October 20, 2014, 05:45:09 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 6 ... 145
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 01:49:38 PM »

YOUR OTHER CLUE! The Guy who Runs CR...has always told you Canon Fan Boys...when it is a camera coming...This time he has NOT! So it is NOT a Camera!   Everyone....Relax...Everyone is getting their Panties all Bunched up for a 3D Copier!    :-\

A 3D printer is plausible, but I don't think so. I'm certain it's not a new camera or camera accessory. No leaks to CR guy or others. No ads, promos or teasers in photo-oriented publications or websites. No similar promotions anywhere else in the world.

I'm betting that they are simply launching a new marketing campaign. I could easily see a bunch of ads built around the concept that Canon helps people "see the impossible."  They could talk about their medical imaging, their "fireflies" video, the new 7DII autofocus, security cameras, etc. etc. and wrap them all under the "see the impossible" marketing campaign.

Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 01:27:26 PM »
You're all wrong, this is something genuinely exciting.

It's a filter for Canon Rumours that detects DRones and sensor fanatics ... It will be months before they realize that no-one is actually paying any attention to them.

It's already been months since most people paid any attention to them.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 06, 2014, 11:24:47 AM »
As it gets closer and closer to release date, this camera seems to just get better and better. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this picked as the "Camera of the Year."

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Brief Hands on with the 7Dii
« on: October 05, 2014, 11:46:01 AM »
I suspect that 2-3 stops is a little optimistic, or that he was speaking about JPG and not RAW.  Did he clarify whether he was talking about JPG or RAW?

I have been looking at RAW files from Imaging Resource and to me it looks like the 7D2 is easily 1 stop better, and when I looked at 7D ISO 800 compared to 7D2 ISO 3200, it looked to me as though the 7D was slightly better.  But they were really really close, which is very promising.

Based on what I have seen... which is pretty limited at this point... the 7D2 appears to be almost 2 stops improvement.  However, as I have said before I believe that the noise is much easier to clean up in post being Luminance vs Color. Color noise requires more NR and also robs more detail in my opinion. 

I have one on pre-order and so far I'm encouraged I made the right decision.  Looks to be one hell of a camera!

Unfortunately he just said noise performance and gave those numbers.

Also said that distribution begins first week in November.

Actually, this is something I've been contemplating. I'm pretty much a RAW-only person, but lately I've been asking myself a couple of questions: why do we always insist on evaluating the camera's performance based solely on RAW? I mean, realistically, isn't it the results that count? If we can shoot in JPEG and produce significantly better results because the programmers at Canon (or Nikon or Sony or Fuji or whatever) are better than us at converting that data to JPEG, why should we discount the camera?

That's a strength, not a weakness. Maybe we should embrace it, instead of discounting it.

I'm fully aware of the advantages of RAW and in situations where I need those advantages I would always shoot RAW, but lately I'm wondering if I shouldn't take a second look at JPEG with the newest cameras. Yeah, I've gotten used to processing files in Adobe Camera Raw and I would have to adjust my workflow, but I'm certainty capable of doing that. After all, isn't it the final product that is important, and what difference does it make how we get there?

So, if the out-of-camera JPEG has significantly less noise and looks better than what I can produce with a RAW converter, why should I cut off my nose to spite my face?

DR / low noise is not what the overall market demands now.

This may be the most succinct and accurate explanation yet.

I hate to mess it up with any additional comment, but what the heck...

I wish people would just recognize the fact that the most bitter debates on this forum have been reduced to trivial matters – dynamic range, mirror or no mirror and more megapixels or no more megapixels seem to dominate.

If these are the biggest things we have to worry about in terms of the quality of technology today, I would say we are pretty darn lucky. Just once, I wish the naysayers would admit that none of these differences are significant or likely to have the least bit of impact on the success or failure of any camera manufacturer.

...E.g., how would you feel if your brand-new Acura SUV had a stereo with a cassette player that was not replaceable, and could not connect to your iToys?...

Your "exaggerated" example is quite a good one.  Much like the current situation between sensors, what some people perceive as major liabilities can be quite easily addressed in many cases.  In this specific case of your example, there is a $5 solution:

Your "solution" occurred to me when I was writing the previous post, and I even started by using "8-Track" rather than cassette for this very reason.  Have you ever used one of those "$5 dollar solutions?"  At least when I used one it was clunky and imperfect: not only is managing the wire a hassle (depending on the layout of your dashboard) but there's background noise at low ISO volume.   ;D

Sort of hate to jump into this, but actually, I think this is, for once, not a bad analogy.

I went for years driving a truck where the CD player was broken. Once you put a CD in there, it was pretty much there forever no matter how often you pushed the eject button. Once in a while, when the stars were aligned, you could eject it and then, of course, you dare not put another CD in.

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: An introduction and a dilemma
« on: October 04, 2014, 11:25:22 AM »
First of all, let me say I really admire your self-awareness. I have known far too many people suffering from mental illnesses who simply refuse or are unable to recognize their limitations and the results have sometimes been tragic.

Keeping on the path that you are on is the most important thing in that regard.

Now, as far as cameras go. My personal suggestion would be to buy a 6D. For just under $1,450 you can get a new US Warranty 6D through Canon Price Watch's street price program. I own a 5DIII and love it, but with limited funds I can't honestly recommend spending an additional $1,250 for the 5DIII. Unless – and this is a big "unless" – you know you will absolutely never be satisfied with the 6D and always regret not buying the 5DIII. I'm not talking small regret here, but big-time every-time-you-pick-up-the-camera regret. I'm talking irrational, gut-feeling response. ONLY if that is the case, should you consider the 5DIII.

At the current price for the 6D, you can keep the 7D for awhile and have it available in situations where you need the ultra wide angle or the extra reach. After 3-6 months with the 6D you may decide you don't. With the announcement of the 7DII the resale value of the 7D has already dropped, so holding it for a few more months probably won't make a lot of difference.

Photography equipment is expensive and the costs never end. Depending on what direction you may go in the future, you will want to invest in lenses, strobes, light modifiers, tripods, etc. etc. Plus, the travel idea is a good one, so holding back a little money for those things might be a good idea. If you really need an ultra-wide angle, there is nothing wrong with the old reliable 17-40 f4. It's still a good lens and reasonably priced, but as long as you have the 10-22 and the 7D, you can get by for quite a while using that.

I'm also undergoing a transition so very attuned to the need to conserve resources. Just one guy's recommendations.

Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 03, 2014, 01:05:01 PM »
Kirk Tuck:

"But what we're seeing in photography right now is not really the adoption of a new standard or product. People are not just moving from one type of camera to another they are moving to a new mental space about personal imaging and they have just done it en masse."

And does Canon's line-up of DSLR cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? No.

And does Olympus's/FUJIFILM's/Samsung's line-up of mirrorless cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? Yes.

You might want to actually read Tuck's article.

The vast majority of the public are now using camera phones not mirrorless cameras. And, they are using them to document their lives – moment by moment. And, as  he said, share those moments on 5-inch screens.

Eliminating a mirror is more reactionary than revolutionary. Nobody is going to swap their phone for a big old mirrorless camera, especially for one that they can't make a phone call on, access the local weather, look up nearby restaurants, monitor their baby, or do any of the hundreds of other things that people do with smart phones.

Too many people think the massive popularity of digital cameras during the past decade was "normal" when it most certainly wasn't. As Tuck points out, there was a similar bubble in the 60s and 70s. It burst. Canon and Nikon survived because they carved out strong, loyal niche markets for themselves and cultivated those markets. Fuji may survive because they know better than almost anyone else about the risks of disruptive change (Fujifilm anyone?) But, many of these players are ill-equipped to survive as the market returns to its traditional levels.

Mirrorless, DSLRs, whatever...they are niche products and one is not likely to supplant the other and neither will ever see the kind of adoption rates that occurred during the bubble of earlier this century.   

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:17:37 PM »
Obviously these people are idiots, since they are comparing a cinema camera to a still's camera. Looks like Canon would be even more of a bargain if they compared apples to apples and 1Dxs to D3xs

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 10:22:44 AM »
This whole debate is goofy.

Nikon released a 5DIII competitor about 2 1/2 years after the 5DIII. Except it's not quite a competitor because it's built more like a 6D than a 5D, so it's sort of a 5.5D competitor.

The D750 costs $2,300. I bought a special bundle package last year from one of the "big two" paid about about $2,600 net for the body after everything was said and done. So, it costs an extra $300 to go from a 5.5D to a full fledged 5D.

Now, if I were a Nikon user, I might be excited by this option. But, would I switch systems to save $300 on a body that will replaced in a year or two – no way.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: October 02, 2014, 04:36:00 PM »
...And nowadays I´m too busy to be obsessed by gear, I´d rather plan a shoot, find new clients or just grab my gear and take a ride to find tractors or models to shoot ;)

What about models on tractors?

..it does sound rather dubious for anyone in group B) to claim to have higher image quality standards than group A).

your argument logic is reminiscent of someone under the influence of too many wobbly-pops  ;)

MY image quality standards are higher than YOURS

go ahead, debate that. ::)

So easy to say, "MY image quality standards are higher than YOURS" when you're anonymous and can say whatever you want.  You can as easily say that you've flown to Jupiter and back ... with the same level of conviction, and just as much credibility.  But I'll grant you that your standards for pushing 4- or 5-stop underexposed nearly-black frames and rescuing them from the trash are higher than mine.  You'll win that argument every time.

Could Canon's IQ be higher?  Of course!  But the fact remains that Canon meets the IQ standards of some of the very best photographers.

Well, Aglet's not quite as anonymous as you might suppose. http://a2bart.com/

You can browse his website and draw your own conclusions.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 05:14:19 PM »
When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? Sensor IQ Is the picture interesting?

I fixed your statement.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: October 01, 2014, 05:09:22 PM »
The tepid response from the market

The market response is rational here.  There's probably a lot of people like me that are disappointed. 

WTF? What market response are you talking about? The first day the 7DII was released it hit #1 on the Amazon Best Sellers List. It's not there now, only because pre-orders always drop off after the first day or two.

The dang thing won't even be available until November, so the only market response out there are people gossiping on forums and judging by the comments on this forum, including several who have pre-ordered or know others who have pre-ordered, it looks more like a hit than a miss.

If you don't like the camera, that's fine, but don't just make up crap.

EOS Bodies / Re: No EOS-1D X Replacement in 2014 [CR2]
« on: September 29, 2014, 06:54:36 PM »
And, for that matter, why would the 5DIII need to be replaced?

To get 3 stops more low ISO DR and get rid of low ISO banding?
To get a nice 4k?
To get crisp 1080p without RAW?
To get more MP?

And, for that matter, why would the 5DIII need to be replaced?

Dual pixel, new RGB+IR metering.

These might be nice, but as someone who actually owns a 5DIII, I don't find any of these to be compelling reasons to upgrade. Judging by some of the comments and recent polls on this site, I'm not sure many other 5DIII owners are feeling a need to upgrade either. Waiting another year or two for more significant technological improvements might make more sense.

What more significant improvements? If 4k isn't anything, nor crisp 1080p, nor firmware with aids that actually let you focus video and see blown highlights, nor better metering, nor dual pixel AF, nor 3 stops DR at low ISO, nor 1+ stops DR at high ISO, nor 46-46MP, etc. what are you expecting?

First, I'm not sure your wish list is realistic.

Second, I'm not a video person, so neither 4K nor 1080 p has any interest for me personally. (Although I recognize that it might interest video people) but not convinced it is such a necessity that some people think, given that now and for the foreseeable future most video is going to live on the internet.

I can see blown highlights without the camera telling me.

I'm regularly amazed at how good the existing Canon metering is already. Even when I bracket to compensate, the camera's chosen exposure is almost always spot on.

I don't use live view, so dual pixel has never been a big interest.

You should know by now that low ISO dynamic range isn't a big deal to me. (I'll take it if given to me, but I'm not interested in paying for it.)

I'm always interested in high ISO improvements, but pretty pleased with the 5DIII's performance as it is.

And, for me, 46 mp is not a plus, it's a negative.

Now, I know that's just me. But, reading a lot of comments on this site from a lot of 5DIII owners, I think I may be more typical than you suspect.

So, what would interest me?

In-camera AFMA;
Lightfield technology, offering post-exposure focusing;

Throw in user friendly wi-fi and touchscreen, higher frame rate, an in-camera photo editing program (especially one that can be linked to an iPad) so you can edit images, convert them to jpeg and post to the internet all without having to first transfer the files to a computer, better weather sealing, and a few other improvements we haven't thought of yet.

Aside from the Lightfield technology, which may be a few more years away from making autofocus systems obsolete, the rest of this stuff should be either available now or available in the near future.

In the meantime, my main point is simply that I'm content with the current 5DIII and don't see much that would make me upgrade.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 145