April 21, 2014, 12:19:44 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 ... 71 72 [73] 74 75 ... 118
Getting back to the original post and some of the reactions.

The single most important thing any company has to pay attention to is sales figures. People act like that's a bad thing. But, it's not.

That's the way it should be because only sales figures are reliable. I know from decades of dealing with focus groups and polling that all the information that is gathered is useful, but it is only people's opinion. People lie. They say they want something, but they really don't. What matters is people's behavior. What are you really spending your money on. Not what you say you will spend your money on.

In a political campaign, the behavior is encapsulated in the ballot the voter casts. In the consumer world, it is encapsulated in buying decisions. All the pontificating, ranting, whining and speculating that occurs on forums is meaningless unless it has some connection to buying decisions. And, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the multiple discussions here about the 5DIII have little or no connection to buying decisions.

Understand too, that almost no one on this forum is a "persuadable" consumer. Almost everyone here has already made up their minds about their brand preferences. The cost of getting a canonrumors forum reader to change behavior is too high and the population is too small.

If you think the 5DIII is a good value, buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Cast your ballot with your wallet. Because all the chatter on this forum is not going to turn the 5DIII into something it is not.

Lenses / Re: What's the best deal you've ever gotten on a lens?
« on: April 30, 2012, 09:29:48 PM »
I'm thinking it might be the 70-300 mm L I bought this morning from Adorama before they ended the sale. Thanks Canon Rumors Guy.

Lenses / Re: waiting for a new 100-400mm lens
« on: April 30, 2012, 12:38:43 PM »
i know there is a big value lens thread right now, for this lens 100-400mm L whats a reasonable used price?

When it is in stock, the Canon Refurb Store (USA) sells it for $1,359. Cheaper when they offer their special sales, but hard to come by. (It's currently out of stock). CanonPriceWatch.com shows a used one just sold at B&H for $1,349.

So, for pricing purposes, I would say a reasonable used price would be in the neighborhood of $1,200 to $1,350 if in top condition. The low end for a sale from an individual (no warranty, etc.) the higher end from a dealer that offers a warranty or return.

BTW, I was was waiting for the next version, but then when I read it would likely be twice the price, decided to pull the trigger on a refurbished last year. Glad I did.

Canon General / Re: Canon Aims to Sell More Stuff.....
« on: April 30, 2012, 12:29:48 PM »
offering the image qualities that approaches SLR cameras

yet more crippling

Not sure how anyone gets the idea any "crippling" is going on, if you read the whole article and take the quote in context. It seems more that they are making the point that image quality in Powershot  and other small sensor cameras is improving and approaching the quality that has been previously available only in SLRs.

And please, let's not start another flame war over image quality. The quality is getting better across the spectrum, so yes, larger sensors will continue to outperform smaller ones, but the margins are shrinking.

Some things I found interesting: 

Sales in office equipment are down so Canon may be relying on Camera sales to offset those losses. I hope that doesn't mean the camera division has to cross-subsidize office equipment, but I'm afraid it might.

They barely mentioned video, yet in the last year Canon seems to have gone all-in on its digital video products. This was a talk to investors and the investment media, so not sure why they didn't hype Canon's major play for the professional cinema market.

They talked about new consumer DSLR products, but not really sure what they are referring to, since they haven't updated their consumer DSLRs.

No mention at all of cell phone competition. Did they just not want to bring it up? Seems to me like the elephant in the room when you talk about Powershots. I'm guessing the "image quality approaching SLR cameras" emphasis is driven largely by cell phone/tablet competition, but kind of funny that they didn't just come right out and say something to the effect that they intend to grow the market by offering quality that can't be matched in multi-purpose devices.

All-in-all though, I'm glad to see a generally optimistic outlook. If Canon makes money, it means more fun stuff for us.

Whoa! That was fast. I can't believe I was lucky enough to pull the trigger on the 70-300 this a.m. (Not gloating, just kind of stunned because I usually hem and haw and miss out on these sorts of things).

Hope it will be back or other vendors will follow suit for the sake of those who didn't get in on it.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 27, 2012, 11:03:07 AM »
To be fair, I decided to go back and re-read Smirky's original post. I think the key difference in viewpoints can be found in the conclusion he draws after his first statement:

I'm pretty sure this crop/full frame debate is soon to go the way of the blue ray vs. hd dvd debate... it will be made irrelevant by the advancement of technology.

No disagreement there.

But then that segues to this:
The D800 has pretty much shown us the future. If you have a high megapixel camera, crop becomes irrelevant. The D800 switches between 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 crops effortlessly with 36/26/16 MP files respectively. A 50MP camera gets us to almost 20MP at a 1.6 crop.

That's where I disagree.

Let's go back to the "blue ray vs. HD DVD debate." The debate has become irrelevant not because a technology that offers superior image quality has won out.  It is irrelevant because a "good enough" technology (high speed video streaming) is winning out. I can't remember the last DVD I bought and I've never bought a Blue Ray disc. No need to. I simply stream the movies to my television through Netflix or On Demand. Yes, the quality isn't as good and yes, it really annoys me when it stutters and shuts down in the middle of a show, but it is "good enough" and so it wins.

That is the mistake we make on this forum. Too many times we assume that pure quality wins. But quality only wins for a tiny, tiny percentage of the market. We also make the false assumption that quality matters more in the professional market when just the opposite is true. A professional has to always balance out the investment of time and effort against the marginal profit. No professional can afford to spend as much time on an image as an unpaid amateur. So instead, pros are always producing products that are "good enough," even though to the customer they may appear to be "perfect."

So, here's the heart of the debate: Does the path to "good enough" go through higher and higher megapixel counts on large sensors? Does it go through better and better image quality on smaller sensors? Does it go through some new hybrid technology (such as the Fuji organic sensor)? Is there a single path or multiple paths?

I don't know, but I do see enough practical problems with high megapixel full-frame sensors to suggest that the path may not be as clear as Smirky opined. I won't repeat my original post on this thread, but I will reference it.

The presumption that full frame will somehow "win out" over other formats is not supported by any objective evidence. The cost differential between the two most popular formats is real and instead of shrinking, it grew in the most recent releases by both Nikon and Canon. (At this point speculation about "entry level" full frame cameras is just that: speculation.) The quality difference between the two formats is converging. Full frame continues to excel in the margins, but those margins are shrinking. Bigger may always be better, but the cost-benefit scale is tipping toward the smaller formats.

Companies make products in order to sell them and are unlikely to abandon any market that earns them a profit.

Finally, and most importantly, the way in which we all view photographs is undergoing a revolution that makes the move to digital cameras seem insignificant. It's too early in the game to know exactly how it will all play out, but it does seem as though high-megapixel, super-high quality imagery seems to be swimming upstream against the flood of tablets, phones and social media.

I've tried to look at this without drama or throwing out red meat. But, I simply disagree with the original post that somehow one high-megapixel camera demonstrates a clearly defined single path.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 26, 2012, 11:38:13 PM »
Too bad Karma is dead. I'd be giving some big time positive to Foobar. Excellent, well-reasoned and informed posts.

Unfortunately it probably won't make a lot of difference but I still commend you for trying to set things straight.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 26, 2012, 05:12:55 PM »
...I do have to comment though, the move to video is not a forgone conclusion.  While many people talk about the death of still photojournalism and the rise of 'video is everything', there is already a growing backlash to this over enthusiasm.  Media outlets have jumped on the bandwagon so they don't look like they are behind the curve, but customers are increasingly getting annoyed with content that can only be accessed via time consuming video.  Eventually this will even out and I suspect that a large chunk of viewers will continue to prefer static content even if hipsters and technophiles obsess over 'video is everything'.

Yes. For those who want to really think about this, I recommend a look at Roland Barthe's comments on film vs. stills in the classic Camera Lucida (which is cheap, readily accessible, amazingly readable and educational). Like painting and photography, video/film and photography are two distinct mediums. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, but they are far different and there is plenty of room left to explore still photography. Video hasn't killed off the novel and it won't kill off still photography either.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Should I Upgrade to Full-Frame
« on: April 26, 2012, 01:42:48 PM »
I meant to respond to this post earlier. Here's my two cents:

1) If I usually print @ 8x10 or less with the rare 16x20 will I will be able to detect a difference in IQ?

No, definitely not at 8x10 and if properly framed, exposed and processed, not at 16 x 20 either

2) Since I usually don’t go above ISO 800 nowadays given the XT’s limitations – whether ISO 6400 is plenty good for school plays/recitals?  it seems from some threads that the Mark III is doing ok 12,800 or even 25,600 granted I can’t tell how well they print.

Harder to answer. Up to 800, not a problem. Above that, you will start seeing some differences. Remember though that in order to get the benefits of the higher ISO speeds, you will need to retain the same lens f-stop. You already own an f 2.8 lens for wide to normal range. You'll have to add in the cost of a 24-70 2.8 to get a comparable range, and remember that your lens has IS, so factor that in as well.

Also, remember that with your telephoto you will be giving up 1/3 of the range if you switch to full frame. To achieve the equivalent of your 300mm lens on your Rebel or on a 7D you'd need 480mm on a full frame.

Now, here's the standard answer: It all depends on your priorities, needs, wants and budget. Only you can answer that. What would I do? First, I'd keep the Rebel XT through the summer and see what happens in Sept. with the 7DII so that I'm comparing the 5DIII with the same generation of 7D.

Second, I'd ask myself if the difference in cost might be better used in giving the kids a memory they'll have for the rest of their lives. Between the camera and lens upgrades, you're talking two to three thousand dollars difference. I'd probably take the money and take the kids on a trip they'll never forget. Fifty years from now, they won't have any idea what camera you shot those vacation pictures with, but they will look at the pictures and remember standing by your side watching Old Faithful erupt.

Canon General / Re: I've switched to the Dark Side (no, Literally).
« on: April 26, 2012, 01:09:12 PM »
I'm afraid I'm with Mt. Spokane. Been there. Done that. Not interested in going back.

However, for the OP, if you are looking for good lenses for your film camera I highly recommend a 200mm 2.8 FD. It was a great lens. I think I'd also look at a faster 24mm. Those old lenses really took a beating. I had several that got so banged up I couldn't get the filters off of them, but they still worked great. (Or at least they seemed like they worked great, but when you're shooting Tri-X and developing it in Dektol, the lens quality doesn't really have a lot of impact on the image.)

EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Generation of the Crop Sensor Cameras
« on: April 26, 2012, 11:47:57 AM »
Here we go again.

Eventually all DSLRs will be obsolete. And, eventually, we will all be dead.

In the meantime, these proclamations about the "death" of one particular format are beyond silly. But, just for the sake of argument, what sign is there of any decline in the APS-C format?

  • Is it that the price of a full frame camera is now more that twice the cost of a comparably equipped APS-C camera?
  • Is it that every manufacturer has now settled on two sensor formats for enthusiast and professional level cameras? (Canon dumping the 1.3 format from the DSLR lineup and other manufacturers migrating to APS-C for their top-end mirror less models, as in the Fuji X-Pro 1)
  • Is it that after the initial excitement has worn off, the top 20 Amazon DSLR best sellers currently list 16 APS-C cameras and only four full-frame cameras?
  • Is it that in a world where the vast majority of images will never be viewed at more than 72 dpi on computer screens and tablet devices, the differences between APS-C and Full Frame are detectable only at the highest ISO ranges, massive print sizes or by zooming in on an image on a computer screen?

Please, I know all the 5DIII buyers have to justify their purchases to themselves. But if you are going to make "proclamations" like this, how about offering some real world evidence of your claims? Is all this just based on some vague fear that the market cannot support two different formats and full frame shooters are afraid to be the ones who bet on Betamax? Stop worrying about it. There is plenty of evidence the market is big enough for both formats and even if full frame does die out, it will still be around for quite some time.

Canon General / Re: I just have to rant!
« on: April 24, 2012, 01:09:17 PM »

EOS Bodies / Re: We need a "Canon Whiners" Section!
« on: April 24, 2012, 01:06:12 PM »
There already is one. It is called: "canonrumors forum."

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??
« on: April 24, 2012, 01:02:57 PM »
...were it not for the announced merge of 1D and 1Ds, and the ensuing speculation that "H" itself is dead, I think the 7D rumor mill would not be nearly so interesting -- the 7D2 would be just be another incremental improvement in a prosumer wildlife body.  However, the question still in my mind is "what will Canon do with the 1D market?   

Yes, this is what makes the speculation (and it is all speculation at this point) interesting. I tend to believe the APS-H really is dead, squeezed out by the ever-shrinking space between APS-C and Full-Frame.

I am very excited because I know they'll have to beat the D7000, which is already quite an impressive camera at a very sweet price. But I also think they're having a hard time in doing so.

I too was very excited initially by the D7000 announcement. But, then someone pointed out that Nikon may be simply recycling the Sony 24 mp sensor, which seems to be a fairly weak performer. If that's the case, Canon may not have too much to worry about.  I would like to think that sensor technology has advanced over the past three years and that the 7DII will be a top performing APS-C sensor that matches the quality formerly seen in the APS-H sensor.

It doesn't take much of a leap to imagine a Canon 7DX: APS-C sensor performing at the level of the 1D APS-H sensor, improved weather-sealing, improved auto-focus and a one-piece gripped body. Taken individually, these are all low-cost incremental improvements, and there is no reason that this could not be done for well south of $2,400. But if they did that, what a game-changer it would be.

EOS Bodies / Re: Photography Course
« on: April 20, 2012, 05:25:45 PM »
If you are near a large city in the U.S. one of the best kept secrets is the Digital Photo Academy. http://www.digitalphotoacademy.com/.

Much less expensive than other workshops and much more frequent classes. Basically, it's a way for professional photographers to pick up a little extra money on the side. You get exposure to and contact with working photographers.

Pages: 1 ... 71 72 [73] 74 75 ... 118