April 20, 2014, 02:36:14 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 163
331
Lenses / Re: Good lens for hiking
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:13:21 PM »
The Pancake, because Landscape does not necessarily mean UWA.
And if you do need ultra wide angle, take several pictures and stitch them together when you get home...

And don't forget a spare battery and memory card...

332
Pricewatch Deals / Re: CameraCanada - Tamron 150-600
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:01:24 PM »
Hello all!

This online retailer currently is selling the new Tamron 150-600 for $110 cheaper than the Canadian MSRP of $1,300. While I'm surprised such a new lens is already on "sale", I do find the opportunity quite tempting as I told my wife I would wait for a sale.

Has anyone purchased a lens or camera from this site?

Also, I didn't see their name on Tamron.ca as an authorized retailer. Am I taking a chance on my 6 year warranty?

Thanks for your input. I really enjoy the community here.
I have one, purchased from Camera Canada.....
I have made several purchases from them, no problems...

Btw, camera Canada is the electronic arm of Forest City Imaging center, listed on the Tamron Canada website as a Canadian distributor.

333
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:54:25 PM »

However,  I could go to the same place and take a picture 98% as good on any given cloudy day. I don't have an 8x10 camera, so I couldn't print it as nicely large, but is that what comprises art?

You don't need a massive camera.... You can take multiple pictures and stitch them together....image sizes have gone over 100 gigapixels....

The largest one I have done (so far) was 110,000 by 40,000 pixels.... 12 rows of photos and 36 per row....if you printed it at 300dpi you would have a 30 foot by 11 foot print...


334
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:42:22 PM »
... ironic since few of your can shoot 8x10 ...

Hell, I didn't even know what "8x10" was before your post, but I still don't see how that helped him.  This photograph is still awful (in my opinion of course).
I could break out the 4X5, some scissors, and some glue and "cut and paste"......

335
Smart phones are taking over because people can't be bothered.

My wife is an iPhoneographer (which drives me up the wall) but if she's in the shot, she wants a high-end P&S or DSLR used because she KNOWS what they look like on the computer.

2 more years your toaster will probably have a camera in it.

Just so you know, I had to google that . . . just to be sure someone didn't have a kickstarter for that already. >:(
What a great idea! A toaster with a camera! It could tell how well toasted the bread is!

336
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 08:40:02 AM »
What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?



It's not the photograph, but the photoshop skills required to remove a few structures from the scene that makes it so valuable...

Now, who wants to offer me $5,000,000 for this incredibly rare picture of Neil Armstrong's cat which travelled with him to the moon......

337
I half wonder if Canon would have the courage to use a lower mp in the up coming 7DII in order to increase high ISO performance and shooting speed. If the new camera does turn out to be a 'budget' pro action camera the high ISO performance would be useful for indoor sports.

I've owned both the 650D and 1100D alongside my FF bodies, and IMO the lower mp camera gave better overall 'IQ'. in fact the 1100D can produce alarmingly good IQ. I say 'alarming' because the 1100D cost about £250 and the FF £2500.

I see that the new 1200D uses the ubiquitous 18mp sensor. A pity IMO, but then I guess the vast majority of customers for that camera would disagree; the more mp the better.

So are we seeing Canon steering the customer towards 'high mp = consumer, low mp = pro' ?( Bearing in mind 'low' is still actually high resolution).If so the new 'pro' grade 7DII might be lower mp.
I kind of doubt it. One of the big reasons for the 7d is to get more pixels on target.... If the pixel size becomes that of a FF sensor (or larger), that advantage disappears and with it a significant portion of the buying public.

I shoot birds, usually in good light, and need all the pixels on target I can get. If the 7D2 had the same size pixels (8 megapixels) as the 5D3, there would be no debate as to getting A or B or possibly both... It would be 5D3 all the way.

I don't really agree because the crop sensors overwhelming advantage is its cheaper price rather than more pixels on target. The crop is disproportionately cheaper, most probably because the manufactures keep FF expensive. So for many it wouldn't be 5DIII all the way because they would not be able to afford one.

I'm not disputing the case for more pixels on target; it's just that that can be an additional benefit along with the cheaper system.

I wasn't referring to an 8 mp camera either, more in the region of 14-16, which in my opinion is high resolution anyway. You'd have to have around a 40 mp FF to match even that. My thinking was high ISO and speed, something where the new 7DII will have to excel over the likes of the 70D. BUt it's main 'advantage' is going to be the 'high end' ergonomics, which was my original point, but you will have to pay 50% more than the 70D for it.

I still maintain the 7DII will come in slightly under the RRP of the 6D, so it may well be more expensive than the 'budget' FF at inception.
I did say " one of the advantages" :)

I agree that price is the big one, and based on the T3i being the big seller for Canon, it looks like the buying public agrees with you too.

338
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Announcement in March? [CR1]
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:39:21 AM »
The big difference is economies of scale.  It doesn't take much R&D to release a new cereal flavor, at least when compared with designing a new camera.  And the sales are many orders of magnitude higher for the cereal, so it covers the R&D costs very quickly.
By the numbers, it looks like Canon shipped around 15 million SLR bodies over the last two years.  And 5Diii's are a top selling model--look at the best sellers on Amazon.  There's plenty of scale.  Again, research costs are not borne by individual camera models but across all their SLRs.  Development costs and setting up the manufacturing line are not that costly on a per unit basis.
In the electronics industry, where the R&D costs are high and the sales volume is low, that approach leads to John Sculley's Apple, where there were hundreds of products differentiated only in tiny ways, leading to consumer confusion, poor sales, and massive financial bleeding.  No surprise that the person who screwed up Apple so badly came from a company (PepsiCo) that made just the sorts of products you're talking about.
Sculley's sin was turning away from the culture of innovation at Apple, alienating the star developers and driving many out.  He is still recognized today as a marketing guru, and everyone agrees his Pepsi-style sales campaigns helped build the Mac market--though I would agree that the sales structure for Macs during his CEO tenure was controversial.  He just didn't understand how the tech world differed from standard products and wasn't great as the CEO of a technology company.  What Jobs did to turn the company around was to return to an engineer-centric culture where ideas and highly-refined products mattered.  Does Apple have too many products today?  Not really, but their culture of refined technology is again weakening.
The "introduce in low-end hardware and let it bubble up" excuse just doesn't match reality.  Well, it does, but only over nearly geologic time scales.  Canon first tried GPS on consumer bodies back in 2011, and they were incredibly late to the party even then, having been preceded by dozens of other cameras dating back as far as 2007.  The fact that it still isn't built-in across the board in their pro line in 2014—some seven years after you could get cheap point-and-shoot cameras with built-in GPS—means that Canon's rate of DSLR upgrades can only be described as "glacial".
An alternative and arguably more realistic interpretation is that Canon is savvy enough in their marketing research to know what the public will pay for the GPS feature.  Just because you want it doesn't mean that there is sufficient demand at this time to put GPS in every product.  GPS also has to navigate difficult regulatory structures which reduce its value in a product.
And part of the reason for that slow upgrade speed is that they have to cover their R&D costs before they introduce a new model.  The more models they sell (to what is mostly a fixed-size market, give or take), the longer each model has to be on the market before they can upgrade it again.  Right now, there are three pro bodies by my count—the 1D-X, the 1D-C, and the 5D Mark III.  That's an insane amount of R&D for devices that don't sell very many units.  And you can bet the cost difference in the hardware among those three is orders of magnitude less than the price difference.  So Canon could drastically reduce their R&D costs by folding them into one.  Or, if you'd rather have two different body sizes, use the same guts in different enclosures, and update them both at the same time, every time.
Again, most of the expensive parts are shared technology.  Canon cannot stop designing processors, sensors, AF technology, etc... just because they package them into fewer models.  Pricing is done in part based on expected sales and market profile, as you note in your next paragraph, which undermines your argument here.  The paper and layout of a college textbook doesn't differ much from a similar mass-market book, but the low unit sales establish the higher price.  Canon moved into the security camera market precisely because it means selling still more camera models off of largely the same technology base (and it may become a larger market, too). 

And again, this ignores the economics of creating additional product lines when your company is in a dominant position.  Canon can leverage its technology to increase market share via additional products; it is not clear yet how many models the market can bear (though with the recent addition of yet another, the Rebel SL1, Canon clearly believes the limit hasn't been reached based on their sales data).  Essentially your argument boils down to that you are more of a marketing genius than those stupid folks at Canon, Colgate, Campbell's, and so on.  I haven't seen any evidence to support this.  Your precise argument was that "There really is no good reason to have two consumer crop body lines that are barely differentiated."  I have clearly explained reasons why, with numerous examples from contemporary companies (including the lens market), yet you keep insisting this is wrong based on your superior knowledge of Canon's R&D costs and unit sales.  I doubt this is true.  If you do know, then state clearly what the R&D costs and unit sales are for individual Canon camera lines.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say that Canon's biggest problem is that they're afraid to let their low-end products cannibalize their high-end gear, so they artificially limit the features of their low-end products.  If they stopped doing that, they would lose sales of their high-end gear, because there would be less reason for people to spend twelve grand on a 1D-C, but on the other hand, the only reason those cost twelve grand is that so few people buy them, so they're distributing R&D costs over a tiny niche market. 
They do have to pay for staying ahead technologically, so creating high end product lines makes sense.  Again, this just fails to understand how markets work.  Of course Canon wants higher end products--they have much higher profit margins.  So does a Gucci handbag relative to one from Ross's.  By your reckoning, Canon should give up the higher profit margins that some folks will pay per camera in order to turn out pro cameras with 7D pricing.  But you failed to explain why a company should walk away from substantial profits.  Canon might sell a few more camera bodies at first, but Canon's long term profitability would be hurt.

Sigma wants to produce high end lenses for the same basic reason Canon has high end bodies.  Leica makes a living in a boutique niche market and profits at Leica have done well under the new management.  Nikon has 7 active SLR models, with three of those high end.  Funny how everyone must be wrong...

Your argument might make better sense if every major maker had a sub-$2k body that did what a 5Diii did.  They don't.  But if you think the grass is so much greener elsewhere and that Canon has doomed itself by producing a wide product line, reason dictates you should sell your Canon gear while you can still get a decent price on it and go.  I'm staying in part because I am betting Canon will probably be the market leader for years--and I put my money where my mouth is.
Yes, but your whole argument falls apart in the light of one simple fact......

We people in the forum are so smart that we can can make a far better decision than Canon can, even though it is based on biased and partial information.

339
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Laser Light Burns a DSLR Sensor in Canon 7D
« on: February 23, 2014, 07:18:43 PM »
If these nightclub lasers are damaging sensors, what the heck are they doing to eyeballs?  :o
put it like this.... it is an offense to shine one of those "cat toy" lasers into someone's eyes.....

340
I half wonder if Canon would have the courage to use a lower mp in the up coming 7DII in order to increase high ISO performance and shooting speed. If the new camera does turn out to be a 'budget' pro action camera the high ISO performance would be useful for indoor sports.

I've owned both the 650D and 1100D alongside my FF bodies, and IMO the lower mp camera gave better overall 'IQ'. in fact the 1100D can produce alarmingly good IQ. I say 'alarming' because the 1100D cost about £250 and the FF £2500.

I see that the new 1200D uses the ubiquitous 18mp sensor. A pity IMO, but then I guess the vast majority of customers for that camera would disagree; the more mp the better.

So are we seeing Canon steering the customer towards 'high mp = consumer, low mp = pro' ?( Bearing in mind 'low' is still actually high resolution).If so the new 'pro' grade 7DII might be lower mp.
I kind of doubt it. One of the big reasons for the 7d is to get more pixels on target.... If the pixel size becomes that of a FF sensor (or larger), that advantage disappears and with it a significant portion of the buying public.

I shoot birds, usually in good light, and need all the pixels on target I can get. If the 7D2 had the same size pixels (8 megapixels) as the 5D3, there would be no debate as to getting A or B or possibly both... It would be 5D3 all the way.

341
Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?
I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!
Thoughts?
Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook ;)
Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?
Maybe because 6D is relatively large, heavy and expensive, compared to APS-C. It may also be because all zoom lenses for it are large, heavy and expensive, compared with EF-S lenses.
The point is, in the general consumer marketplace, where megapixels sell, you will not see a low megapixel camera because it will not sell. If there ever was to be a specialized low megapixel camera, it would be a FF camera where the pixels will have 2 1/2 times the area of an APSC camera with the same number of megapixels, and thereby, out perform it in low light or high ISO..... and it would not be inexpensive....

342
Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?

I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!

Thoughts?

Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook ;)
Why not just shoot with your 6D and crop to the middle of the image?

343
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: February 23, 2014, 10:28:52 AM »
A chickadee...

344
Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR
« on: February 23, 2014, 10:26:53 AM »
A selfie....

345
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Laser Light Burns a DSLR Sensor in Canon 7D
« on: February 23, 2014, 10:02:44 AM »
Is there any kind of filter that could be used to prevent this, or at least reduce the risk? I appreciate it would involve light loss, and therefore further darkening in an already dark environment, but maybe a polarising filter? It seems too high a risk otherwise :/
You can get very narrow filters to cut out a very specific wavelength, but they are VERY!!! expensive (thousand dollars plus) and you have to know the exact wavelength of the laser in use.... which is particularly problematic when they use different colors of lasers.... It would be a lot cheaper to buy a dozen T3is and throw them out if the sensor got ruined...

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 163