August 21, 2014, 10:50:49 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] 4 5 ... 133
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Medium Format Announcement a \
« on: August 12, 2014, 03:15:17 PM »
I wonder if all this Medium Format noise is a diversionary tactic (assuming Canon is feeding some of it, which I am not sure they are.)

Possibility A: Feed into the rumors of a Medium Format offering and let your competitors start expending resources on something you have no intention of developing.

Possibility B: Feed into the rumors of a Medium Format offering and scare your competitors off because they know you have the cash and market positioning to dominate if you were to decide to proceed.

Seems like in either case, feeding the rumors could be a win for Canon.

Of course, I happen to think that "longshot" seriously overstates the likelihood. "When pigs fly" might be more accurate.

32
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 05:52:10 PM »
Just don't believe it. If they are looking at MF now they're about twenty five years too late.

My thoughts exactly.

Developing a medium format camera today is way more complicated than it was in the film days and the market is much smaller and shrinking all the time. If Canon and Nikon were uninterested in medium format when it was actually a viable market, why would they invest in it now?

On another thread, I posted a reference to an estimate from Leica that the worldwide market for medium format is only 6,000 units annually. Hasselblad has a grand total of 180 employees according to their own website, not exactly a huge operation.

There are other markets that are far more promising.

To paraphrase an ancient proverb: “The best time to develop a MF camera was 25 years ago. The second best time is now.”

Yes, but while 1870 might have been the best time to develop a new buggy whip and by this reasoning 2014 is the second best time to develop a new buggy whip, that still doesn't make it a good time for buggy whips.

33
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 01:30:01 PM »
Just don't believe it. If they are looking at MF now they're about twenty five years too late.

My thoughts exactly.

Developing a medium format camera today is way more complicated than it was in the film days and the market is much smaller and shrinking all the time. If Canon and Nikon were uninterested in medium format when it was actually a viable market, why would they invest in it now?

On another thread, I posted a reference to an estimate from Leica that the worldwide market for medium format is only 6,000 units annually. Hasselblad has a grand total of 180 employees according to their own website, not exactly a huge operation.

There are other markets that are far more promising.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 7D Replacement Info [CR2]
« on: August 11, 2014, 11:04:20 AM »
Can someone explain something about wifi?

I have read that build quality (metal body?) precludes incorporating wifi. Yet, the wifi card manufacturers say their product works with the 5DIII in its SD slot. If that's the case, then why would camera manufacturers be unable to design a camera body that doesn't have the ability to use wifi. It seems they should be able to simply shift the wifi portion to another part of the body.

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 11, 2014, 09:43:54 AM »
Makes sense.  Since I don't own Canon stock, and I'm quite happy with my 1D X, it's good for me either way. :)

How would that make sense?

Context, man...context.  'The suits knowing better' makes more sense than Canon's blind foolishness or belief in Christmas magic.  At least to me...maybe not to you.  Make sense?    :)

Okay, I get it. Yes, that portion of the comment made sense. Obviously, I was taking issue with the thought that a high megapixel full frame camera would help the bottom line more than a 7DII. I was afraid I was going to have to start quoting to Neuro some of Neuro's past reality-check posts about the relative markets, internet chatter vs. the real world, sales numbers of the 5DIII vs. Nikon D800 etc. etc.

36
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 10:52:04 PM »


I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

If one listened to the noise on the forums it would seem that this is exactly what the public is clamoring for. I see almost nothing but "What we need is a FF (insert camera here) and sell it for $1200."

Canon already makes a full frame camera that is not far off from $1,200. It's called the 6D. I wouldn't be surprised if it hit $1,200 within 18 mos.

37
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 10:48:25 PM »
If I have to guess what will make a bigger splash at Photokina - and a bigger impact
on the bottom line - that would be a 40mp 5DIV, not a 7DII.
Just sayin'.

Makes sense.  Since I don't own Canon stock, and I'm quite happy with my 1D X, it's good for me either way. :)

How would that make sense? APS-C far outsells full frame. There is a significant amount of pent-up demand for the 7D II. Aside from a handful of vocal forum advocates, there is little evidence of demand for a high megapixel full frame camera.

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 01:58:50 PM »
...Canon might come out with a $4500 Camera to place between 5D III and the 1DX.  Maybe a 5DX?

It would make more sense to slot a camera between the 6D and 5D. Currently, there is a $1,500 gap between the two. Plenty of room for another model. Release a new model with the current 70D/7D type autofocus and offer it for $2,200.

Human behavior being what it is, the 6D becomes the bargain model that allows dealers to up-sell people to the more "advanced" version. Might even boost sales of the 5D, because "for just a little more, you can have all these added features in a much better built body.'

39
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 12:03:35 PM »
People are mixing apples and oranges. I agree the incremental upgrades to the D600 and D800 were bad and undermined confidence in the brand. But slotting a new camera in between the existing models would be a good move.

Consumers always want more choices and Nikon is given them another option. With modern manufacturing technologies companies are able to offer more options with small differences in costs. 

If Canon chose to offer as many full frame models as they do APS-C, why would anyone complain?

40
Thanks for the disciplined comparison.

This is one reason why I think the 7DII will be Canon's "high megapixel" camera (probably at about 24 mp).

It makes sense to me that Canon will optimize its top of the line APS-C camera to emphasize the strengths of its format -- which is resolution. They will then have full frame bodies optimized for noise and crop frames optimized for resolution and reach.

It's also why I can't imagine a 7DII with less megapixels than the current 7D or 70D – people who want lower noise at higher ISOs, have the 6D. Which will be in the same price bracket as the 7DII (or possibly even slightly less.)

Fits in nicely with Canon's two-body marketing strategy.

41
Software & Accessories / Re: neoprene cover for 5DmkIII
« on: August 08, 2014, 10:07:15 AM »
I've thought about the Delkin product before. It reminds me of the Otter case I have for my iPhone. Thought about it if I ever get the chance to take up canoeing. Obviously it would be no substitute for a waterproof housing, but operating under the assumption that all protective covers are like a good lock (They won't prevent anything, but they do buy you some time) they seem appealing.

Has anyone had any experience with these?

42
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 11:11:37 PM »
Now I thought I understood the basics of photography copyright (cos it's useful for us snappers!), and that was that copyright does not need to be applied for. The creator of the work (let's ignore for now this case, and cases where you do a job for someone else, contracts etc) owns the copyright. I take a photo, its copyright belongs to me. I can release my claim to it, but doing nothing means I own the rights to it. I don't have to file paperwork. If down the line someone uses it without my permission, all I need to do is demonstrate it was me who took it, say by providing the raw image, or proving I was there and the other person wasn't.

Well, I did a little reading up, to see if my memory served me correctly. It does seem some things have changed a bit since I was in school and generally things are now more favorable toward the creator of a work.

From what I can tell, the key distinction is that while the copyright does not have to be applied for, as you state,  it may be difficult to enforce the copyright if you do absolutely nothing. At a minimum, it seems a good idea to use your software's ability to embed the copyright in the electronic file and to display a copyright symbol when practical.

I guess I would err on the side of caution and at least include a copyright claim in the electronic file. A simple and automated step that could help prevent confusion down the road.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Plan B
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:41:18 PM »
So, if the soon to be released 7DII fails to come up to your expectation what's your Plan B?
(assuming you were planning to buy)

The correct answer is: whine incessantly on Canon Rumors about how Canon is a horrible company because they didn't meet my personal expectations and they are now going to go bankrupt.

Oh wait...that also the answer if the 7DII exceeds everyone's expectations. 

44
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 07, 2014, 06:35:17 PM »
It would be entertaining to see how this plays out.

A big question is whether or not the photographer actually went to the trouble of getting a copyright on the photo in the first place. (Yes, lots of people put the copyright symbol on their photos but never bother to file the paperwork. Doing so preserves some rights, but it's not an absolute guarantee of copyright)

I suspect that in this case, had the photographer actually copyrighted the picture, then Wikipedia would be in quite a weak position because the copyright would serve as an official designation that the government has declared that the right to the photograph belongs to the photographer. If you have an official copyright from the Government, it's unlikely that a court is going to say that is invalid.

But, if the photographer simply placed a copyright on his files and never followed up with paperwork, well, then that's another question. If that's the case, then Wikipedia could well argue what they are arguing now -- which is that he never had the ability to secure the copyright. Under that situation, the photographer is likely to have to prove that he does indeed have the right to a copyright.

First situation, Wikipedia would have to prove he never had the right to the copyright -- burden of proof should be on them to show that the government erred in awarding the copyright.

Second situation, photographer must prove he has the right to copyright the photo -- burden of proof likely to be on him to prove that he should be awarded the copyright.

Now, the other question might be just what exactly does that copyright protect? If the photograph has been widely circulated without any copyright designation, the photographer might be in a weak position to now claim copyright.

Additionally, since the copyright protects the photographer's financial interest and is not an absolute bar to using the photo, court might have to determine what his financial loss is from the violation. He could win the copyright case and be awarded $1.

And, finally, copyright is not an absolute bar to reproducing a creative work. There are exceptions for educational, critical and artistic uses. Might not apply in this case, but it can apply in others.

This may never be litigated, but if it is, it will be interesting.

45
Post Processing / Re: Smart objects
« on: August 07, 2014, 12:33:47 PM »
No, Smart Objects don't give you any more DR, they just give you more control over the DR you have.

Yes, that's exactly correct and I probably didn't explain myself very well.

A better example: earlier this week I shot a group of nine people for a company's website. It was a diverse group of people and by using multiple smart object layers I could do some fine tuning of individual skin tones and exposures. For example, one woman was very tan, so I might lighten her up a bit. A couple people were very fair-skinned, so I brought them down a hair.

Using layer masks I can blend the various layers and achieve a final group image where exposure has been optimized for everyone, but it is subtle and not apparent.

As with most things Photoshop, there are lots of ways to arrive at the same place. Being a bit of a fanatic about non-destructive editing, I find the Smart Object route works for me.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 133