January 31, 2015, 03:50:32 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 - Orangutan

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 55
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 17, 2015, 09:20:46 AM »
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?


I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one.  The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data.  I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions.  Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion.   I'll let you read the Wikipedia article on it.


Quote
And let me pose some questions for you...
- how would flickr introduce bias?  I'm not saying they're introducing it, I'm saying they don't have enough data to eliminate pre-existing bias in their data.
- what does flickr have to benefit from bias? Again, I'm not saying it's intentional, I'm saying it's unavoidable due to the data they have.
- what outcome would flickr see as a result of it being biased?  Actually, I don't think they were trying to be biased: they were very clear about what they were trying to do and how they did it.  I simply believe there is insufficient data to go beyond what they've done to draw any conclusions about what future cameras purchases people are likely to make.

Answers to the above are in-line in blue.

In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."

What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 10:11:44 PM »
but if the sample set size from flickr is large enough (for example their entire userbase)
I think this is the problem: for the sample to have any validity at all it needs to be a representative sample.  The point I'm making is that, regardless of size, there's insufficient information in Flickr's data collection to infer beyond the Flickr user base.

Quote
So whilst all of the above issues you mention may be in flickr numbers, there is no way to account for them specifically and similarly there is no reason to expect that they would favour or disadvantage
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.  In order for a statistical sample to be valid, you have to be demonstrably confident that it isn't skewed.  While the Flickr survey is interesting for what it is, it simply doesn't contain enough data, and there are too many confounding factors to allow me to exclude the risk of bias to use it to infer camera ownership and/or recent purchase.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 09:46:03 AM »
Wow!

So much wrong on the survey! No idea what the methodology is.... Is it counting by pictures or by owners, what about multiples, why is only 42.1 % of the cameras in the " big 5 ", how many were undetermined, what is the margin of error, what  is the sample size, what is the accuracy? 

You can't say anything significant from the results, so why bother reading conclusions from it?

Agreed. Any conclusions are made on some rather large assumptions.

When people post Amazon listings showing Canon camera sales rankings, does anyone question that? No, everyone just cares about what the ranking numbers are when in fact the same questions could easily be asked of Amazon's reporting.

Dilbert, since you seem to be sincere on this point I'll try to explain why the data from Flickr are not definitive.

First, the good: they're careful to explain what they counted: "We estimate camera ownership per-week by only counting a camera once per-account, per-week, to compensate for community members uploading different quantities of photos."  OK, that much is good

Because they use metadata from images, the method has some problems:

  • They may have more than one camera, e.g. DSLR plus iPhone.  We have no idea in what order their cameras were purchased, so we can't infer their "upgrade path."
  • The photos posted to Flickr may be different from the photos posted on their portfolio site; e.g. SmugMug or Zenfolio, e.g. casual vs. serious photography.
  • We don't know how may of the counted Flickr accounts are paid vs. free,which would likely correlate the kind of camera used.
  • We know nothing of how well Flickr users represent the broader "market" of serious photographers: are they the serious ones, or is Flickr just a step up from FaceBook?  Certainly there are some great photos on Flickr, but are they the rule or the exception?
In short, the data are "accurate" for Flickr users, but we have almost zero correlation to the greater market due to the confounding factors.  I.e., we can't use these data to tell what kinds of cameras people want.



Regarding Amazon: Amazon's sales rankings are hourly (that's a problem); however, when multiple snapshots are taken over time, it can provide a reasonable pictures of Amazon's overall sales, though not perfect.

  • Though Amazon is not the only online retailer, they're huge.
  • Amazon's market tends to be the general online-shopping community: there's no reason to believe they're a niche camera retailer, so their sales numbers are likely a good approximation of the purchase habits of the online-purchasing market.
  • There are probably a good number of people who like to buy local rather than online; I have no idea what  fraction they comprise, but I know that a lot of local camera stores have closed over the last decade.
  • Amazon is not a true global seller, so is best a representative of the U.S., and other markets only to a lesser extent.
  • Amazon's rankings represents sales of cameras, period.  No inference of camera from image.

In short, Flickr can't be used at all to infer what cameras people want and will pay for.  Amazon data, though far from perfect, goes some distance to that conclusion.
I hope this helps.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 14, 2015, 12:05:31 AM »
.
Flickr is a graveyard -- has been for some good time now.

I have no interest in the shovels they are using to dig the graves.

The woman running Yahoo kills everything she touches.

Got some real examples, or just feeling a bit misogynistic?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-07/google-loses-most-u-s-search-share-since-2009-while-yahoo-gains.html

20
Sports / Re: Critique My "Running" Photos?
« on: January 12, 2015, 12:05:49 PM »
My sports photography experience is very limited, so take this for what it's worth.  With any photo you need to decide what you intend communicate with the image.  In sports there are typically a small number of ideas to be communicated:

  • the competition itself -- so you would show two runners in proximity, or one runner crossing the finish line, and attempt to convey the feeling of active competition.  Frame this large enough to show the competition, tight enough to avoid distractions
  • the emotion of the athlete -- tight crop on the face or body (parts?) showing the physical and emotional exertion
  • a specific incident that's an important part of the narrative: e.g. when two runners accidentally step on each other, causing a stumble, or the moment a sprinter clips a hurdle, etc.   Crop just wide enough to get the context, without over-cropping that hides the specific incident
  • coach/fan/bystander reaction
Good luck, and keep shooting and critiquing your own work.  Also study other photographs you like and try to figure out what you like about them.

21
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: January 10, 2015, 10:04:29 PM »
shot one handed as the chickadee swooped past...

That f***ing COOL!

22
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 10:03:08 PM »
<Outside of Sports, fast moving wildlife, candid shots, and anything moving auto focus is over rated.>

So basically, sports, weddings, wildlife, candid shots.  OTHER THAN THAT, AF is over-rated.

LOL.

Perhaps I should have put a sarcasm tag in there so people could get the inside joke.  Most of my photography involve slow to non moving subjects.

And there's no problem at all with that.  Be aware, however, that you're in the distinct minority who can benefit from lens adapters.  Because of that, you should not expect any camera/lens maker to cater to your needs, pace Zeiss.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 09:26:36 AM »
My key point - to which I stick - is that Canon cannot be happy with their current DSLR sales and thus should be strongly motivated
This applies to all of the manufacturers, not just Canon.

Quote
regain ground by coming out with a 5DIV that outshines Nikon's D750 and D810.
The current 5D3 mostly does that now, from the business perspective.

Quote
we can all let our money do the talking.
Yup.

Quote
Happy Shooting!
Cheers.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 09:22:03 AM »
I must confess: not based on financial statements, just guesses pulled out of the aether.  The only point I was making was that y/y losses were only relevant in comparison to competitors' financial health and the overall  market.
Impressive
Random.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 08:48:28 AM »
the fact that Canon suffered double digit falling DSLR sales in 2012/13 and again in 2013/14.

How did that compare to their competitors?

Blank... if you read my post all the way it continues: "I do not know how Canon is doing measured on market share".

Then why did you write "I expect Canon's board members are seriously unhappy with the fact that Canon suffered double digit falling DSLR sales in 2012/13 and again in 2013/14?"  That is an utterly meaningless (even deceptive) statement without comparison to other vendors. If I'm on Canon's board and our DSLR sales drop 15%, but Nikon's and Sony's drop 25% then I'm probably satisfied that the company is doing well.

May I suggest some light reading?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

What a useless and uninformed comment is this? Why don't you just check up on Canon's financial releases?

Since you bring up uninformed, have you checked their most recent financial information?  I suspect he did, or he's a very astute guesser.  What he stated that I highlighted above is almost exactly what they report – Canon a y/y drop of 15% on ILC/lenses, Nikon a y/y drop of 26% ILC/lenses. 

I'm sure neither board is particularly pleased given the overall situation in the industry (as the CIPA data show), but Nikon's board has the added displeasure of watching their recent gains in market share erode and the gap between their sales and those of the market leader – a gap they have failed to close for 11 years – begin to widen again.
I must confess: not based on financial statements, just guesses pulled out of the aether.  The only point I was making was that y/y losses were only relevant in comparison to competitors' financial health and the overall  market.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 08:37:56 AM »
There are to my knowledge no available 5DIII sales numbers. But since you have seen reports on 5DIII sales I strongly urge you to share them here since people are very eager to know the numbers.
I believe you're correct that the manufacturers don't release sales numbers for individual models.  I don't recall where, but someone did an automated series of snapshots of Amazon's top-selling DSLR list.  Since these are updated hourly no one ranking is significant; however, the trend over time was that the 5D3 was ahead except for bumps right around the release of each D8xx model.  Even now, with the 5D3 being rumored for replacement, it's two spots ahead of the cheaper and better-spec'ed D810, and just one notch below the new and well-regarded D750.  (again, this is an hourly snapshot, so YMMV). 

I think everyone wishes we had that data; however, barring the assistance of the the DPRK we're not likely to see it.  Inferring from retailer information is all we have.

Quote
What we do know is that Nikon said that their sales of interchangable lens cameras went up 50% 2012/13 (not specifying the D800's contribution to this). During this time Canon's DSLR sales fell from 9.2 mio units to 8.0 mio units (again no info on the 5DIII's contribution).
Different fiscal years.

Quote
That Canon "was stunned"  is a subjective interpretation of Canon's situation in the days after the launch of the D800.
Thanks for the clarification; however, I repeat that if they'd been stunned they'd have dropped the price of the 5D3.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 10, 2015, 01:11:47 AM »
Canon was stunned when Nikon produced the D800 at a lower price than the 5DIII. I am certain Canon is doing everything they can to reverse that situation with the 5DIV

FP!!   :o :o :o

Where did you get that information?  If that were the case Canon would have lowered the price of the 5D3.  The reports I've seen suggest that the 5D3 vastly outsold the D800 line-up.  It's much more likely that the D750 was produced to play catch-up with the 5D3.  The D800 was (rightly, I believe) praised as a studio/landscape specialist camera, but I believe the 5D3 ate its lunch in the overall market.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:31:24 PM »
the fact that Canon suffered double digit falling DSLR sales in 2012/13 and again in 2013/14.

How did that compare to their competitors?

Blank... if you read my post all the way it continues: "I do not know how Canon is doing measured on market share".

Then why did you write "I expect Canon's board members are seriously unhappy with the fact that Canon suffered double digit falling DSLR sales in 2012/13 and again in 2013/14?"  That is an utterly meaningless (even deceptive) statement without comparison to other vendors.  If I'm on Canon's board and our DSLR sales drop 15%, but Nikon's and Sony's drop 25% then I'm probably satisfied that the company is doing well.

May I suggest some light reading?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle

29
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:26:41 PM »
That's all I need to read.  Look at the sales numbers, not social media.

OK. Canon DSLR sales are nose-diving since 2012/13... and your conclusion is... ???

How did they do relative to ILC sales of other manufacturers?

30
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2015, 07:31:23 PM »
Out of curiosity - why does every "new canon camera coming" thread turns into a Sony debate?

Of apples and oranges, and why I love both.

Because some people become angry that Canon apples don't taste like oranges.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 55