September 19, 2014, 04:20:05 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 140
16
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.

17
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.

18
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.

19
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.

20
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.)

21
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?

22
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.

23
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.)

24
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.

25
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: And people say Canon is behind??
« on: September 12, 2014, 02:20:42 PM »
Too little, too late.  To clarify for those of you who don't understand why this isn't a D700 replacement, and to reiterate on Neuro's point that the camera is 2 years late: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/d750-too-little-too-late.html

I enjoy Thom Hogan, even if he is a Nikon shooter. :)

He's made the point that for many people, the current state of the art is all the camera anyone is likely to ever need. It's a good reality check after reading 30- and 40-page threads with people arguing over insignificant differences in sensors.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 12, 2014, 02:12:21 PM »
This thread is hilarious. It's better than Duracell rabbit, because it's going and going ang going and going... (repeat ad libitum/nauseam) :D

Just another great day on Canonrumers.   ;D

You guys are a hoot!

This has gone through so many levels, I can't even tell who is arguing what anymore. Maybe the teams need to adopt a name and start wearing shirts. One thing is for sure, that "typing at the speed of thought" thing isn't working out too well. There is a lot more typing than thought going on.

What was this thread about? Oh yeah, Canon is introducing a new 7D.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:12:19 PM »
Anyway it's useless responding to you, so that was the last one.
Write whatever you want.

And yet, three minutes later, your are back posting. Don't promise to leave and then keep posting. It raises our hopes too much.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:55:00 PM »
Maybe the DR guys wouldn't get driven to act like such pests if you your ilk wouldn't constantly toss nonsense all over the place and would be able to just admit that there is a single thing that your precious Canon is not the best at.

My Canon is not precious. It's just a frigg'n camera. And, I have no problem admitting that there are differences between all brands and  no brand is better at everything.

But, I for one, get very annoyed at people who are fixated on their one favorite thing and insist that it should be the ultimate determinate of quality in any product...that seem to think that anyone who doesn't see it their way is somehow less discerning...and that if a company doesn't happen to emphasize their little fixation, then the company is doomed and anyone who doesn't agree must be crushed under encyclopedic posts that repeat the same worn-out whines over and over again and again.

Furthermore, as a long time reader of this site, I know that whatever changes Canon may make it its products, it won't ever silence the critics.

When Canon offered the cameras with the highest pixel counts in the world, we endured endless posts about how all Canon cared about was megapixel count. Until Canon switched it strategy and started emphasizing ISO performance over high megapixels. Now we get complaints about Canon not having enough megapixels.

At one point, the complainers targeted autofocus. Then, when Canon started providing the best autofocus of any camera on the market, that suddenly became unimportant.

In recent months, the critics have become fixated with "dynamic range." It's simply the latest thing to complain about. But the funny thing is that with each generation of improvements, the areas to complain about become increasingly narrow and esoteric.

When we point out that the market doesn't agree with your assessment, the reaction is "we don't care how many cameras they sell, we just want our personal needs met, even if no one else cares about what we want."

So, I'm more than happy to admit that there are many things my camera is not the best at. Now, will you please admit that hardly anyone gives a rat's rear end about the things you find to complain about.

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How do you say Nikon
« on: September 11, 2014, 02:26:43 PM »
The company can't seem to decide on what to call itself either.

Depending on where you are located, looks like it can be Nike-on, Knee-con, or Knick-on. They are all simultaneously correct and incorrect, just depending on where you happen to be at the time.

Google their commercials and you'll hear it pronounced all three ways depending on the market.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 11, 2014, 01:33:21 PM »
They are doing just fine with good dslrs featuring mediocre sensors and good phase af systems, at least atm. If they add a stellar live view af and good usability, what amount of people outside geek forums really care about dr (dr. what)?.

Not picking on you Marsu, because your basic point about what people care about is valid, but I am pretty tired of claims that Canon sensors are "mediocre," which is one of the more mild terms used.

We have reached the point in sensor development where, absent some major breakthrough for some magical no noise-200-steps-of-dynamic-range-shoot-in-the-pitch black technology the differences between all major brands of sensors don't amount to a dime.

Every sensor -- even that little sensor in your iPhone -- produces better pictures than were generally available during the film era. Full frame, APS-C, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, it doesn't matter. They all produce stellar results that were impossible not that long ago.

The only way anyone can tell any difference is by invoking obscure laboratory test results, blowing up images on a computer screen to bizarre proportions or shooting straight into the sun.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 140