September 02, 2014, 04:19:06 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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 49
601
EOS Bodies / Re: Interview with Canon "EOS-1D X" high-end strategy
« on: December 09, 2011, 04:23:21 AM »
Dude... this thing is weird reading! Backstroke of the West, anyone?  ;D

The nerve of them about the f4 thing... it seems that they're telling everyone who want's 5.6 + TC1.4 (or 4 + TC2) and autofocus to jump in a lake... Arthur Morris, from all he writes on his blog, is nearly glued to his 800 5.6, and often with 1.4x TC... he won't like this change, I predict...

602
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX has anyone seen a full rez sample photo yet?
« on: December 09, 2011, 04:17:39 AM »
You may not see a full rez sample until you have preordered two of them.  ;D And you're not allowed to show them  upon pain of death!

Actually, I likewise am interested in seeing the samples...

603
EOS Bodies / Re: Wishlist for 5D Mark III
« on: December 09, 2011, 04:14:18 AM »
this is my wishlist for 5D Mark III:

 Autofocus 19/45 cross-type AF points - AF points spread all over the frame
A more accurate spot-meter linked to AF point
Extended Dynamic Range
16-bit color
5-6 Frames per second
100% Viewfinder
User Configurable Auto-ISO
ISO 12800 usable, about 2-3 stops or cleaner than 5D Mark II
GPS
Dual axis electronic level
Bigger, Better and Brighter Screen
Dual card slots
Better weather sealing

if that came true how much would you pay for it? i think it would be around $4k and how many MP do you want it to have? :P

I'd add keep existing battery and body shape so existing L brackets work on it

I don't know, but if I were to get a FF camera, I would totally want it to... do... awesome things I don't know about, because the only FF I've ever shot it my spotmatic... Perhaps a focus assist light, like the yellow one my Sister-in-Law's D90 uses?

604
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 09, 2011, 04:08:04 AM »
It just seems to me that everyone is missing the point altogether. Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a studio camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film
-   making a majority of photos over 16” x 20”

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

How do you know this?
Do you work for Canon marketing?

Maybe they were guessing? I don't own one, but the guy I work for just got one, and he is crazy about it. He is an old film guy who used a 5D mark 1 for a while, and regularly made 16x20 and larger prints with it (and they look great!).

My question would be, what camera are we to make >16x20 prints with? Should we bust out Crown Graphic 4x5's? Those old press guys really had it down for style, if nothing else, when using it!

605
I have always had a hard time figuring HDR with PS out... My pictures always look pretty bad... I tried ColorEfex, it it seemed to work a lot better...

606
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 08, 2011, 03:21:17 AM »
When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

All of which pushes the price up, not down, which is contrary to what the OP wanted.

Which the problem is that there is not cheap solution. I'd love a 7D with a built in grip, and a 600 F4 as a kit lens, for 900.00. This will never happen. Unfortunately, we get what we pay for. Either we lower price and lose features, or specialize and and gett awesomer gear for emptier wallets... Anyway I had forgotten the originaal intent of the post, along the lines of cheapness...
[/quote

Right. For a product to be cheap, it needs to be able to sell lots of units to offset the R&D plus manufacturing costs. Taking video out off a camera (or not designing it in) is not going to have a large enough negative offset to the cost to offset the smaller overall market acceptance and sales.

Quote
The best cheap fullframe is probably a used 1V... Otherwise, a person will have to shell out the bucks....

And what's the problem with that?

The best of anything is always more expensive than other offerings. Always.

Got no problem whatsoever with that! Which is why I upgraded to a 7D from the lowly XSI. I wouldn't mind shelling out further dinero for a 7DmkII with better weather sealing, and an LCD on the grip (making it almost like a 1dMKIV, except ASP-C!). Prolly I coulnay top 2500, but I have no problem whatsoever with paying extra for extra.

You get what you pay for. Life is nearly always this way. Those who want 1DX quality and performance will just have to pay 1DX price. Those who want a baby 1Dx will have to endure what a 5DII does to them, at least for the time being. And those who want a Baby 1DX made in the future had better be prepared to be missing whatever Canon Marketing dictates must go for a cheaper FF camera...

607
Canon's newest L-series lenses (mark II's and newer releases from the last few years) can resolve up to around 45mp worth of resolution in a FF image circle.

How does 737MP strike you (18 * 4^2 * 1.6^2) with the old 400/2.8?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37493247

Impressive!!! I eagerly await the 7D mkII and the more megapixels hopefully to come...

608
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 06, 2011, 07:21:54 PM »
When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

All of which pushes the price up, not down, which is contrary to what the OP wanted.

Which the problem is that there is not cheap solution. I'd love a 7D with a built in grip, and a 600 F4 as a kit lens, for 900.00. This will never happen. Unfortunately, we get what we pay for. Either we lower price and lose features, or specialize and and gett awesomer gear for emptier wallets... Anyway I had forgotten the originaal intent of the post, along the lines of cheapness...

The best cheap fullframe is probably a used 1V... Otherwise, a person will have to shell out the bucks....

609
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]
« on: December 06, 2011, 12:49:44 PM »
Hmmm... this seems interesting... but not enough to get me to jump... maybe some used 5fII's will flood the market...

610
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS Rebel T4i [CR2]
« on: December 05, 2011, 03:04:17 PM »
I wonder what on earth could be improved in the new rebel> I had an XSI, have a family member with a T1i... Big change between the two, bigger still with the T2i... didn't seem to be a lot new with the T3i... What could be advanced on the T4i? An MP count increase would not at all surprise me...

611
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 05, 2011, 02:59:47 PM »
When is Canon going to make a 21MP (approx) camera that is JUST for still photographers and priced that way?
I am all happy for them..getting into the cine business...but what about us...the still photographers? Two completely different disciplines in my world. We need two completely different cameras. AND...the still camera should be substantially less expensive.
Does anyone agree with this...or am I just whistling Dixie?

You're whistling Dixie.

The real problem being that such a camera would now not sell well enough for Canon to make it worth their while. Reviewers would can it for not having video and just about everyone would stay away from it also because it doesn't have video and just about every other camera does.

I suspect such a camera would sell well, but to a specific crowd. There are indeed those who have little use for video who want a completely stills-optimized camera... Thom Hogan has discussed this in detail on his blog... it would not be a camera for the masses. It would be a camera for the dedicated few. Within its niche, it would sell like hotcakes.

However, a bet a lot of people would have said that the X100 would have never worked...

612
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO 7
« on: December 05, 2011, 02:39:40 AM »
Comparisons between DXO and lightroom?

613
Smirkypants,

Of course you are completely entitled to you opinion. I think its crazy, but then my photography is only a small niche of the enormous range of subjects.

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

Exactly.

614
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 05, 2011, 12:47:52 AM »
Regardless of all the pro/con discussion of MP, image quality, sensitivty, noise, etc:

I shoot stock for a living. It is all I do.

I started with a 1Ds2. I switched to a 5D because it gave me better IQ and made me more profitable. I thought the 5D was good enough.

I resisted the 5D2 for over a year because it made me mad. Who needs more than 13MP for stock. Max size needed is double-truck, for which a 5D does just fine. (well, not really, because now I have customers wanting to do large display prints and even small murals suitable for close viewing distances)

But I continued to inspect the 5D2 files from time to time. Finally I jumped. I wish I had not waited a minute.
The 5D2, along with today's software, gives me files that are just plain better than the 5D files. Even when I reprocess my old 5D files with new software. And the improved quailty is something I need to keep my customers happy. The improved quality is visible in the sizes used in my business. Resolution, noise, smooth tonal transitions, croppability, etc.

21MP is enough to meet the current demands of my job and customers. But just barely enough. Almost everything I shoot is with controlled lighting, so I don't need great high ISO performance except when shooting aerials from a helicopter at dusk. And for that I can rent a 1DX.

What I really need now for my work is 25-30MP. A little more resolution and a little better noise and image quality performance. Plus better lenses. Lenses that are truly good enough. I'd like Canon to re-do the 24-105, because the existing version is so marginal (I've tried 5 different copies so far).

The quality of my work would benefit by moving to MF. But the cost of the total kit (bodies, plus backs, plus lenses) would make the move NOT cost-effective. It would hurt my bottom line significantly. So MF is out.

Therefore my vote is:
  • 5D3 with 25-30MP, even if it costs up to $3k. But PLEASE give me better focusing with wider spread on the focus points.
  • Better lenses (24-105 IS and 100-400 IS) that can easily more than handle 25-30MP. Even if they have to cost $1500-$3000 to be good enough. A $1000 lens that isn't quite good enough is NO bargain.


I like this too, except I would like to see it in a 7D...

615
Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be?
A lot more than I'm currently getting with the T1i!  At ISO 400, things often are bad enough for critical purposes.

If you want to be able to submit those pictures for stock or a portfolio, those 18 megapixels go a lot farther (for many uses) if they are cleaner.

So upgrade to a 7D... Or a 5DII... But what are you shooting? I've ne'er owned a T1i, but used to have an XSI... it was pretty bad at 1600, ok at 800, not too horrible at 400... Better lenses may also be a part of your solution...

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 49