July 31, 2014, 04:49:56 PM

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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 40
EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 15, 2014, 11:17:16 PM »
...has a special "cat mode" for taking pet pictures...

I have a friend who could really use that.  She takes cat pictures by the hundreds!

To be fair, she owns a pet-sitting business and they're 'look, Fluffy is doing fine' pics for the vacationing pet parents, but still...HUNDREDS OF CAT PICTURES!!!

For 18 hours a day "cat mode" is the same as "still-life mode."   :D

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:16:16 PM »
Looks like Canon is pasting feathers on a turkey hoping it will fly.  They ought to lay off the whole group that
worked on this - and then fire the management team that approved it.

So, what you're saying is that if you don't like a particular product, no one else will want it?  Wow, with marketing insight like yours, I'd think companies would pay you piles of cash to help them develop their products.

In case you've been too lazy to read, there are several people on this forum, including serious pros, who like their M quite a bit. 

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:56:04 PM »
...the mirror assembly has been a very effective kluge for several decades

I'd hardly call it a kludge..
You caught me, I should have put a smiley face next to it.  I meant it as hyperbole/humor.  Those things don't translate to the Interwebs very well.  Yes, it has been effective tech for its time.  It will be replaced, eventually, by  more effective tech.

.that term more accurately applies to current EVFs, with their low resolution (you can see individual pixels with the naked eye), poor DR, etc. 
I was clear that current EVF tech is not yet a suitable replacement.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:17:21 PM »
You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

It's amazing how people keep saying things like this even though the mirrorless market has failed to materialize in the U.S. and Europe, and is still a side market in Japan.

And this is coming from someone who loves his EOS M, wants to see more EOS M bodies and lenses, and thinks mirrorless in general is underrated by the public.

The DSLR isn't going any where, and Canon's profits will continue to come from brisk Rebel sales.

I'm not saying that current tech is good enough to replace the reflex system right now, or even next year.   However, a modern SLR with live view is almost exactly the same as a MILC plus a mirror plus an OVF.  As AF, EVF and battery issues are addressed, what manufacturer would choose to add costly and redundant mechanical parts to its products?  In other words, the mirror assembly has been a very effective kluge for several decades, but it's time to move on.  The only question is how long it will take for each of the different lines. 

If Canon develops live view AF that rivals their PD AF, you can bet they'll get that tech into the next 1-series body as fast as they can: what sports shooter would not want the ability shoot at 30fps with continuous AF?  They'll have Nikon shooters switching in droves.  (yes, I know the current sustained fps bottleneck is memory throughput, but mirror movement is also an impediment)

As for EVF lag, the eye itself has a 100ms lag.  There's at least one MFT EVF today that has only 30ms lag.   If you cut that to 15ms you'd probably not notice any lag.

We can't predict exactly when the tech will reach the level needed to fully replace reflex, but the days of the mirror are numbered.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:16:41 AM »
Canon may be strong in certain markets, like DSLR's. But in the mirrorless market they are sorrily outclassed by "lesser" companies like Olympus, Panasonic and now FUJIFILM.

Outclassed in what sense: sales, or a product that you want to buy at a price you can afford?  As Neuro said above, they seem to be doing just fine in sales.  Canon is a for-profit company, not a patron of the arts.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:02:48 AM »
The EOS-M was the best that Canon, with all its superior resources and technology, could come up with.

Nope, it was the best they chose to put on the market.  We have no idea what their technical limits are.  I'm at a loss to understand why people think that companies always put their best product on the market.   This is certainly not true, especially for a company in Canon's strong position.  No way, no how.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:59:53 AM »
Depends on how you define "future."   ;)   Canon has told us the future is video camera with a small, ultrahigh resolution sensor, a big zoom lens, phenomenal image stabilization, and frame grabs for still images.  Of course, as a video camera it fits your definition of mirrorless…

"Mirrorless" is generally taken as a shorthand descriptor for the class of cameras known as MILCs, compact system cameras, etc.  If you're going to use a term in a way that differs from convention, it's helpful to provide your definition at the outset.

Both reasonable points.  Not only does tech evolve, but markets evolve as well.  Yes, I was fuzzy with my definition, but that's because futurists have a habit of predicting a better version of what we have right now, rather than something we didn't know we would prefer.  Sure, MILC dominance may be a little further away, but there's a lot of variation and selection that will occur in the next few years, and we may find that the MILC we thought we wanted looks retro-futuristic compared to what becomes available, like a video camera with frame grab.  My general point stands: it's in Canon's interest to stay in the M-market, even at break-even or loss, to make sure they're ready for the evolution of both tech and market demands.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:13:34 AM »
...mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

Is it?  Mirrorless meant the 'death of the dSLR in five years'.  That was seven years ago.

Depends on how you define "mirrorless."  I define it the simple way: no mirror.  The mirror will go away.  When?  I'm willing to speculate, but not predict, and it will be an evolution, not a sudden event.  We've seen some great AF advances lately, and the battery life issue is just a matter of continued incremental progress.

Are you willing to assert that there will still be a large market in reflex cameras in twenty years?

You may have been trying to suggest that, even if mirroless is the future, profit is based on nearish future, not far future, and Canon could afford to delay M- development until it's closer.  That would be a reasonable argument, but you didn't make it.  Instead you argued that "people were wrong before about mirrorless, therefore..."

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:30:16 AM »
Who cares? Just give us ONE camera

You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.  Success of mirrorless mean more ¥¥, which means happy executives; and happy executives means (at least in Japan) more R&D ¥¥ for the full camera line.  Canon cannot succeed financially by producing just the camera equipment you want at a price you are willing to pay.  You should cheer every successful Rebel and PowerShot if you want more R&D for DSRL-type equipment.

Photography Technique / Re: Missed opportunity
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:05:09 PM »
"Still a nice memory recorded. "

When photographers (and I am not saying that you are one just using your post as an example) say "nice memory" I want to drive to their house and throw a Nikon through their window... Detest that phrase..

Just saying is all...

also nice snapshot for 1/125


funny....i kinda like the phrase. 8)

I agree, and I'll take it one step further: in the vast majority of cases, "nice memory" photos will far outlast  "art" photos.  All but a handful of "art" photos will die soon after the photographer, if not before, while memory photos live on.  Abstract photos, in particular, have a very short shelf-life.  Think of photos of significant people or events of the 1800's: in most cases, the image quality is crap, and the posed shots are often laughable by today's standards.  It's their historic value that breathes life into them. 

There are certainly a few art photos that still give me a "wow" reaction, but I'll generally take a good (not great) memory photo over "art," so long as it comes with a good story.

I try to take "art" photos, as does nearly every photographer.  I am well-aware, however, that these photos are primarily for my own enjoyment, and there may be no one else who finds them the least bit interesting.

Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.

I'll take that as a compliment...so, thank you!

In part it certainly is.

I have no idea why you'd come here to show off, but it seems clear that you did. 

I would offer a variant of Hanlon's Razor:  Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by human imperfection.  OP's somewhat haphazard post is fully explained to my satisfaction by human imperfection.  I don't see the need to poke him.  If it was intentional then it didn't work, and I bet he's got the clue by now.

Neuro, you are quite the contradiction.

I personally hate weddings.  I had a bad experience once at one... and yada yada yada... the bride still lives in my house and nags at me on a daily basis.

I saw the punchline coming, and it still made me laugh.   :D

I totally agree especially when you say:

[Think a lot of the comments here are fuelled by "professionals" feeling a bit insecure about second shooters :P ]

There are few professional wedding photographers on this forum and few in this thread.  Rather, I think a lot of the comments here are fueled by people with a moral compass.  I'd trust a lawyer for legal guidance, but not for ethical guidance (and I wouldn't trust a law student for either!).

Frankly, your original post and subsequent comments (including the ones that are obvious backpedalling) say much about your sense of ethics.

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt: I don't think he backpedaled so much, as filled-in more details that were missing in his OP.  My guess is that he thought he understood that he had rights, and was seeking a price.  After some discussion, he may have learned that his assumptions may not have been right.  He dealt with it.  Being wrong happens to every human every day.  The question is how you deal with it.

And also Fir - just because something is "legal" doesn't make it ethical. 

This is an unfortunate confusion that many lawyers have, it seems as though many law schools actually teach that nonsense.  Some lawyers will eventually outgrow it.

It take a certain moral ambiguity to represent a murderer, rapist, or tax dodger... but I think we are starting to digress about what is wrong with the legal profession... Keep in mind you don't want to be guilty of a crime and your lawyer throws you under the bus.

I have friends who are criminal defense lawyers; and I detect in them no moral ambiguity at all, they're some of the kindest people I know.  The attitudes I hear are: defending the US Constitution, making the prosecutors do their jobs (perform due diligence) and try to prevent the defendant from being convicted beyond actual culpability.

Outside of their work you'd never know they were lawyers. And yes, they're good at what they do professionally, they just know how to separate work from non-work.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 40