a global problem where there is actually no problem at all.

Nothing has changed for people who already own any Photoshop license. They don't need to subscribe if they don't want to. Their product still works and its lifetime will one day end in the same way as it would end for any other SW product. They will just don't have any option to upgrade without subscription. Not choosing to subscribe will not invalidate their existing license or existing PSD files. Those who don't have licence yet can either quickly buy CS6, use subscription or simly don't care.

Money isn't the main issue, It's the transfer of power from end users to adobe. It's a principle that after spending thousands for software, its not enough for adobe, we must pay the same $$$$ and now own nothing.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:59:00 PM »

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by the phrase "doesn't matter."  In what way?  Do you even know what you mean?

Sure. The photos is what matters.

44

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:55:44 PM »

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse enginnered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

Who said anything about photo's? What about designs? Painted Artwork? 

45

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:54:37 PM »

But convenience matters...and so gear matters. Or do you dispute that convenience matters?

Everyone's different.