September 16, 2014, 03:52:05 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 - unfocused

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 140
1
EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: Today at 10:46:40 AM »
7D Mkii looks to be one fine piece of kit!...

As a current owner of a 7D and the 5d3 I appreciate both of their different functional placements in the EOS lineup...

...The 7D2 is targeted clearly at the sports / wildlife  market so it needs to do the things that that segment needs really well!....

...Oh...and BTW .... the price is approx. the same as the release price of my 7D in 2009.

Yes.

One thing about Canon, they seem very good at targeting their releases to specific audiences. The 5DIII was clearly targeted to wedding and event shooters (still a fine camera for everyone else, but was instantly a 'must have" for that segment.)

Now comes the 7D II and it is obviously targeted to action, sports, bird and wildlife photographers. It will be a great APS-C camera for everyone else, but they focused it on a specific market. Those wanting low ISO performance may be disappointed, but this was never intended to be the camera for them.

It looks like Canon tried to hit a sweet spot between resolution, higher ISO performance and 1.6 reach. Good move on their part.

Overall, I'm pretty excited by this camera, not just because of what it is, but because of what it says about Canon. Despite the complainers, Canon is clearly the best at figuring out what its customers want and targeting its products to those needs. I suspect this will be a great seller for Canon.

2
A lot of dumb comments here. You're judging the AF system not knowing what mode/setting it was on, competence of a photographer testing a camera and a trade show, and whether or not the lens possibly needed to be micro adjusted. I love the internet...

Exactly, I love it when people don't bother to even go to the original site. This was shot on the floor of the Photokina trade show. Clearly, what happened was the guy got to hold the camera for a few minutes, stuck a card in it and fired off a few shots of a nearby model.

Still, the results do see quite good. Even if it is a jpeg, it would seem the camera's processing is pretty impressive at a minimum. Whether it's the "new" sensor or the new processing, it really doesn't matter, the results are definitely quite good and much closer to 5DIII standards than most people, if they are honest, would have expected.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:48:18 PM »
But, back on topic. I think we are not far away from the day when most brides will expect that the picture of them walking down the aisle will be posted to Facebook before the ceremony ends.

Yes, all this puts more pressure on photographers, but that pressure isn't going away. The public will demand instant posting of images, regardless of what manufacturers do, so why shouldn't camera manufacturers make it easier or their customers (the photographers) to gain a competitive edge.

I can't think of a day in anybodies life where they should be further away from Facebook.  The rest of the day goes by in the blink of an eye after walking down the aisle.  You're rushed off for photos, then meet and greet, a few toasts, before you know it you're on the dance floor.  By that time I was far to drunk to be posting to Face Space anyway.  But I digress...

I'm sure you have a point, and it does increase the pressure on photogs.  But it is something else that helps separate the pros from the uncles with a 5d3 and 70-200 II vying for a good seat on the aisle.  So I guess I can see a good side to it.

Yeah I'm not condoning it. I just know how people are these days. The first Mayor Daley had a saying: "It if isn't in the Tribune, it didn't happen." 

These days it could be modified to: "If it isn't on Facebook within the hour, it didn't happen."

We can all be nostalgic for the old days, when people were actually willing to wait weeks for pictures. Now they expect everything to be posted on Facebook immediately and photographers will, sadly, be judged by how quickly they can do that. As competitive as the industry is, it is too bad the manufacturers still don't seem to "get" social media (And this comes from a guy who is pushing 61)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark IV announcement on March 2015 or later
« on: September 15, 2014, 06:40:03 PM »
Just throwing it out there. Your welcome.

Your are correct, it will be released March 2015 or later.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:29:12 PM »
I think all manufacturers are woefully behind the times. The 7DII sounds great, but I also can see no good reason whey they didn't include either wifi or touch screen.

Not deal breakers, but certainly would have been nice features to have.

For those who think a touch screen would cause "nose-setting-changes" that's very easy to fix. My little Fuji X-20 senses when my eye is near the viewfinder and switches from live view to the viewfinder. A similar technology could easily be incorporated into a touch screen interface.

But, back on topic. I think we are not far away from the day when most brides will expect that the picture of them walking down the aisle will be posted to Facebook before the ceremony ends. Manufacturers could do their customers a big favor by making it easier to satisfy these demands.

Similarly, wouldn't it be helpful to sports photographers if pictures of the first half of the game could be on the web at halftime?

Yes, all this puts more pressure on photographers, but that pressure isn't going away. The public will demand instant posting of images, regardless of what manufacturers do, so why shouldn't camera manufacturers make it easier or their customers (the photographers) to gain a competitive edge.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:00:24 PM »
The selected point appears when I activate AF (I use rear-button AF). However, I cannot move it until I first hit the AF mode selection button...then that frees the AF point to be moved somewhere else with the joystick. In other modes, I just have to activate AF, then I can move the selected point with the joystick without the intermediate requirement of pressing AF mode first.

I use back-button AF, I just tap the AF-ON button then I can move the joystick to move the AF point (even after I've released the AF-ON button, although as I stated above, moving the AF point 'times out' just like the metering).  That's in all modes, including AI Servo + 61-pt auto.

I dunno what's up. I'm kind of ticked, as since I reset, I now have to press that AF mode button to get the AF point movable in every AF mode. I can no longer simply tap the joystick (after initially activating AF, however that's done) to get it moving. :'( I think something is up with my 5D III.

On the custom controls screen (C.Fn Menu 2 or via Q menu), select the multicontroller (bottom right icon) and select 'AF point direct selection'.  That's off by default, so it got switched back when you did the reset.

Yes. I am a little uncertain what Jon is talking about, but I was going to suggest he check his custom functions.

I changed my auto focus area selection method to the click wheel and then forgot about it. Kept trying to push the M-FN button and nothing happened until I remembered I'd changed it.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade Path Dilemma
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:05:14 PM »
Wait as long as you can. The 6D is not going to go up in price, it will only come down. (although probably not by much).

If you can't wait, buy a 6D and 24-105 "L" for the CanonPriceWatch.com street price of $2039.

Then, to satisfy your Bokeh cravings, watch the Canon refurbished store for a sale on any of these lenses:

85mm 1.8; 100 mm 2.8 macro; 200mm 2.8 prime.

Any of those three are great portrait lenses and all are relatively cheap but hard to come by on the refurbished sales. Be sure and register with CanonPriceWatch to get a notification and then move quickly when the one you want is available.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 14, 2014, 08:22:25 PM »
Everything most five or six of you seem to be looking for is in the NX1 except Canon compatible lenses. Here's a comparison from thenewcamera.com. What do you think?

I think I corrected your post.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 01:32:36 PM »
Canon will do what it believes is in the best interests of its shareholders in the mid to long term, coincidentally they very often know better than us what we actually need.

Having moved to Canon after many years with Nikon I think there is a great deal of truth this statement

True.

Except it is not coincidental. You can be certain that Canon spends millions of dollars analyzing the market, determining what customers want and will buy (with an emphasis on what they actually will buy rather than what a half dozen disgruntled people claim in gear forums).

They clearly knew what customers wanted when they released the 5DIII and the 6D, despite similar complaining on this forum.

Despite the whining we are being treated to now, I am pretty certain that the 7DII will be bought by a great many people who will be very happy with the specifications.

There is this silly myth that the interests of the shareholders are inevitably in conflict with the interests of the customers, but that's just goofy. The shareholders are not well-served unless customers want to buy a company's products. The customers are not well-served if the company cannot make a profit.

10
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Concert Photo Copyright
« on: September 13, 2014, 02:38:28 PM »
People often confuse right to privacy (there really isn't one in public places), copyright (which protects the author of a creative work), and appropriation (which is the use of someone's name, image or reputation to endorse a product).

At least (here) in Germany, this is definitely wrong: Privacy protection even in public places is there ("sphere model" bedroom > private > public). If a person is prominently displayed and not "part of the scene" plus not a "public person", you cannot use the picture w/o this person's approval.

Yes, it's always a good reminder that this is an international forum and laws vary by country.

The key point though is that this is neither a privacy or a copyright issue. The issue in this case is using the band performance for an endorsement (either implied or overt) of a commercial service without properly compensating them.

11
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Concert Photo Copyright
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:26:46 PM »
First, I'm not a lawyer, and you shouldn't take legal advice from some guy on the Internet.

Always good advice.

Copyright is not the issue here. Rather it is appropriation. Will the band be identifiable in the pictures? The production company that hired you wants to show what they can do, but there is a strong implication that the band, if visible or recognizable, is endorsing their services.

They are using the band for commercial purposes and if there is no contract, payment or agreement, they are appropriating the good name or reputation of the band as an endorsement of their product. If they don't have the permission of the band (in writing) to do so, they can be sued.

People often confuse right to privacy (there really isn't one in public places), copyright (which protects the author of a creative work), and appropriation (which is the use of someone's name, image or reputation to endorse a product).

The third involves financial gain. If the company uses the band's image, reputation, etc., to gain business, the band has a right to a share of the revenues the production company receives.

(A minor clarification. It's not that famous people have any more rights than non-famous people. It's just that their names and reputations have more financial value. Steal my name for an endorsement, I can only sue you for the value of my name -- which won't be much. Steal a famous person's name for an endorsement and they can sue you for the value of their name -- which could be in the millions.)

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 06:25:08 PM »
1) I no longer believe J. Rista knows anything. I used to think he had a pretty good grasp of technical issues and would even specifically ask him about certain issues. Now, I just think he's full of himself and doubt the accuracy of anything he used to claim knowledge of.

Well, I think that's a bit harsh and extreme...but everyone is entitled to their opinion.  :-\ Why would anything I've said recently invalidate things I've said in the past though, especially things I've provided the math for? Is it that you really don't trust what I've said in the past (I know you don't trust what I say now, that's beyond clear), or simply that you just want me to shut up and not voice my opinions because your simply tired of hearing them, and your at the point of flinging insults in hopes I'll respond? You really want me to shut up that bad...you could have sent me a PM.

If your that sick of it...fine. I'll be done with this thread. If you really don't want to hear me anymore, ever, on any other threads...you can ignore me in your user profile. Here...I'll make it easy for you...just plug in your user ID:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=[userId]

Perhaps a bit too harsh. Maybe it comes from typing at the speed of thought. :)

I'm just perplexed as to why this suddenly has become so all-important. And, yes, I do think it has undermined your credibility with me – not that that should matter a bit to anyone.

But, do answer me this. A few months ago, you wrote a number of long explanations as to why a new 7DII sensor could not possibly match a full frame sensor in high ISO performance. In fact, as I recall, the basic premise was that we were pretty much at the limits of physics when it comes to ISO performance and that the best that could be expected was maybe a quarter to a half of a stop or so improvement.

So, knowing that, why does there seem to be such bitter disappointment that Canon has not exceeded the limits of physics?

I've got to be honest. I've looked closely at comparisons of Canon, Nikon and Sony performance on any number of review sites. My conclusion, which has been confirmed by the reviewers in their assessments, is that the higher megapixel sensors used by Nikon and Sony have much more serious noise issues as ISO increases. When you look at the comparison shots posted on these different sites, the story is always the same, whether its full frame or APS-C -- the greater the pixel density, the greater the noise.

In fact, Sony themselves are confirming that, since they significantly ratcheted down their pixel density to get better high ISO performance. And, even Nikon has now released their new camera with fewer pixels to improve their ISO performance.

So, what has caused you to now believe Sony's sensors are magical and Canon's are an utter failure?

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 06:10:45 PM »
Virtually everyone else on this forum has been willing to concede that there are differences in sensors and that Sony branded sensors have strengths.

Not really.

This DTaylor guy just won't give up.
And we can't let him off the hook just like that - and leave the Internets with the impression that he's right.
This is serious  8).

Well, that makes me smile a little. A bit more humor and tolerance of different opinions would be welcome.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:39:03 PM »
You have almost single handily destroyed these forums with trolling. No one can actually discuss what the 7D2 is because the topic is derailed...YET AGAIN...to a stupid fight over DR and shadow latitude.

to be honest if i would meet any of you at a photography meeting i would turn around and go.

you all show disgusting personalities and i understand that most of you choose to be anonymous.

I absolutely agree with this.

This forum is being held hostage by a tiny, tiny subset of people who are fixated on insignificant differences in one single component of a camera. In addition several of these DR Trolls seem to be plagued with what an editor of mine use to call "diarrhea of the typewriter." Instead of making their point and moving on, they choose to bludgeon everyone over the head with the same drive-by talking points over and over and over again.

Whenever anyone tries to discuss anything else, they hijack the thread and turn it into a debate over their one and only topic.

Virtually everyone else on this forum has been willing to concede that there are differences in sensors and that Sony branded sensors have strengths. So what? Honestly, I don't even know what these DRONES want. How many times and on how many different threads must we be subjected to the same drivel day after day?

Just for the record, these endless debates have convinced me of two things:

1) I no longer believe J. Rista knows anything. I used to think he had a pretty good grasp of technical issues and would even specifically ask him about certain issues. Now, I just think he's full of himself and doubt the accuracy of anything he used to claim knowledge of.

2) Canon must make pretty damn good cameras if the only thing wrong with them is that they show some shadow banding when you point the lens directly into the sun and try to lift shadows of some leaves that are about 30 stops underexposed.

I doubt if either of these things are what they intended, but that's the conclusion I've come to.

(BTW, I am not anonymous. I have always included my website address and you can find my bio there if you care to.)

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 02:23:36 PM »
It's a problem, sure, but if you shoot landscape, it's not an issue if you know how to properly exposure blend.  That's what fine art landscape photographers have been doing for over a decade now.  High DR just makes things more convenient.

sure many shots didn't need to DR, but plenty enough along the way could've been helped for sure

Waiting for real world examples of what we are all missing  ;D

Go shooting in mountains where you've got snow and sunshine hitting the snow and shadows deep in the valley. There you want to keep "detail in the snow" (so that you don't just have big white areas) plus you also want to keep shadows from and in trees, etc.

Is that real world enough for you or are you going to say "Post a picture or it doesn't exist"?

Since I've shot scenes like that and not had a problem: pictures or it didn't happen.

I'm sick of words. I'm sick of opinions. I'm sick of theorizing. I'm sick of people misremembering underexposure tests as "real world normal exposure and there was banding!"

Pics or it didn't happen. If I was a mod it would be: pics or you are banned for a week  >:(

Since you claim all of these things are possible, why don't you lead from the front and show us how it is done?

Where are your pictures showing that Canon doesn't have a problem with keeping highlights and shadows?

Lots of people saying Canon's cameras can't do it and you're insisting that they can.

Show us.
Is it time to start one of these yet? Try to keep it to one line. It looks better.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 140