July 24, 2014, 11:42:10 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219
1
For model shots, Katerina Plotnikova is a source of inspiration. Don't worry, when it says "Adult content", it just means model's skin is visible, but she succeeds walking a very thin line on not being offensive of any way.


Who tags as A.C.? Can anyone flag an image? Because unless it is some people having fun messing with her site I don't get the tags. The few I saw while scrolling through (and it was a pain to have to keep clicking to unlock every few shots for no good reason at all) showed no skin other than bare feet, ankles and face and actually showed even less skin than most not tagged as A.C. Confused.

2
HDR is a lot like a woman wearing makeup -- it should not be immediately obvious it is being used.

If you look at a woman and the first thought is "wow, she is wearing a lot of make up"  She is doin it wrong.
If you look at a photograph and the first thought is "wow, that's some HDR" you is doin it wrong.

It should be difficult to tell if an photograph was or was not HDR, if it is done well.  All the viewer should notice is "wow that's a pretty photograph/woman."

 ;D

In both cases you must add "unless it's being done for dramatic effect."  Some women (and a few men) wear heavy makeup for dramatic effect, like wearing bright, colorful clothes.  Likewise, some do HDR for the express purpose of a slightly surreal, dramatic effect.  Both are personal choices.  I'm not a huge fan of either in most cases, though I've seen a few examples that were quite well done.

+1

3
HDR is a lot like a woman wearing makeup -- it should not be immediately obvious it is being used.

If you look at a woman and the first thought is "wow, she is wearing a lot of make up"  She is doin it wrong.
If you look at a photograph and the first thought is "wow, that's some HDR" you is doin it wrong.

It should be difficult to tell if an photograph was or was not HDR, if it is done well.  All the viewer should notice is "wow that's a pretty photograph/woman."

 ;D

+1

4
no news here: "we look forward to the advent of high-resolution model of the EOS".  We are all looking forward to that.  This poor guy works for Canon and he is looking forward to the same thing we are.  I'm looking forward to Christmas too.  The only difference is I know Christmas is coming.....this year.

And we all know that Christmas only comes once a year....
(unless you are Denise Richards in a 007 movie featuring some bad dialogue  ;).)

5

Because, there are survey results 4-5% of customers who bought the kit lens is that it does not use only kit lens.


Would indeed be interesting to see an accurate translation of this. Do 5% never buy another lens? If so that is an amazing stst

I could believe that easily 4-5% never buy another lens.  I know people with DSLRs that bought a kit and are just fine with their kit zoom.  They take pictures only once in a while such as on a trip or at some big event.  It just depends on how much they get into photography.

wouldn't the is does NOT only use the kit lens, imply the opposite though?
I also find this confusing, but read somewhere (trying to find the source) that 80-90% of DSLR owners (that would be Rebels & their Nikon ilk) never remove their kit lens.  Alan's math makes sense in that regard, plus, not every SLR or DSLR owner throws away their body after two years.  People have bought my old bodies, and I bet many of them still own them.

yeah I guess that could be

6
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...

I note the comment that the 16-35 mk2 was good for APS-H ;-)

The multiple aspheric lens surfaces allow them to ease some of the compromise between reducing distortion and field flatness. The two front lens elements make quite a significant contribution to this and will likely be seen again in new ultra wide zoom designs.

I still want a TS-E14 though ;-)

Actually, I was going to ask someone to translate the translation. :)

I have often made the assertion on DPR that the 16-35 II was designed for APS-H because 1.) it was introduced alongside the 1D III and 2.) the edge/corner performance obviously was not up to FF standards MP counts of the time period notwithstanding. Of course, I was criticized for this viewpoint (which I still hold). It looked to me like the interviewer made the reference to APS-H but the interviewees did not touch on the reference.

hah, good catch and guess surmising

7
I'd prefer 24MP and 6fps and more DR over 50MP and 3-5fps and same DR without question.

Although I'd prefer 40MP, 6fps, and more DR and CRISP non-waxy works 4k video and 2k raw video, even more without question  ;D ;D.

(and my last suggestion there really is not unreasonable in any way!

The D810 already does 36MP at 6fps and has tons of DR.

The 5D3 already does 2k raw video with a hack.

Lotsa stuff will do 4k soon and some already does, so for those saying I'm dreaming, well I should not be and don't forget this next camera has to look in a few years still too, if anything my dream is almost conservative at this point so go away Canon apologists who are saying anything more than the same DR, 30MP and 2k compressed video is enough!)

8
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:40:18 PM »

Because, there are survey results 4-5% of customers who bought the kit lens is that it does not use only kit lens.


Would indeed be interesting to see an accurate translation of this. Do 5% never buy another lens? If so that is an amazing stst

I could believe that easily 4-5% never buy another lens.  I know people with DSLRs that bought a kit and are just fine with their kit zoom.  They take pictures only once in a while such as on a trip or at some big event.  It just depends on how much they get into photography.

wouldn't the is does NOT only use the kit lens, imply the opposite though?

9
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:37:46 PM »
Unlike many Google translations, this one is a bit more readable...



Hah, I love how the very first translated word was along the lines of "things to make you worried about these 2 new lenses: they have IS, high quality imaging, light weight.  ;)"

And it got worse from there  ;).

10
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:35:50 PM »
Fine...but which lens was he talking about?  Perhaps the 'high resolution EOS' will be APS-C...

Well the guy was just talking about using adapted lenses on A7R instead of a 5D3 to get higher density and then the Canon guy came back with his statement so I think it implies 95% that he was referring to FF (and 99% once you consider that 18MP is already pretty high density for APS-C and already out there).

11
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel EOS on the Way as Mentioned by Canon
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:23:14 PM »
Oooooooo it's on like Donkey Kong.

12
In the early 2000's I used to use Ebay...a lot.  I gave up on Ebay around 2007 as the fees for listing/selling were too high and shipping is a pain in the butt.  Since then I have used Craigslist exclusively.  I usually get what I want for my gear and have sold numerous cameras this way including: Leica M8, Canon 1DSII, 7D, G12, 20D and numerous lenses.  In addition to selling, I have bought countless gear on Craigslist too which is a nice way to meet other photographers, not to mention try the gear before you hand over your money.

The thing on Craigslist is to sort out the flakes from the people who are serious...also, for Craigslist to be viable you need to live in a populated area (Vancouver, BC is where I am).  No matter what, do not ship to anyone on CL....cash deals only, in person, usually at a coffee shop.

I actually did much better on CL in a somewhat less populated area. Buyers were apt to pay a lot more. In a very large market the buyers seem to be very much wanting to find mega-bargains or else just buy new.

13
You'd think they'd put AFMA in it.  It counts as a good user feature but really it also helps Canon increase user satisfaction by letting owners fix any minor manufacturing boo boos themselves. 

Why wouldn't they do that?  Otherwise most people with slightly out of whack lenses or bodies just suffer with it and tell people their Canon just wasn't very sharp.  Maybe they buy a Pentax next time. 

Then others have to deal with the hassle of sending their body and one favorite lens off for adjustment at Canon which is no fun for either the owner or for Canon, and it is all avoidable if they'd just include AFMA.

If the ketchup companies are smart enough to add "shake well before serving" to their labels, so that the user is more likely to have a positive experience with their condiments, why would a camera maker leave out AFMA?

If I were canon, the thought of allowing afma to the mass population of ma and pa photographers would be terrifying to me and my call centers.  Afma is a great tool for those who know how to use it, but any increase in my call center activity would reduce my profit margin on the rebel line.  Enthusiasts, sure offer this option to allow them to grow with their camera.  Most who can afford a single digit model probably have an idea of what they are doing.  Mainstream usually has no clue what they are doing, but they don't know it.  All they know is that if they screw it up, it would be canon's fault for making such crappy gear and social media would spread that word.

Utter nonsense.

If anything, it might reduce calls, since it is VERY common that lens and body are not matched and at least this might allow a few to get things matched. And it's just NOT rocket science, it's ridiculous how fearful everyone has become of any with a hint of tech over the last couple decades, everything has been dumbed down and then dumbed down some more.

And if someone is not capable of resetting to zero, if they mess it up, then they are not capable of using a DSLR in the first place. I mean how hard is it to simply hit reset or place MFA back to 0? If you can turn the knob to +3 or -3 you can also turn it back to 0.


14
I did a dance recital in May. Sold 40 videos. 1 Blu-RAY.....ONE!!!!! 39 DVDs. these people have a 1080p capable TV but nothing to play a blu-ray on

Sad and absurd. And the same people then go around telling everyone that there is no need for 4k since even 1080p barely looks better than SD.... HELLO because all you ever watch on your 1080P is out dated ancient SD crappy signals! Duh!

DVDs and crappy streaming. What a shame.
For a long time music and audio quality just got better and better, sadly, kids born today will never even know what decent audio and video quality was. They will be lucky to get Betamax quality.

15
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 21, 2014, 02:17:22 AM »
A LOT of primes, 10mm,11mm,12mm,13mm,18mm,19mm,20mm,21mm,22mm,23mm,25mm,26mm,27mm,29mm,30mm,31mm,32mm,33mm,34mm,36mm,37mm,38mm,39mm,41mm,42mm, etc. etc.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 219