August 01, 2014, 10:53:06 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 - Northstar

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 93
61
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: July 04, 2014, 04:22:58 AM »
Hi Steven.
Cool shot, I like the detail you captured.
Does your friend have a "BEWARE OF THE DOG RATTLER" sign?  ;D
I like the idea of leaving nature be, but not sure I would like to live with something so easily pissed of and so deadly when it is, in the proximity! Does he keep it well fed?

Cheers Graham.

Western Diamondback Rattlesnake.  Photographed in a friend's front yard, where the snake lives in peace and undisturbed   by passersby.

Canon 5Diii, 180 f3.5L Macro Lens, ISO 320 "M" setting, f7.1 @ 1/60, scene lighted by Canon 600 EX-RT Speedlight, with diffuser.

I would never leave a full grown diamondback anywhere near my property....you're just asking for trouble by doing that.

But, to each their own!

Nice detail in that photo!

62
EOS-M / Re: My best new Lens for sweet heart EOS-M
« on: July 03, 2014, 08:05:38 PM »
Surapon....you sure can tell by the picture of your house that you are an architect!   Very nice looking home!  Interesting design!

63
If the wedding was during the day and environment illuminated by large windows, your hardware is sufficient and give very good results. However, if indoors with dim lights (or fluorecentes with ugly color) flash in TTL mode, and diffuser will help immensely.

+1

Maybe take this time to invest in a flash....canon 430ii form$250.....it will make a huge difference if light is poor.

64
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: July 03, 2014, 07:35:02 PM »
Just did the upgrade from the Mark l to the Mark ll, bottom line if you can afford it, get the ll, if you can't work and save up for it. Well worth it. Sharpness and AF speed/accuracy for me made it worth it.

One word...yep.

65
IMO, in general, rental fees are money wasted.  There are exceptions, like kids' skiing gear that they grow out of each year.   Yes, if you'll use a supertele once or twice a year, rental makes sense.  But with use that's more frequent, buying is more cost-effective.

+1

in hindsight, of course it also makes sense to rent if you don't have $10k laying around.

66
I've been using Great Whites for years, but I've NEVER considered buying one. As a Pro using a piece of gear three (3) time a week means you should probably own it. If less, just rent as needed. As some-one just using a 400mm f/2.8 once or twice a year, renting is a no-brainer.

A hobbyist needs to follow a similar idea. Will you shoot BIF (or surfing, etc) every (or most) weekend(s)? Or will you just use it once or twice a year, while on a trip?

On one of the fora, about ten years ago, there was a guy who claimed to own every Great White except a 1200mm. He also claimed to have never opened a box (that would destroy their value). So are you a photographer or a gear collector (who seldom uses his gear).

BTW big lenses need big support, so you will need a gimbal head or a SharpShooter rifle stock http://www.sharpshooterindustries.com/ssHome.html Or maybe both :)


C.D...Good points in general but in these times, with interest rates near zero,  there's very little investment opportunity cost, which lessens your point.    If I have $10k laying around earning .10%, why not buy a used mint 400 2.8ii for $10k, use it for two or three years, and then sell it for at least $9.5k.  (as long as I've taken care of it)

If you buy a gently used great white, take care of it, and sell it in 10 years, you will have lost only a little money.   renting a 400mm 2.8 a few times a year for 10 years would probably cost you at least $6-7k over the years, AND you don't get the enjoyment of owning the lens!

just trying to point out a different perspective. ;D

take care, north




67
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 03, 2014, 05:57:24 PM »
if RL is anything like me, one of his reasons for doing this was for the experience and to try something new

isn't that what life is about?


68
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 05:52:55 PM »
as a sport shooter, i would love video that has quick and accurate AF of any HD resolution...sigh...

69
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 05:49:30 PM »
This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K.  That would be the disappointing part.

I can't speak to the features of the 5D III replacement, but the 7D II absolutely 100% will not have 4k video.

Is that an opinion, or do you have information?

If Canon leaves 4K video out of the 7D II (or 5D mk IV), I think it would be a mistake. I know a lot of people in this forum default to the "most consumers don't have 4K TVs" argument, or the "Canon must protect the Cinema-series" argument, but both viewpoints are frankly myopic.

1) The 7D II won't be aimed at "most consumers"; it will be aimed at the sort of people with the disposable income for a $2000 product that entails lots of equally expensive accessories. Perhaps 4K TVs occupy relatively little market share overall, but what is their share among affluent buyers who might make up a greater proportion of the potential 7D II user base? What share will 4K sets have among these buyers next year, when the 7D II will presumably be at full availability?

2) Even if 4K isn't your delivery output, the extra resolution has lots of benefits, from the ability to crop into footage, to the ability to create sharper/ better stabilized 1080p footage, to the ability (with shutter speed and codec limitations) to pull a perfectly usable, print-worthy photo from moving footage. Speaking as a professional journalist (surely a core part of the 7D II's would-be user base), these functions are valuable. They'll be valuable for other professional users, too, to say nothing of enthusiasts. Yes, Canon might prefer that pros and enthusiasts purchase the next-gen C100 or something, but there's a clear demand for convergent photo-video tools, and the competition is already starting to accommodate it. Canon's staved off user loss so far thanks to lock-in from its lens ecosystem, but there's a turning point for everything. How long will Canon customers buy what Canon wants to sell instead of what consumers want? Sometimes Canon reminds me of Microsoft is this regard. Protectionist tactics have historically hit walls. Some argue that Canon sells DSLRs primarily for still features, and that video ones won't make-or-break sales on a large scale. Maybe we'll see.

3) Building on the above point... 4K isn't a necessity today, per se, but the 7D II will probably be replaced on a three-to-four-year cycle. By 2017, will 4K really be so optional? Even if Canon achieves strong early 7D II sales without 4K, what will the long-tail sales look like, as competitors bring worthier models to market? I suppose Canon could always accelerate its release cycle, but not many companies have success with that model when it comes to high-end hardware.

4) TVs and professional use cases are only part of the 4K equation. New computers already offer greater-than-1080p resolution, and over the next few years, monitors of greater and greater pixel density will become more common. Again, if we're looking forward to 2017 or so, and we're thinking of the sort of user who would own a $2000+ camera, what kind of computer gear do you think this user is going to have? There's a recurring rumor that Apple will launch 4K iMacs in the near future. If that happens, it will surely drive demand (again, among influential, affluent buyers) for 4K-capable DSLRs.

5) The "Canon needs to protect the 1DC" argument also shouldn't prevent a 4K-capable 7D II. The 1DC isn't a new camera. It's one thing to protect a product from cannibalization when it's been on the market for less than a year. But today, the 1DC isn't necessarily a better option than the GH4, at least not if you're oriented more toward video than stills but need both, and is surely due for an upgrade of its own. It makes no sense to think about the 7D II cannibalizing the current Cinema-series cameras; it makes sense to think about how 7D II video features might cannibalize the next generation's. This line of thinking offers much more latitude for product segmentation. The 1DC mK II, for example, might record internal 10-bit 4K to CFast, or using some new, efficient H265 codec, etc-- whereas the 7D II could record only internal 8-bit 4:2:0 4K. The 1DC Mk II could offer more frame rate options, or more professional profiles, zebras and focus peaking, and so on. If we're thinking of the 1-DC as a tool for professionals, it's insane to think that bare-bones 4K features in a 7D (or 5D, for that matter) would take away sales.

6) By 2016, I suspect it's going to be hard for Canon to keep 4K out of its Rebel line-- because everyone else will have implemented it by then. Panasonic is putting 4K in everything right now, and more are coming. If Canon doesn't plan to release a 4K-capable 7D II until, say, early 2014, what kind of upgrade path is it offering? Again, I suppose Canon might have a speedier refresh cycle in mind than anyone suspects.

Does this mean Canon will include 4K in any of the upcoming DSLRs besides the 1DC successor? Who knows. But as my above points explained, I see more risk than reward in being conservative, and I see no reason 4K-capable DSLRs have to cannibalize C-series sales, at least not among the core pro users who justify those cameras' high-margin prices to begin with.

EDIT: After thinking for a minute, it occurs to me that if Canon actually has some amazing new sensor that creates meaningfully better stills (per the rumor about the private demos involving a special monitor), then maybe the company has more leverage than I expect. If the images are amazing, or there's some other new tech involved (new AF, etc), maybe the stills guys will flock to the model, regardless of whatever Canon does with video. But still, I think the point remains-- it seems more stubborn than sensible for Canon to leave 4K out of its next-gen pro cameras. And since it doesn't offer the video people anything comparable at the price (or anything close to it), it seems like a needless risk.

ITshooter...i'm sure you made some good points but man, how much time did you spend writing all that? lol ;D ;)

just having fun w ya!

north

70
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show us your Hooters (Owls)
« on: July 03, 2014, 11:45:35 AM »
a couple from a recent trip to AZ

5d3 and 70-200 2.8 vii

71
Royal Tern - nonbreeding, similar EXIF to prev post

Hey Vern, nice Tern!

72
Nice!  What was that bigger flash of light towards the very end?   

73
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 03, 2014, 09:43:40 AM »
Enjoyed it RL, thanks!

74
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8ii or i
« on: July 03, 2014, 06:40:21 AM »
Mark I vs mark ii....mark ii much sharper, which comes in handy when cropping.

75
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: July 03, 2014, 06:10:28 AM »
Great pics everyone but after the winter we just had, I don't want to be reminded of it anymore!   :P

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 93