April 19, 2014, 09:39:30 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 - jdramirez

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 122
631
Canon General / Re: Canon Hansa
« on: October 13, 2013, 10:38:49 AM »
 no clue,  but that reminded me of kill Bill and the hatori hansa (I could be totally off)  sword. 

 so is it a sword that can take 36  mega pixel images?

632
Avoiding who was right and who was wrong in these circumstances, the Priest should not have made the ultimate threat to walk away from the wedding, no wonder the bride looks mortified, unforgivable

 maybe they,  the bride and groom, will  get something out of it...  like the one couple who got married on the Colbert report.

I don't get it, what happend to the couple who got married on the Colbert Report? By the way, shouldn't a priest be used to camera clickings as his profession comes with this sort of public interest? To me the priests thread to walk away is a "No-Go" in regard of the feelings of the bride. She was for sure shocked and mortified - just at the noment that should be her finest in her life. I feel sorry for her and am missing the priests empathy.

 the government shutdown prevented them from getting married at the Jefferson  memorial...  so they were on a show like today and then on the same trip they got married on the Colbert report.   it was really funny.   I'd encourage you to go see that episode.

633
I was seriously considering  the kenko,  but knowing this might be a possibility lead me right into the arms of  Canon.   pretty sneaky sis.

634
Lenses / Re: How bad is the 24-105?
« on: October 13, 2013, 07:17:28 AM »
 I  was  correcting  my  daughter's 18-55  is lady night...  so  count me in on those who say,  not bad at all,  in  comparison.

635
Avoiding who was right and who was wrong in these circumstances, the Priest should not have made the ultimate threat to walk away from the wedding, no wonder the bride looks mortified, unforgivable

 maybe they,  the bride and groom, will  get something out of it...  like the one couple who got married on the Colbert report.

636
 did this make it to tosh?   it didn't seem that funny... 

637
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 11, 2013, 11:43:56 AM »
DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

Sorry.  You are plain wrong.

The underlying technology came in with the 40D and the 450D.  It was called live view.  It was an innovation for stills users. And one which folk seem to have quite liked, especially the tethering with preview.  Somewhere along the way somebody thought it would be quite an easy firmware ammend to let folks record the live view output.

Blame live view.  I don't recall an attendant rise in price when live view came out.

Video guys reluctantly adopted the 5D2 and then canon gave it decent firmware (after about a year into it's life as I recall) and it's success was assured.  The first out the box usuable at launch video DSLR was the 7D (for serious users, or those in PAL regions) but again that camera had so many new features, both at the price point, and for DSLRs in general, that it would be impossible to isolate the cost for the video features.

As I said, you are plain wrong.  The R&D stage would have been prior to live view.  Bump your gums about that.

 as one who primarily focuses on stills, I  love live view plus manual  focusing.   it is quite literally my favorite  provided I have the time to setup  and my subject isn't squirming around. 

638
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 11, 2013, 10:53:14 AM »
Well, like an earlier poster said...todays Digital Camera really isn't so much a stills camera at heart..it IS a video camera at heart, that is specialized to take good stills.

This may apply to MIRRORLESS digital cameras, but like all SLRS, DSLRs are dedicated stills image cameras, which have been "tricked" into also being able to capture moving images (video) by bypassing the defining elements of any SLR: mirror and optical viewfinder. To get there has caused massive R&D cost. I would prefer if this additional, video-related cost [sensors + electronics to handle video in addition to stills capture] would be unloaded on those people who absolutely want cameras that can capture both video and stills rather than making people pay for it who only want one functionality from their camera. Capturing excellent stills images and having an ergonomical interface that is 100% dedicated to getting those images.

This is why it would be fully justified and perfectly fair, if "dual use, video-enabled" versions of a DSLR were sold 10-20% more expensive than single-use stills-only versions of teh same DSLRs.

And once the clients would be given this choice, it would become very clear that only a very small minority of customers really need the dual functionality and are willing to pay for it (since it is still a lot cheaper than purchasing a dedicated stills and a dedicated video camera) but many more are just clamoring for video in stills cameras, because right now they are getting it "free of charge" [as stills photographers pay for it] and "might need it once in a blue moon".   


I wish i understood your logic. 

 let's say the body costs 3000  retail.
1000  of that is profit for the seller and for Canon.

2000  is left for  the parts  which is broken up into r&d,  manufacturing costs,  marketing,  and parts.

 I'd personally prefer not to pay for the marketing costs.   can we make that happen? 

I don't have a point here...  I'm just exasperated.   I'm getting to see what can be eliminated to bring the cost down  because the parts and manufacturing costs aren't going anywhere.

639
 here's a stupid question...  with sigma suffering  auto focus issues but reportedly great  image quality...  why don't the  manual focus crowd gravitate to sigma as a value option and simply use it as a manual focus lens?

640
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 06:27:21 PM »
Canon should really give us the choice:

EITHER
A)  5D III as is at the price as is (stills + video)

OR

B) 5D IIIs "stills only" version, withall possibilities to output video cut in hardware. Mic disabled, headphone jack soldered close. Record viedo-button freely assignable to anything the user wants, except to capture video. LiveView enabled, as is. Price: 20% lower than version A-, beacuse it offers a significantly smaller feature set.

Similar to many cars which can be ordered as 2WD or as 4WD (at extra cost).

I wpuld bet my life, that the "stills only" 5D IIIs version would sell EXTREMELY well. It would clearly outsell the stills+video model at a ratuio of 3:1 or more. Once people really would have to pay for a larger feature set, they would think twice, whether they really need it or whether their family event videos could not be shot using their smartphone. :-)

Why would the 5D IIIs be cheaper?  The mic isn't expensive hardware and nor is the 3.5mm audio jack.  It may be more than 30 cents, but the ability to do video is software and not hardware as evidenced by the 50D + magic lantern now being capable of video. 

So why would NOT having video reduce the price of the body by $600?

Maybe if you reduced the ram and the buffer and processor speed, but then you probably have reduced performance in AI Servo. 

Maybe the frames per second is reduced by consequence to the reduced hardware... but I think what we are looking at is the 6D.  Which is $1500-2000ish for the body...

I'm not an engineer... so maybe I'm wrong... maybe all the performance of the mkiii can be kept while reducing costs by $600... but I really don't think so.

And would a $2400 mkiii without video sell well... yeah... as evidenced by the 5d mkii and the 6D which both have video and but are considered mainly a camera for stills. 

I don't like Colin Cowherd... but he has a theory about assuming other people are just like you (me).  It is a fallacy.

641
I was just making a simple comment about the analogy to address an issue I don't think you pay consideration to.  Reinz called me out on it, so I restated my opinion.  I'm not nitpicking anything, simply responding to comment made on my post.  Although I continued your analogy, the point of it was still very much on topic.

And your last comment is really an extension of my point.  There are plenty of people out there that just want a simple image to provide an illustration, be it for an article on a sports game, or to get people to come look at a house on the market.  Yes, all the people here probably do spend a decent amount of time in PP, but not everyone cares as much about photography as a bunch of guys that spend their day on camera chat forums.
why would anyone pay for a shot like that, where they could just as easily whip out their smartphone and do it themselves?  What a cake job! Screw this lighting and exposure nonsense just green box - click and send. Done.

Seriously? People pay for that junk? I am working way too hard then!
In India we have lots of weddings (we are over a billion people and premarital sex isn't considered to be a nice thing, however nice it actually feels  ;D, so obviously most of us have to get married, especially if we hope to get lifetime of free sex ;D) and we also have thousands of villages and towns but most couples/families (even in cities) cannot afford to buy even a simple cheap digital camera let alone a smartphone that is capable of taking decent images (even if they could afford a "simple" camera, most folk will only manage to take blurry pictures) ... so they hire a "wedding photographer", now those wedding photographers (believe it or not), use a Canon 1000D or a Nikon D3000 with a 18-55mm kit lens and a very bright/harsh tungsten light, (held by an assistant who gets paid less then $5 and the photographer himself gets less than $25) to take the photos for the whole wedding... now you and I (who are fortunate) might scoff at such a set up, but for the people getting married and their families it is a beautiful memory that they want to capture ... they want to see/show off that memory as fast as possible and the photographer takes it to a lab and gets it printed at a lab, slaps all those photos in a gaudy looking album and gives it to them the next morning ... fortunate photographers like us might look down on such photos, but they are priceless treasures for the couple. So yes people do pay for those photos and they are not considered junk by those who want such photos. Since this is the season of analogies, let me make a lame attempt at one: I might think Suzuki Alto is a junk car but for the person who has saved his/her hard earned money for years to buy that car, it is just as good as a Ferrari.

I don't begrudge people their memories... but I think most of us believe that if you pay good money, $25, you want the best bang for your buck.  And if you get less than what the market warrants, then the customer got robbed... or cheated maybe...

And so here in the states, if the customer pays $1500, you hope they get $1500 worth of competency. 

642
Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Vs EF 24-105mm f/4 L
« on: October 10, 2013, 06:08:15 PM »
I just thought would it be a good idea to buy 24-105mm as I see many people are saying the picture quality is sharp and also there are several sellers selling this lens for $750 and little. So I though of giving a shot ,but before that I want to know from you guys if there is any big difference in picture quality and color contrast etc.

Thanks guys for all your replies and money saving inputs.

Big value inc has sold the 24-105 for as little as 660.  So I say yes at the price.  The 15-85 is held in high regard and I have never personally used it.  But I will say that ef-s lenses I have held and used, like the 17-55mm are nice, but the 24-105 does feel sturdier.  F/4 at 70-105 v. f/5.6 at 70-85 (or whenever it switches to f/5.6) is a full stop of light, so instead of having to shoot at 1/60 v. 1/120 can be a big deal, even with IS. 

The fact of the matter is that both lenses are REALLY good and you may notice a difference, but it probably won't be like when you upgrade from the 18-55mm. 

643
Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Vs EF 24-105mm f/4 L
« on: October 10, 2013, 03:50:40 PM »
 any don't you put the 15-85  on 24 mm  and walk around with it and see if it isn't wide enough.

644
Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Vs EF 24-105mm f/4 L
« on: October 10, 2013, 03:03:19 PM »
 if you like to go wide,  the 24-105  isn't ideal on crop.   but if solid reach,  easily fixed distortion in post, a  constant aperture are your preferences,  then by all means take the plunge.   it is a really nice lens  if you can get one for around 650  or so.

645
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 12:24:05 PM »

 what are they complaining about?  people used to not like seat belts...  but most of them are dead now. 

 is having a cd  player really making people mad?

That cracks me up, really most are dead now?

CD player, in most vehicles you can order it without the CD player. I am sure that there is someone that had to pay for it when it was in a car and they didn't want it.

I was pleased with myself after I  came up with that.

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 122