December 18, 2014, 11:32:11 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 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 147
976
Site Information / Re: Classified for Sell Section on CR
« on: June 14, 2013, 05:01:22 PM »
I think you have your answer. 13 yes votes, one maybe and fewer than 300 views as of the time I'm posting this.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

977
Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 13, 2013, 04:01:08 PM »
I've been a long time critic of the moderation on this forum. I have no idea who the moderators are and if it is just one over-zealous individual or not, but I have made no secret of my disagreement with the arbitrary and inconsistent application of secret and ever-changing standards.

I have argued long and hard that the old system of "karma" was much more effective because it was a self-policing system that allowed the entire group on the forum to express their opinion. People didn't like the karma system, but it was effective in two ways – it made people more cautious about what they said and it gave readers an instant idea of whether a particular person was credible or a just a troll.

I find it interesting that one of the persons defending the moderators has a long history of belittling others on the forum with whom he disagrees. And, that's exactly the problem. In the absence of any clear standards, it is far too easy for moderators to pick and choose whom they like and whom they don't and apply different standards to different individuals.

The problem is compounded because this is an international forum. Standards for acceptable exchanges vary from culture to culture. In addition, for those for whom English is a second language, knowing the nuances of the language can be a challenge. I have great admiration for those who participate from other countries and personally, try to cut someone a little extra slack if I think English is not their first language.

Unfortunately, being a moderator is one of those jobs that too often appeals to persons who are exactly the opposite of what a good moderator should be – tolerant of differences of opinion and willing to provide people with as much latitude as possible, while trying to keep the exchange civil. It's not unique to this forum and in fact, this forum is probably better than many.

Ultimately, I'd say distant.star's approach is best – just accept that sometimes the moderators will be jerks and move on.

978
Cayenne,

What are you asking?

Do you really want the boys on this site to brag about how big their equipment is?

Or, do you want to know what you need to run Photoshop CS6?

If it is the latter, then, as others have already pointed out, just about any modern machine with do the trick. Buy extra memory and get a decent video card to run things faster. Make sure you have at least 1TB of storage and expect to need to offload some of the image files to other storage when that 1TB runs out, because it will happen. There was a time when Adobe programs really pushed the limits of machines, but there are so many other resource hogs these days that Photoshop isn't that big of a deal.

Here is what Adobe says are the minimum requirements for Photoshop CC: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/tech-specs.html

979
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:02:50 AM »
Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success...

I've wondered the same thing. Obviously Canon knew exactly what the market was for the 5DIII (Wedding and event photographers) and knew they could charge an initial premium because the high ISO performance offered ipeople a tool they could use to gain a competitive edge.

I've never figured out what market Nikon was aiming for with the D800. They had an embedded base of users who were already invested in Nikon equipment, but the market for the D800 was ill-defined at best. Perhaps they found they were losing market share to Canon and assumed it was because of their smaller megapixel count. Not sure it's really worked out all that well for Nikon.

I'm not sure why Canon would feel compelled to follow Nikon off the high-megapixel cliff. I've always felt the only way it makes some sense would be if they just switched out the sensor in an existing body (most likely the 5DIII) and slapped an "HD" on the description (5D HD). That would keep production and development cost low (especially if they just upsize the 18mp APS-C sensor with a few tweaks). But, I just don't see launching a new high resolution "flagship" when there doesn't appear to be much of a market demand for it.

If you think high megapixels are the end-all and be-all, ask yourself why the flagship Nikon has 16 mp and the flagship Canon has 18 mp.


980
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 60D body out of stock
« on: June 12, 2013, 09:46:11 PM »
I would conclude that after 1,011 days in the top 100, the 60D still holds the number 7 and number 12 (with lens) slots on Amazon's best selling DSLRs list. Only the Rebels rank higher among Canon products. And, BTW, Canon has 12 of the top 20 DSLRs.

981
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 12, 2013, 03:05:30 PM »
If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.


Why??? How does having it hurt you? At the very least you'd be a fool since you'd pay the same for something that would have less retail value and yet behave EXACTLY the same in hand for you.

Why do so many still photographers have such hatred for video? I thought photographers were supposed to be creative, open-minded types always wanting to explore new things? Even if you don't want to, all the talk about paying as much or even more just to get a body with video disabled sounds utterly nuts to me.

It's even more nuts when you realize that DSLRs are really video cameras anyway. You can't "take out" video unless you just want to use the camera as a doorstop. And, as has been discussed many times on this forum, the video recording features reduce the per unit cost of the camera. People who say they would "pay more" for a camera that can't do video recording have no idea just how much more they would have to pay.



982
My interpretation...

Wire transfer goes into Adorama account holding area. Later, a human being looks at it and for whatever reason (suspicious due to no address...or maybe they just hate money or don't like customers from your state) decides to not accept to deposit it, maybe even after input from a supervisor (ie refuses it). Then, that human being or even another person, starts the process to wire it back to your bank. This maybe takes a day or 2 or 3. When you call (angry worried upset etc), you talk to someone who doesn't have all the correct facts or doesn't explain it well to you.

Perhaps not the greatest customer service to you since they certainly didn't have answers that made you comfortable or happy. Sometimes stating something that is not correct is not lying (I see this all the time and it is usually due to ignorance).

Being one state away, I might have gotten a cashiers check and taken a one day trip to NYC.

I think this is a pretty good explanation.

Let's face it. As long as human beings are involved, there will be mistakes. And, mistakes tend to multiply along the way. It's unfortunate that this happened. But it did. Based on the many comments on this thread and the experiences of many, many others, it is clear this was the exception and not the rule.

It's no fun being that exception. And, if it happened to me, I'd probably take my business elsewhere as well. But, honestly, there doesn't appear to be any great lesson that others can take away from this. Stuff happens. Life isn't fair. (If it were, I'd have $27,000 to spend on camera equipment too.)

983
EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 11, 2013, 03:04:12 PM »
It's a flagship

Not necessarily....

I'm not sure what you are basing that on...

Might be basing it on Nikon. Their flagship has 16 megapixels.

984
Your very basic take-away from this should be nothing other than "Don't use wire transfers."

...and get a new bank.

985
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: June 07, 2013, 02:00:51 PM »
You are correct. I was thinking of being able to edit the PSD files.

986
Reviews / Re: Horrible experience with Adorama camera
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:54:07 PM »
Pardon me, but what is this "wire transfer" you speak of?

That sounds like something from the 20th century. Don't most people nowadays just use PayPal? I know it can take two-three days for the transaction to be completed, but it seems to work pretty well. It even works across countries.

987
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:45:52 PM »
My 2cents...

I hated this idea at first for many of the reasons brought up here.  But, I am kind of coming around in thinking about it.  I may have to go and thoroughly read the terms of service.  But - I am currently on CS5, I have not felt the push to upgrade to CS6 because the bulk of what I do is in Lightroom (I use PS for the fine tuning side of things that lightroom just can't do).  So for a user like me, PS is just a fine editing plugin for lightroom - and yeah that's definitely not worth forking over the dough to upgrade unless there is some substantial new tool I feel I need to have.

So, for someone like me, this new CC may actually not be a bad thing.  Unless there's something I am missing, I can now have the latest capabilites without having such a large up front price.  As a wedding/portrait shooter in an area that has very defined seasons - meaning my need for PS would be from May-November - at $20 a month that would mean I'd be paying about $140  (maybe more if I need it in the winter).  I have to check the fine print to see if there are penalties for letting your subscription lapse, or, some kind of silly startup fee.  This may be a loophole that they find a way to fill by implementing penalties, but, it may be awesome for the occasional user because they can now have access to $600 software for $20 (as long as they don't mind just using it for a month. 

I do hope they don't go cloud with lightroom.  We shall see what happens I guess.  If enough people boycott CC, then it won't take adobe too long to change their tune...

It looks like the month-to-month plan is $30 per application, so more like $210 for May to November. You could buy the annual plan and cancel, but there are cancellation charges after the first 30 days.

Also, if you don't have an older version of Photoshop already on your computer, you won't be able to access or edit your files during those down months.

988
Lighting / Re: Can a (DSLR) flash cause permanent eye damage?
« on: June 07, 2013, 11:16:38 AM »
If there were any risk of permanent eye damage the American trial lawyers would be all over this like white on rice.

989
PowerShot / Re: Camera for Granny
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:24:13 PM »
Does your grandmother use a camera now? Has she ever taken pictures as a hobby? Is she a technology savvy senior who surfs the internet and posts on Facebook, or does she need your help in working the DVD player on her television?

If she hasn't used a camera since her Instamatic broke, then you might want to consider something else.

If she wants one or you think she would use one, I'd go for something with a large screen on back, modest zoom range and simple controls. Get an extra SD card, because you'll probably be the one sending the pictures to the corner drug store and you will want to be able to switch out cards when you go over to visit. That assumes, of course, that she's a typical 80 year old. Now, if she used to work for the Daily Mail and still has her F1 and FD lens collection, it might be another story.

990
Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 05, 2013, 07:30:03 PM »
I also own both lenses and agree they are two very different lenses. The 70-300 L is half of my two-lens go anywhere, shoot anything kit. The other half being my 15-85.

If I'm traveling, or just out for a day shooting, these two lenses are always in my bag. I wouldn't want to be carrying the 100-400 around all day. But, if I'm trying to shoot birds or wildlife, it's the 100-400 all the way.

One reason the 70-300 L doesn't sell as well is because it's in a very crowded field and it is much more expensive than other offerings either from Canon or third-party manufacturers. (Except of course for the 70-300 DO lens, which I totally do not get).

Both are great lenses. They are about the same price. Pick one now and then buy the other one later.

Pages: 1 ... 64 65 [66] 67 68 ... 147