March 06, 2015, 01:33:22 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 - miah

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 06:16:58 PM »
IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude.

Good ol' pdb might be very direct at times, but he's also very helpful. I guess there's a lot of different approaches to what is polite and what's not, and in this case the paper bag analogy made me laugh :-)


Laugh? It might be funny if it were relevant. I was clearly pointing out the need for Adobe to give users a choice in how their GPS data is entered and displayed. PBD then rudely claimed that anyone desiring such an option must be directionally challenged. Oh well, I guess like taste--there's no accounting for "humor."

2
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:39:16 PM »
Either way, if you prefer typing ""37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W" have at it, all I'm asking Adobe to do is give us a Preference to choose the format each individual prefers working with.

Actually, it would take very little to support both format inputs without even requiring a preference to switch between them. Just look at what the user typed, and treat it accordingly.

You make a good point. Rather than a Preference that would require one type of format input, it would be nice if Lr accepted any legitimate format input, then automatically converted it to a Preference-delineated format. That way when you're scanning over your meta-data, all the formats would be the same.

3
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 20, 2015, 04:20:35 PM »
I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.

Maybe, if you are not trained in writing them, but they are nowhere near as easy to find on a map or chart.




Are you kidding me? I can type an N and a W as well as anyone, but why would I subject myself to having to type "37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W", as Lightroom 5 now requires, versus "37.663056 -105.829167". Both formats get you to the exact same spot on any map, but the latter is far, far easier to input. I'm sure this is why Google Earth and many other apps and GPS units use Decimal Degrees as their default GPS format--and why it's so unbelievable that Adobe has thus far forced us to use the anachronistic Degrees, Minutes, Seconds.

Either way, if you prefer typing ""37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W" have at it, all I'm asking Adobe to do is give us a Preference to choose the format each individual prefers working with.

Don't you estimate your travel time or pace based on the fact that a nautical mile is worth 1' of arc along a meridian. I always do...

Obviously he doesn't. It is the same with people that rely on GPS and those that had training on actual paper charts and maps and can find their way out of a paper bag without some AA batteries.

IMG_0001 was cleverly joking, you, privatebydesign, are simply rude. I continue to travel all over the world sin GPS, but I prefer to catalog my photographs with location data attached. If you neither travel, nor choose to join the 21st century, nor have any desire to geolocate your photos, whatever, but don't denigrate my worthwhile comments about Adobe's upcoming Lr6 release--which last time I checked is what this thread is supposed to be about--with your condescending drivel.

4
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 20, 2015, 03:01:31 PM »
I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.

Maybe, if you are not trained in writing them, but they are nowhere near as easy to find on a map or chart.

Are you kidding me? I can type an N and a W as well as anyone, but why would I subject myself to having to type "37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W", as Lightroom 5 now requires, versus "37.663056 -105.829167". Both formats get you to the exact same spot on any map, but the latter is far, far easier to input. I'm sure this is why Google Earth and many other apps and GPS units use Decimal Degrees as their default GPS format--and why it's so unbelievable that Adobe has thus far forced us to use the anachronistic Degrees, Minutes, Seconds.

Either way, if you prefer typing ""37°39'47" N 105°49'45" W" have at it, all I'm asking Adobe to do is give us a Preference to choose the format each individual prefers working with.

5
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 18, 2015, 10:39:30 PM »
I'm hoping we get user preferred GPS formats in Lr 6. Decimal Degrees are SO much easier to type and read.

Photoshop has a steep learning curve and isn't for everyone, but there isn't another product on the market that even comes close to its capabilities. I use it. I love it. And I have no problem paying a mere $9.99/month for the latest versions of Ps and Lr.

Those who moan about the subscription model have never sat down and done the math: $9.99/month is CHEAPER than buying "stand-alone" versions every year or two or even three, divided by the months of use. That said, it does seem like Adobe should offer a less expensive subscription to Lr by itself, for those who don't need Photoshop.


6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 06:43:40 PM »
It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

AlanF, just curious, I know you own the 300 f/2.8. Since the new 400 DO II is only $300 more expensive, do you feel the 300mm is "so expensive," as well? In other words, how do you rate the relative value of these two lenses, given their fairly large differences in focal length, aperture and weight--but relatively small difference in cost?

I'm looking to step up from the 400L f/5.6 primarily because I want IS, and I'd certainly appreciate that extra stop. I could get the new 100-400L II, but since my lighter and more compact 70-300L is my go-to travel lens, I think the 100-400 would remain parked at 400. For these reasons, price aside, the new 400DO II is awfully appealing.

Finally, CR claimed the 400 DO's were going to start shipping on Dec 18th, but I've yet to see one show up anywhere online for sale. B&H shows two "user reviews," but Adorama and Amazon show none. LensRentals says you can pre-reserve one, so they don't have one yet, either. When Canon originally announced the lens, it was supposed to start shipping in Nov 2014, but thus far seems like vaporware. Has anyone heard anything about Canon's actual ship date?

Sorry, I missed this post and apologise for the delay in answering. The price for the 400 DO II at Wex in the UK is £6999, that for the 300mm/2.8 II is discounted to £4899. So, there is a huge price differential here.

Even if the price were the same, it would be a difficult choice. Firstly, the weights are pretty close, 2350g vs 2100g, and they are both amazingly sharp. Secondly, you have to balance how much you would like 300mm at f/2.8 vs 400mm at f/4. Thirdly, I would guess that my most used combination would be either the 400+1.4xTC or the 300+2xTC, with little too choose between them. However, I have been playing around with the 100-400 II plus 2xTC using live view at f/11 on the 7DII, and am very impressed with 800mm!

Having the 100-400 II does confuse the issue even more. I would dearly like to have the DO as well, but it would be difficult to justify for a second-rate amateur like me.

Thanks, AlanF. There's a lot of confusion when talking about the relative prices of these lenses in this thread, because forum members live in so many different countries and are offered these same lenses at disparate prices. Here in the USA, the 300 f/2.8 is $6599 and the 400 DO II is $6899. With only a $300 difference between the two of them, I had to ask if you feel they're both "so expensive." I appreciate your clarification.

I am really liking the looks of this new lens, and feel that it would be a better fit for me, given I'd typically use the 100-400 II racked out to 400 for wildlife. The extra stop is to die for when the light gets low. And the squat size and shape simply appear like it would be easier to hand-hold for longer periods of time. Now, if we can only get to see some in stock, somewhere!

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 17, 2015, 11:39:19 AM »
Wow, the 400 f/2.8 seems to sell for a LOT less in Great Britain. The review's author states that the 400 f/2.8 is "slightly more expensive" than the 400 DO II, or $1164 US dollars more. But here in the US, the 400 f/2.8 is $3600 more than the 400 DO II, $10,499 vs $6899.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 17, 2015, 10:55:49 AM »
It is a superb lens - pity it is so expensive.

AlanF, just curious, I know you own the 300 f/2.8. Since the new 400 DO II is only $300 more expensive, do you feel the 300mm is "so expensive," as well? In other words, how do you rate the relative value of these two lenses, given their fairly large differences in focal length, aperture and weight--but relatively small difference in cost?

I'm looking to step up from the 400L f/5.6 primarily because I want IS, and I'd certainly appreciate that extra stop. I could get the new 100-400L II, but since my lighter and more compact 70-300L is my go-to travel lens, I think the 100-400 would remain parked at 400. For these reasons, price aside, the new 400DO II is awfully appealing.

Finally, CR claimed the 400 DO's were going to start shipping on Dec 18th, but I've yet to see one show up anywhere online for sale. B&H shows two "user reviews," but Adorama and Amazon show none. LensRentals says you can pre-reserve one, so they don't have one yet, either. When Canon originally announced the lens, it was supposed to start shipping in Nov 2014, but thus far seems like vaporware. Has anyone heard anything about Canon's actual ship date?

9
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
« on: January 14, 2015, 11:14:11 AM »
Further, adding the TC to the 100-400 on the 7DII is a waste of time as the degradation of image and increase in noise nullifies any increase in resolution.

Thanks for your analysis, AlanF. Question: I find the 7D2 + 400 f/5.6 prime + 1.4x TC III to yield quite acceptable image quality. Have you experimented with this combo? I ask because I'm considering the 100-400 II and may trade my 400 prime as part of the deal. I could use my 5D3 + 100-400 + 1.4x, as you do, but would hate to lose the use of my 7D2 (higher FPS, better AF, etc.) when employing the TC. I'm shooting wildlife, including birds.

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 06, 2015, 09:32:43 PM »
If it doesn't infringe or it merely "infringes" an expired patent,

You can't infringe an expired patent.


Obviously, dilbert, that's why I put "infringes" in quotes.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 10:33:44 AM »
Design patents are valid for 20 years (in the US). I'm not saying it's right or wrong but any company can clone away if they choose.

Technically, Design Patents in the USA are only good for 14 years; it's 20 years for the stronger Utility Patent. And while a company can choose to "clone away" if it likes, doing so will open them up to a lawsuit for damages and lost sales from the patent holder.

This discussion is meandering a bit. First off, no one here, myself included, seems to know for sure if Yongnuo's 35mm lens actually infringes any of Canon's patents or whether or not Canon's applicable patents have expired. If it doesn't infringe or it merely "infringes" an expired patent, then Yongnuo has every legal right to offer their 35mm lens for sale on the open market and I'm glad they will.

Healthy competition gives rise to better products at more reasonable prices. My only argument is that the patent system--though seriously in need of a 21st century revamp--serves the very valuable purpose of incentivizing companies to push the envelope. Take away the profit motive--and progress will slow to a crawl.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 10:02:37 AM »
Miah
  I understand and agree with your view; apart from the YN-E3-RT my gear is all Canon or Sigma.  But I was very frustrated to find that the Canon RT transmitter locked me out of a lot of the higher functionality of the device (and had less options), mainly because I only had a recent but not current camera body; so yes, in protest I voted with my £.  I only hope that the YN-E3-RT proves to be reliable, and that canon updates this product giving me a fist party option in the future.

And right you were to vote for the third-party option, 300D, when Canon refused to offer the product you desired! That's the free market operating as it should. And if we're lucky, and Canon is smart, they're listening to the ways in which we're "voting."

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:58:44 AM »

So basically you are saying that without competition Canon will produce innovating products at a good price.

How is that working out? Nobody is better then Canon in any areas?

Also, didn't Canon start by coping German camera manufactures products?

Patents don't preclude competition, far from it. They merely incite law-abiding competitors to find another way to skin the cat. And as far as price is concerned, if Canon or any other patent-holder doesn't offer their product at a price the market will bear, their patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Consumers--like ourselves--tell Canon everyday whether their prices are too high by voting with our dollars, as I said.

With regards to knowledge being cumulative, you're right. Just about everything we use today had some prequel or long series of prequels that led up to the device we own, just as there will be a long line of sequels that follow it into the future. Patents don't give anyone a monopoly; they give the innovator a deserved head start.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
« on: January 05, 2015, 09:17:32 AM »
Students win!

This is short-sighted thinking. No one wins when primary design work is stolen (although in this case, as pointed out earlier, Canon's patents may have already expired). Without a company--Canon, Apple, [insert innovative company here]--being able to reap the rewards of their labor, investment and risk in R&D, they will have no incentive to develop better products. The patent system, though flawed, was created for a reason. It rewards innovation by giving the innovator a protected and relatively short period of time to establish their brand/product before everyone else is free to copy their design. If the design is good, and people are willing to buy it at the price offered, everyone benefits.

We vote with our dollars. I prefer mine to finance innovation and reward the risk takers.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 09:15:25 AM »
Hello everyone.

First of all, let me give you my congratulations to everyone, it´s my first post, but i follow this forum for quite a while, and i really like to read your opinions either i agree, or not. I´m sorry for any mistake in writing, i speak better english than i write.

My name is Peter i am a wildlife photographer in Portugal and i really feel the need to write in this post, because i own the new 7D markII for a couple of days and i tested it in a very harsh environment with fog and in almost no light.

And the camera went in a superb response! Auto focus is incredible even in very dificult conditions, and ISO gave me very good photos at iso 2000. I am not a pixel peeper, i don´t make comparisons, i don´t study at the minimun detail pixels or IQ, first of all i need to get the picture!! And in that field the 7D markII is superb.

I also own a 5D markIII so i was kind of expecting this behavior, but it really pleasured me.

I think some people are being very infair reviewing this camera. First of all, let´s not forget, it´s a 1600$ camera! Expensive? I think it has a quite reasonable price for what it delivers. But i think people is demanding things to this camera tha you can achieve in a 6000$ camera...Not real! And most part of the people who criticizes want everything in a 1600$ camera. They want an aps-c with 40MP, with iso capability of 25000, they want the camera to fly, they want the camera to be perfect...and that´s not possible...at least at this price.

And then, there ar very people who´s talking bad of this camera because they didn´t understand what is the target of this camera! If i want a Wedding camera i take my 5D markIII! If I want a low light camera, or a landscape camera I take a Canon 6D, or a 5D markIII. 7D markII it´s NOT a walkaround camera. His purpose is to get the photo in fast action! It is made for wildlife and sports!!

I heard some talks about softness in image in this camera. So let me say again...if you are putting side by side canon 1D X or canon 5d markIII sharpness although it´s unfair, yes it may be not so sharp. But if i put you 2 photos side by side in good light conditions, of 5d markIII ad 7D markII without 100% zooms without all those tests you´ll never figure what the machine took the photo!! And that´s real world photo!

What concern´s me a little bit is it seems Canon is loosing something for Nikon and Sony in Image quality overall...that´s a real concern.

So this post is not scientific, nor trying to prove anything, it´s just my opinion that people are being unfair reviewing this camera. Yes, it´s not perfect, but for wildlife or sports? It´s awesome and if you don´t get the shot it´s your fault!

BTW - If you use ISO 2000 and you make a 50% crop, Of course you´ll get noise, but that´s not camera fault!!

"If you're pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough" - Robert Capa


Thank you everyone and please continue, i really apreciate all off your posts!

Welcome to CR, Go Wild; your post hit the nail right on the head.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11