Messages

166

Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Landscape - Post Here.

« on: October 21, 2011, 11:52:36 PM »

Two rivers meet

167

Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Event Photography - Post here.

« on: October 21, 2011, 11:50:28 PM »

Event

168

Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Black & White - Post Here.

« on: October 21, 2011, 11:49:04 PM »

 B&W

169

Lens Giveaway Contest / Re: *Contest* Abstract - Post Here.

« on: October 21, 2011, 11:46:13 PM »

Abstract

170

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?

« on: October 21, 2011, 04:12:18 PM »

Thanks for the comments, and also for the link.  I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.  Unfortunately, I think this thread is dead -- would be nice to have some folks tell stories about how they became interested in photography, and how they developed their photographer's eye.

171

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?

« on: October 18, 2011, 10:45:46 PM »

I known some posters here do not believe in talent is being burn with.

You may be talking about me; if so you're partially correct.  I think this discussion is fairly important because these ideas affect the way we move through life, and how we treat others, as well as how we treat ourselves.  I absolutely agree that we're born with differences.  Some you mentioned above, others I'll note here: 
 

• Some males are born with a genetic condition that gives them a diminished ability to distinguish between green and red
• There is speculation (so far, I believe, not accepted by the scientific community) that some females are born with an enhanced ability to discern color.
• Some are born with hearing deficiencies, or even completely deaf; others have conditions that give them superior hearing (e.g. Williams syndrome)
• Some are born with genetic defects that prevent them from developing full cognitive abilities, e.g. Down's Syndrome or autism. (Yes, I know autism isn't purely genetic, but there's a strong correlation)

 But the notion of "talent" does not refer to a mere enhancement of one, or even a small number, of normal abilities, it is much more complex than that.  For most people, "artistic talent" refers to some predisposition towards creating works that are perceived, by a subjective audience, as having certain very desirable qualities.  Let me motivate my argument with a few examples:
 
 

• Consider some of the "talented" 20th century abstract painters: how would their works have been perceived in, say, pre-Renaissance Europe?  They would have been considered childish scratchings, and the "artists" would have been advised (or compelled) to take up another line of work. 
• How about the singing of Robert Plant?  Is that talent or noise?
• How about the many artists who were not beloved until after their death?  Their contemporaries judged them to be without (much) talent.
• Now how about yourself, Rocky: I gather from your writing that you're not a native speaker of English.  (Let me digress briefly to say that I wish I could write in any foreign language as well as you write in English.)  Do you write English imperfectly because you don't have talent for it?  How about me?  I don't speak, for example, Mandarin.  I could probably learn some, but would never be fluent enough to pass the "telephone test."  Do I not have a talent for it?  If you had been born in an English-speaking country, you would be fluent, and I would be fluent in Mandarin if I had been born into that language.

 
That's enough preamble, now on to my argument: as a practical matter, "talent" is merely a skill that you learned without knowing it.  Could there be some genetic predisposition?  Quite likely, but we have no way to know.  Because the final product is such a blend of innate ability, early learning, developed skill, life experience, opportunity, and even interest, there is simply no way to extract that element called "innate talent," and hold it up to the light for all to admire.  In a sense, "talent" is only recognizable in hindsight.  If we see someone who creates a piece we like, we can say he is "talented."  If we see a child who shows promise early in life, but never advances beyond a certain stage, we can say "he wasted his talent."  The problem is we really don't know either of those for certain.  Furthermore, if we see a middle-aged woman who has struggled and given great effort to create art, but never succeeded, we may say she lacks talent.  But what, then, if suddenly she starts to create high-quality work?  This does happen, though not frequently because many would eventually give up on something they find too challenging.  Would we then say that she always had the "latent talent" (I just love that anagram) but needed the opportunity to express it?  What if she had died or given up before she developed those skills?  She would have been judged to be without innate talent.
 
To repeat and summarize: as a practical matter, the judgment of talent can only be done in retrospect, as in "he has not yet shown talent for photography."  You can't really say "he will never..." because there are some people who do show ability later in life.  Furthermore, if you now ascribe to those late-bloomers the quality of "latent talent" then you find yourself in a logical fallacy.  (This particular fallacy is known as the "no true Scotsman fallacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman)
 
Why is this important, and why have I wasted half an hour writing about it?  Because art is about enjoying and appreciating life, in its many different aspects.  It simply does not matter if a certain person doesn't create admirable or compelling photographic images, it's only important that he/she enjoy the process of trying.  Personally, I believe most people are born with "artistic talent," but circumstances take each in a different direction.  As regards photography I'll repeat a quote someone else posted recently:
 
"A camera is a tool to teach you how to see without a camera." Dorothea Lange
 
Really, that's what matters.
 
 

172

Canon General / Re: Canon EOS 1D X Press Release

« on: October 18, 2011, 12:14:22 AM »

That is what I was wondering about.  Do you need that much power to process 18 MP raw files at 12 FPS and if not, what could the rest of the grunt used for.

Processing the crap out of video.  How about non-line-skipping video anyone?  Rendered from the full raw image.

173

EOS Bodies / What else will they do with that 18MP FF Sensor?

« on: October 17, 2011, 11:57:47 PM »

Would be a shame to see it go in just one camera.  Maybe this will give us the "split" 5D that's been discussed: an "entry-level" 18MP FF, plus a high MP direct competitor to the upcoming Nikon D800.  Of course, it won't be exactly the same sensor, but a "reduced-performance" variant.

174

Canon General / Re: Canon EOS 1D X Press Release

« on: October 17, 2011, 11:15:21 PM »

>new professional flagship model

Well, that settles it: there will be no 1Ds.

175

EOS Bodies / Re: The New EOS [CR3]

« on: October 15, 2011, 09:46:37 AM »

there can be all kind of other noise sources..

I think the "rumor mill" is our primary source of noise right now.   


No, really, it's funny how people keep looking at this like a Rorschach test, seeing exactly what they want to see.  Instead, look at it from the business perspective, not the aficionado perspective:

• The 5D2 damped 1Ds3 sales, which means that high IQ is more important than build for that segment, though some still need the build.  How many former 1Ds3 buyers bought two 5D2's?  A question will then pass through an executive's mind: how much more would folks pay for the 5D3 before they start losing sales.  I.e., what's the "sweet spot" of (higher margin) x (lower volume).  My guess is that it's somewhere between $3K and $3.5K.
• Reasonable success of 1D4, even compared to 5D2 and 7D, means there's still a profit to be had.
• The 7D has been very successful, so it will be continued.

If I'm a Canon marketing exec, I'm going to re-structure my entire line around my cash cow, the 5D3, as follows:

• 5D3 will be high res, high IQ, studio, landscape, wedding camera.  It will have improved build quality, but not 1D-level.  Optional "armor" might be sold for it to accommodate trips to Antarctica.  Whether it has improved (7D-type) AF or vastly improved video (i.e. no rolling shutter) will depend on whether they intend to offer a new top-of-the-line camera...ever.  They can't make this decision until competitors release their products (RED, Nikon D800).  That's why we won't see the 5D3 or possible 1Ds for a month or two, at earliest.  I doubt the 5D3 specs have been finalized, but it's probably narrowed down to two or three possibilities now.
• 7D2 will be the reasonable evolutionary advance from the 7D, and will likely announce after the Nikon D400.
• (*EDIT*) It's possible that the 1D5 will be the new video standard-bearer, and the 5D3 will not get a revolutionary video upgrade. 
• New 1Ds?  Depends on the competition, and whether Canon thinks there's enough market.  If so, it will be over-the-moon tech to separate it from the 5D3, and have an over-the-moon price.  Don't bet on it.

176

EOS Bodies / Re: MP/ISO

« on: October 12, 2011, 12:37:23 AM »

I'd like to offer a hypothesis that might explain both sides of this disagreement: when it comes to tiny electronics, smaller structures are harder and more expensive to make than larger structures.  I'm willing to accept what Neuro (and others previously) have explained regarding overall sensor size.  Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that, at the same price point, a small-photosite sensor can be made as "clean" as a large-photosite sensor.  In short, I think it's a manufacturing issue, not a theoretical issue.  I'd believe that you could make the two equal if you accept a higher per-unit cost on the small-photosite sensor.  It would be nice to hear from EE's who've worked on related tech.

I'd love to have a  high-MP, low-noise sensor, but I doubt I could afford it.  For now, 18MP is enough for me, but I still want lower noise.

The idea that smaller pixels mean more noise is commonly held, but in fact, it's wrong.  If you take a single pixel in isolation, it's certainly true that a smaller pixel has lower full-well capacity, less sensitivity, and more noise.  But people then assume that means that a whole sensor composed of smaller pixels will have less sensitivity and more noise than a sensor with larger pixels, and that is the false assumption.

177

EOS Bodies / Re: The True Cost of 36mps'

« on: October 11, 2011, 08:36:46 PM »

This question has been so well-flogged on this site (and probably others too) that we ought to add it to a ForumFAQ (along with the question of why Canon won't release the new hardware I want right now.)

Let me summarize:

• Camera manufacturers are for-profit companies.  Their product choices are based on maximizing profit, not maximizing happiness of the consumers.
• Tech development proceeds irregularly for each of the various components of bodies, so new tech is not all available at once.
• So far, no manufacturer has been able to design a set of cost-effective, interchangeable, cafeteria-style  components.
• Manufacturers need to balance the components in new bodies to achieve maximum profit.
• Since there is a demand for increased pixel counts, that feature will be factored into their business equations.
• The high-speed, sports/PJ-oriented 1D-series is a special case, since the users of these bodies can't sacrifice speed for pixel count.  Pixel count is already adequate for their special needs.

As a side note: it's possible that some image processing is non-linear, e.g. requiring calculations with an area of surrounding pixels.  Perhaps someone who knows about image manipulation math can enlighten (ahem...) us.  Aside from that, storage and speed keep getting cheaper at a faster rate than does pixel count.  It's the cost of the activity -- we just have to deal with it, or use older equipment.

Handling a single file isn't the problem, it's hadling 500+ of the things

178

Lenses / Re: TS-E 24mm f3.5LII vs TS-E 45mm f2.8

« on: October 07, 2011, 09:23:31 PM »

Rent both to try.  Then, either buy one, or keep renting as needed.

179

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?

« on: October 03, 2011, 08:36:27 PM »

Really good photography comes from talent and that can't be learned. Just like you can't learn to be a great painter.

Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.

• Would you care to provide some proof of this?  Show me some well-designed scientific studies to show that people cannot "learn" or "develop" ability as artists.
• Define "talent."  If you consider it innate, please explain how degrees of talent can be distinguished in newborns or toddlers, and how early identification of talent can be correlated to great work later in life.
• How would you classify someone who started painting only late in life (as my great-grandmother did in her 70's)?  Would you say that was latent talent or developed skill?  How could you tell the difference?  Or would you simply manipulate your definitions to suit?

While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever doomed to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.

180

Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?

« on: October 02, 2011, 09:46:23 AM »

Just curious: how many birds-in-flight pictures did Ansel Adams take?  Sports?  Weddings?  Family vacations?  My completely amateur opinion is that it's a question of matching the equipment and photographer's skill to the subject at hand.  Get the equipment you need for your subject, then learn to use it well.

Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.