November 28, 2014, 01:22:18 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 - dstppy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 64
31
Reviews / Re: Camera Store Trashes New G7X
« on: October 20, 2014, 11:53:59 AM »
I'm confused; how can Canon fark up a point-and-shoot.

Is this actually shooting worse than the S1xx pocket cameras?

32
Macs are indeed more expensive, they do break, and when they do break parts are more expensive. Good luck with your software running 4 years from now, IE: let's see if cs6 will be running on whatever OSX apple releases then but I know for sure it will still be supported on Microsoft win X release by then.

I've got no problems with 2008 iMac and Mavericks . . . did you read any of the other parts of my posts?

1) Hardware matters, get good hardware
2) Don't put crap software on your computer and it won't bog down

I wasn't crapping on Win7, just stating that it's not quite as bad as you're making it out to be. *sigh*

33
No, Windows is never cheaper.

Ahahahahahaha

I built my windows machine for $600 including SSD, processor, MB, RAM and video card. I didn't use bleeding edge components but it can do anything I can throw at it, fast.  Granted, I had some components from my previous build but that's part of the cost savings of upgrading. Even without that, you can get a ripper bare bones system for under $1000 that will do virtually anything you want it to.  A comparable Apple system will cost you 2-3 times as much for the priviledge of a glossy white bezel. Unless you are doing a ton of video or 3D rendering or some such, there is no reason for anyone to absolutely pay for the top end current system and no reason at all to pay a premium for style.

AFAIK, bezels are all black, if they have them  :o

I meant you pay it all back, every bit, in time, troubleshooting or virus scans, but you can take it at face value, tell me: what were the Motherboard and processor brand/specs? Video card?

I'm guessing you are, in reality, choking at the bus, meaning you're not getting your full worth out of the SSD speed and a Hybrid drive's speeds would suffice. Ran into that with lower-end macs/PCs.  When you group-process a set of 300 RAW in LR (not really a huge load), that's when you start hitting transfer limits and slowdown starts.  I'm sure what you've got will do that fine enough, but push it beyond that where there's a lot of read/write going on and you'll see what I'm talking about (or not, if you're just going to go the route of saying that anyone buys one for it's bezel).

The two 'over-charge' in Macs is that:
1) they use laptop components, which are, yes, smaller, but more expensive
2) The monitor because it's built-in, not as high-end as the highest-end IPS monitors, but better than the $175 ones you get

If you take the entire post I had at face value, you'll see that the argument that savings on cheap hardware is paid back somewhere else, usually in user time.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 17, 2014, 01:22:02 PM »
It all seems a bit absurd. Camera manufacturers have seen their market absolutely crushed by devices that offer instant editing and instant connectivity to the internet, yet they have almost universally been painfully slow on the uptake. It's as though they are incapable of comprehending that the features that have caused an exodus from their devices might actually be features they should consider improving upon.
I think the interface between a non-phone camera and the Internet will occur, but it will be a mirrorless camera manufacturer (or a creative software developer), not Canon or Nikon, that does it.  I keep thinking about Kelby blabbing on about how a DSLR like the 7D2 cannot do this.  That's BS.  It can be done.
Seems more a question of usability.

I'm by no means anywhere near a pro, but my pride won't let me release ANYTHING that hasn't been looked at up-close on a large monitor.  Further, if I put up more than one shot of an event, it really needs to "tell a story", the pictures need to give each other context.  Self-consciousness won't allow me to 'just put what you have up there' as I've been begged, because their perception of my photographic skills are really a combination of not just what I take and how I take it, but my post-processing skills and visualization of the event in my mind. 

If "the bride" desperately needs facebook photos ASAP, then what's to stop the photog putting up the same crappy pictures (somewhat less crappy) with their iPhone?  That's not what he's there for.  If that's what she wants, maybe "Uncle Bob" with the DSLR should have shot the wedding.

I just don't see the specific need in-camera.  Like the people that don't want a touch screen or flip screen etc. to drive the price up, why do we need that?

--------------------------

Bit of a tech-rant here now, at least in the US, "Getting to the internet" isn't exactly as ubiquitous as it reportedly is:
Cellular companies are capping data/playing games with streaming and charge a lot, coverage isn't always great.
WiFi really depends on someone having a GOOD connection and then offering it to you. If it's free & open, it's usually slammed by tons of people connecting. Uploading any decent content is complicated.
Home/Business (non-peering) connections are starting to preference their traffic.  If you download too much, you suddenly see yourself slowing down . . . sometimes you're told so overtly.

That aside, Cameras are hardware; most of us shoot RAW who are serious about what we take (professional or not) and don't even use the in-camera JPEG rendering.  Why require a software solution in-camera?

MiFi Card or just a card Reader and a powerful laptop with your choice of softare, if you have an internet connection, you can do this.

-----------------------

In closing (maybe I should have led with this and skipped the rest), if "Pro"s are being 'crushed' by my iPhone 6+ (which could crush a squirrel if I dropped it!), then "Pro"s are not needed.  Someone who wants a 'selfie wedding' shouldn't get a Photographer, and we should be grateful for that.

35
I did the exact opposite. I dumped apple in 06 because of them being like apple is. Out date the hardware and software over a short period of time forcing users to buy new machines. IE: G5 iMac users at the time when apple moved to intel.

OSX is free now but before adobe and apple have this thing where the newest abode software required the newest OSX,  which meant another reason I'd have to get a new machine just to run  new version of PS. For what reason? I saw windows users being supported for XP for eons but 10.4 tiger now lacked support?

I knew of a print shop still running CS2 creative suite because he bought a slew of G5 Imacs but didn't want to upgrade because now he'd have to buy all new machines. He eventually moved to win7 machines and never looked back knowing he'll get software support for years.

Apertures user got left hanging, FCP X had a backlash, Mac pro users no longer can use PCI peripherals internally anymore (pro audio cards) and now have to buy external solutions, and the list goes on and on.

However, OSX is a very beautiful OS.  It's fast and efficient but so is win 7. For me, I loved apples design of software and hardware together for a time but now they dropped the software part for professional users. What's the point?

BUT, you must admit the IBM -> Intel switch was a one-time thing.  The only people that say you have to upgrade is your software vendors.  When Apple got rid of Rosetta, they finally had a fully 64-bit OS.  The biggest complaint about windows about people who understand what is going on under the hood (other than the fact that the registry even exists) is that there's so much legacy garbage moving forward.

Honestly, if the shops had even tried to upgrade those G5s when the new hardware came out and sell the old, the transition wouldn't have cost that much; it's not the same thing as 'investing' in PCs.  First of all, we're talking 2005; if they're high end ones and still working, they are still worth around $200.

For a business (and even at home) it's not a one-time purchase.  If you need high-end machines, you're better off either leasing or building your own and constantly swapping out parts when new technology comes out, that way you can sell 'last years' model for a nominal difference.  Macs are like High-End video cards: there's a used market and the value drop is pretty predictable.

The problem is, even in the company that I work, they don't treat hardware as a rotating cost, and use older equipment until it literally dies, then sometimes repair it.  If they were to analyze productivity loss over the years, they'd realize that keeping hardware at the front of the curve is much cheaper than using it until it dies.
Wintel machines are simply cheaper, run just as good or better, and don't have the BS apple and their devs have for the abandonware for older OSes. Not saying that wintel machines haven't had abandonware but I you can't say that Microsoft is as bad as apple in ditching there support for previous OSes or devs for ditching older releases of windows. It'd be financial suicide to not make software for Windows 7 being now it's replacing XP in market share. Which is great for me the end user because I know my software will be supported for years.

In short, apple lost me years ago. I see no reason to return.
[/quote]

I have no contention that you are lost, nor that you should return.    Just that this is no reason that anyone should avoid Apple.

No, Windows is never cheaper.  You buy a machine that's not going to be miserable to use in one year, and you're starting at $1000 -- every time I look at the cost of a new machine, I consider the switch to Linux, then spec myself up a $1600-$1800 and see there's no real savings if I want to do large throughput. Good hardware is the staple of a box.

Abandonware as you call it is what it is -- crappy developers wanting to one-off and not have an actual product.  Mavericks, love it or hate it, got rid of a lot of crapware.  No one wanted to deal with Sandboxing, but that is one bridge EVERY OS manufacturer has to build, cross and burn. Developers that assume they will always be able to have write access to system areas are just lazy.

After I really moved to a Mac, figured what I could and couldn't live without and got used to it, it actually became much clearer:
When you buy a machine (Windows, Mac, Linux), only use (install) what software is absolutely necessary, your OS won't suffer as much, and your user experience will be much cleaner.  I have arguments at work all the time with vendors that insist we must "install" something on the Windows boxes.  Since adopting those policies, Win7 has been almost as good as the macs (though nothing as reliable as Linux, which has it's issues with inflexibility).

36
You'd have to lay out some money but have you considered virtualization?   A virtualization environment is one

Virtualization is the last thing you should consider when image quality is your aim. Virtualization usually menas your expensive video card(s) are not used directly by the best OS driver written by the video card maker, but trough some software layer. It could also impact monitor calibration, etc.

For imaging, forget virtualization and use your main OS - but for running non imaging software which for any reason can't be run on the main OS.

+10

If anything, I would say use 2 HDD (Hybrid SSD/HDD are a good compromise price wise).  Put OS & programs on Disk 1, Put all settings/storage on disk 2 (workspaces, that sort of thing).  Every two years, make up your mind to either upgrade the OS (clean install) or do a clean install of your existing OS.

Even macs get bogged down over time.  Last few machines, I did manual settings migration; the machine is much faster/cleaner.

37
I have been a Canon user my entire life.  I love the product, including DPP which is my RAW converter of choice.

I presently shoot with a 1D Mark IV and a 5D Mark III, which are fully supported by my present version of DPP.  The 7D Mark II requires that I update my DPP.

Here is my problem with that.....

The newer version of DPP does not support my operating system.  I run Vista 64.  Updating my operating system requires that I go to Windows 8 which needs a clean install.  Huge job.  Also, I'm not sure that a lot of my current software will run on Windows 8.  I have CS4 as well as plugins such as NIK, Neat Image and a slew of other free standing applications.

As much as I was not comfortable with the user interface of Lightroom when I tried a demo last year, I thought I would now have to go that route.  Guess what?  Right.  It's now only available under CC and I refuse to rent software on a monthly fee basis which is why I still run CS4.

I'm 72 years old so I guess my 1D4 and 5D3 will have to do me the rest of my life or until my computer cr@ps out and I have no choice.

All Canon had to do was continue to support the operating system and I would have added a 7D2 to my bag.

Okay..... rant over.   :D

sounds like a good time to switch to apple

i was a long time windows user and bought the mac due to superior build
still ran windows via bootcamp for a few years while i adjusted to it now i still have windows 7 via parallels for
the very rare occasion i need it but now i could imagine going back to a windows os

it did take me a couple of years and lots of swear words at apple to get used to mac os though so its not as straight forward as the marketing BS suggests. And every time i hear someone say mac just works i want to stab them. As macs do crash and although far less frequently than windows but its usually a spectacularly annoying crash when it does happen.

I have used windows 8 on my parents computer and it really is so badly made i just want to throw the thing out the window its that frustrating.
I did the exact opposite. I dumped apple in 06 because of them being like apple is. Out date the hardware and software over a short period of time forcing users to buy new machines. IE: G5 iMac users at the time when apple moved to intel.

OSX is free now but before adobe and apple have this thing where the newest abode software required the newest OSX,  which meant another reason I'd have to get a new machine just to run  new version of PS. For what reason? I saw windows users being supported for XP for eons but 10.4 tiger now lacked support?

I knew of a print shop still running CS2 creative suite because he bought a slew of G5 Imacs but didn't want to upgrade because now he'd have to buy all new machines. He eventually moved to win7 machines and never looked back knowing he'll get software support for years.

Apertures user got left hanging, FCP X had a backlash, Mac pro users no longer can use PCI peripherals internally anymore (pro audio cards) and now have to buy external solutions, and the list goes on and on.

However, OSX is a very beautiful OS.  It's fast and efficient but so is win 7. For me, I loved apples design of software and hardware together for a time but now they dropped the software part for professional users. What's the point?

BUT, you must admit the IBM -> Intel switch was a one-time thing.  The only people that say you have to upgrade is your software vendors.  When Apple got rid of Rosetta, they finally had a fully 64-bit OS.  The biggest complaint about windows about people who understand what is going on under the hood (other than the fact that the registry even exists) is that there's so much legacy garbage moving forward.

Honestly, if the shops had even tried to upgrade those G5s when the new hardware came out and sell the old, the transition wouldn't have cost that much; it's not the same thing as 'investing' in PCs.  First of all, we're talking 2005; if they're high end ones and still working, they are still worth around $200.

For a business (and even at home) it's not a one-time purchase.  If you need high-end machines, you're better off either leasing or building your own and constantly swapping out parts when new technology comes out, that way you can sell 'last years' model for a nominal difference.  Macs are like High-End video cards: there's a used market and the value drop is pretty predictable.

The problem is, even in the company that I work, they don't treat hardware as a rotating cost, and use older equipment until it literally dies, then sometimes repair it.  If they were to analyze productivity loss over the years, they'd realize that keeping hardware at the front of the curve is much cheaper than using it until it dies.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 04:02:44 PM »
I happen to think that any camera manufacturer and any photographer who sticks their head in the sand and pretends that social media is some passing fantasy that is only for the "Hello Kitty" crowd, as you so disparagingly refer to it, is just asking to be put out of business.

I think you meant, "fancy" but the typo is appropriate.

I know a few people that "used to" be active on Facebook, and who now use it very rarely.  I just skipped the intermediate step.

+1

I'm so cutting edge with my tech, I skipped Twitter/Facebook.

People constantly question me about crap that someone further up posted on facebook page but not on our homepage . . . makes my head hurt.

39
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 16, 2014, 03:58:45 PM »

My point was that most of us could easily classify most cameras pretty quickly as pro or non-pro by looking at the features ...

Only non-pros care. For some non-pros the right tool is a camera that makes him/her feel like a pro.

Quote
This is true across many fields. Experienced, sophisticated users understand, appreciate, and exploit the special features of higher-end tools ...

I always thought that middle-aged men bought a Red Porsche because they were trying to impress younger women. Now you inform me that they appreciate Horsepower & Handling ;)

Working at the capital of Porsche purchases in the Northeastern US, most people either buy the brand either simply to impress other people (not necessarily the other sex) or for the actual performances.

A Red Porsche just says "Ticket me"; most tend to be Black or Silver in this neck of the woods, the occasional White or Yellow do show up.

Now, Ferrari, that is what is used to attract younger women of a certain inclination.  There's absolutely no secret or shame from those that do.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 16, 2014, 11:01:07 AM »
That was my point, I don't see any intentional crippling.  People griped about it and it got re-added

People complaining had nothing to do with it, or they could have simply re-added it with a 60d firmware upgrade. But of course they didn't because they removed it to protect the 7d1 in the first place..

The reason why it has been re-added to the 70d would be because they added other crippling (removal of spot af from the 7d1->70d) and the 7d2 is so much better than the 70d that Canon seems to see no harm in giving afma to the 70d. Of course afma isn't in any Rebel, people griping or not...

Two completely different animals.  The only people that cross-shopped these two (after trying them) were those that needed a 60D and had way too much money on their hands.

If you think that adding MFA would have endangered the 7D sales . . . I think you've made my point.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:27:06 PM »
Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW.  Comments like these don't make sense at all.

Your sensible opinion is very much appreciated - I should have amended a :-p to the above comment. That doesn't affect the gist of my argument though, but please do feel free to elaborate your thoughts in your own, well placed words.

I see no crippling.  I also see no mass-exodus, nor do I feel people using their (already very good) gear are uninformed about it.  What's wrong with a 7D? A 5Dmk2 (slow AF obviously)?  The 5Dmk3 was everything we wanted except price; I paid $500 more than for my mk2 and have been happy with it.

The lady I sold my 5Dmk2 to seemed exceptionally happy with it, and the price.

Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->
Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?

Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW.  Comments like these don't make sense at all.

You mean the 60D had no MFA.  Feature returned in the 70D!  (pg 377, user manual)

That was my point, I don't see any intentional crippling.  People griped about it and it got re-added.

When a new battery comes out, you see people immediately jump to the "They're screwing us on accessories" posts . . . except the existing battery had been used in tons of other cameras.

I see no conspiracy.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:53:48 AM »
Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->
Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?

Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW.  Comments like these don't make sense at all.

43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 11:50:55 AM »
- high durability
- high frame rate
- high performance, highly configurable AF
- mirror lockup
- high dynamic range
- better noise performance
- 100% viewfinder
- usability features (e.g. extra buttons/wheels/etc. that make it fast and easy to change settings

I would opine that there are some professional photographers who don't need this.  Studio product photographers who have absolute control over the subject and lighting and plenty of time, for example.
It's like asking for IS on a Tilt-Shift lens . . . or a truck-bed on a Ferrari.

High-Reliability (not exactly durability) seems, to me, to be the only real requirement, aside from the obvious things like MFA, full manual operation etc, and as good specs as regular consumer stuff . . .

Formal Portraits aren't Candids, Landscape isn't sports . . .

44
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 04:58:11 PM »
....The truth is, if you can't take a good picture with a 6D you're not a good photographer.

+1 ... BUT that statement might make you a DSLR snob unenlightened in the ways of mirrorless and possibly unsympathetic to those who cannot afford the 6D and/or somebody will retort that if you cannot take a good picture with a (pick any one pocket camera made in last 4 years) that you aren't a good photographer ...

Agree: Most post-IS P&S were awesome, the HS ones are for sure, but honestly, once I start farking with the cameras like it's a DSLR (advanced mode etc.) I can't seem to get it right.  No problem on DSLRs. 

I'm still surprised they do a new set of models every year . . . seems like they could easily skip a year and leapfrog features.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:31:28 AM »
I thought from the first that the crippled AF of the 6D made it a misfire.  Despite the chorus of defenders, Canon agrees!  Its AF was inferior to that of the 60D, for cryin' out loud.

Citation required.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 64