April 19, 2014, 01:29:10 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 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 122
646
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 12:05:22 PM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

I like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

 ok...  so you have the choice between two cameras.   one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video...  which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera,  you are out of luck if you really want to take video. 

 consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs  and 50d  didn't take video...  and if the competition does do video,  then you are losing market share. 

 it is about staying relevant in the market place,  not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300  and my next car will probably be a  Honda pilot  with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road,  but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension,  four wheel drive,  tires,  towing packageetc.   but  even though people don't  use the extras,  they don't complain about the extras.

Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.

 options v  features... I  say a feature of the suv  is  being a 4x4  with av6  with a tow  option.  an option is leather,  Sun roof,  etc.

 regarding cameras, I  say video is a feature of the device and an option is a  battery grip,  flash,  memory card, etc.
 but we can differ on this... I  don't mind.

You can look at it that way, but I have heard people complain about having to pay for things on their car that they didn't want for years. Longer than the video complaints on cameras.

And I still say I am paying for the R&D of a "feature" I didn't need. (This is starting to sound like an Obama Care discussion)

 it is definitely a semantic argument.

 people don't have to buy a car with options they don't want.  they could get a  completely option free car that barely meets the government's requirements for being a car and then do all the engineering themselves to add  what they want.  but that might cost more than getting a fully loaded car.

 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?

647
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 11:36:08 AM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

I like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

 ok...  so you have the choice between two cameras.   one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video...  which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera,  you are out of luck if you really want to take video. 

 consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs  and 50d  didn't take video...  and if the competition does do video,  then you are losing market share. 

 it is about staying relevant in the market place,  not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300  and my next car will probably be a  Honda pilot  with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road,  but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension,  four wheel drive,  tires,  towing packageetc.   but  even though people don't  use the extras,  they don't complain about the extras.

Those are options. I can add a sunroof at an extra charge on my 4x4, or I can order it without. I can order it without 4x4, I can buy one completely striped down with only the bare basics.

You can not buy a 5D III from your local camera store without video.

 options v  features... I  say a feature of the suv  is  being a 4x4  with av6  with a tow  option.  an option is leather,  Sun roof,  etc.

 regarding cameras, I  say video is a feature of the device and an option is a  battery grip,  flash,  memory card, etc.
 but we can differ on this... I  don't mind.

648
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 11:19:57 AM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

I like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

 ok...  so you have the choice between two cameras.   one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video...  which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera,  you are out of luck if you really want to take video. 

 consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs  and 50d  didn't take video...  and if the competition does do video,  then you are losing market share. 

 it is about staying relevant in the market place,  not about increasing cost.

First I am out and about and I need to take video. I am not out and about to shoot video, so most likely the video I will take will be from my iPhone.

Staying relevant in the market place? Probably

Not about increasing cost? It does increase the cost of DSLR's, that have to make up the R&D money somewhere. It is about increasing cost to those of us who do not need it.

So to Canon it was about staying relevant. But the effect on us that did not need it is we pay for the R&D.

if I may... I had an Lexus rx 300  and my next car will probably be a  Honda pilot  with all the bells and whistles and the optional machine gun turrets...

I occasionally go off road,  but not nearly enough to warrant the added cost of the increased suspension,  four wheel drive,  tires,  towing packageetc.   but  even though people don't  use the extras,  they don't complain about the extras.

649
the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af  on  all,  excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8,  decent bokeh,  but better on the 1.2,  but no is.

 so what I want is to buy a 1.2  or 1.4 50mm  that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh...  and I really want af  and I can do without is,  but I'd like that too.   sho Canon needs to get off their duffs  and make that happen...  and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.

The 50L is not a compromise. Apparently, IS on f/1.2 is technically impossible now. The 50L is designed for bokeh, not for sharpness. Even Zeiss says that you cannot have both (in their "bokeh" document).

 I've heard that from multiple sources,  but people  live the  Canon 85's   and the 135 L for their sharpness and the bokeh...
 and the sigma 35  gets a ton of praise for being sharp wide open...  and I  know we are  comparing apples to  oranges,  but I just can't seem to accept that it  has to be one or the other

650
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 10:17:03 AM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

I like my video cameras to take video.
I like my still cameras to take still pictures.
I do not like paying the extra money for the R&D to turn my DSLR in to a video camera that I do not need.
You had to buy a $3000 body because of the extra costs to make it shoot video. It wouldn't be a $3000 body if they had left it stills only.

 ok...  so you have the choice between two cameras.   one is cheaper than the other but doesn't do video...  which means of you are ever out and about and you only have a stills camera,  you are out of luck if you really want to take video. 

 consumers decide every day based on this option back when the xs  and 50d  didn't take video...  and if the competition does do video,  then you are losing market share. 

 it is about staying relevant in the market place,  not about increasing cost. 

651
Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:44:20 AM »
I used to love video,  cutting something boring into something interesting,  but then hd  video came along and my computer was under powered and my  programs no longer worked...  and it was such a time cost to edit... I  still do some video, but mostly just small cuts,  and rarely do I ever shoot at the highest video quality because I don't like throwing clips into the garbage,  but I also don't want a 5 gb  file that is really just trash.

652
 the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af  on  all,  excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8,  decent bokeh,  but better on the 1.2,  but no is.

 so what I want is to buy a 1.2  or 1.4 50mm  that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh...  and I really want af  and I can do without is,  but I'd like that too.   sho Canon needs to get off their duffs  and make that happen...  and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.

$4000  is out of my price range...  at  the  moment  but I don't begrudge others who are willing to throw down the cash. 

653
Technical Support / Re: Faulty CF card? Advice needed...
« on: October 09, 2013, 11:26:32 PM »
I have the Lexar 8GB CompactFlash Memory Card Professional 800x UDMA
800x Speed Rating
Max. Read Speed: 120MB/s
Max. Write Speed: 45MB/s
UDMA 7 Compliant

and I'd like to upgrade to the

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1003353-REG/sandisk_sdcfxs_016g_a46_16gb_extreme_compact_flash.html

or the

SanDisk 16GB Extreme Pro CompactFlash Memory Card (160MB/s)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1000361-REG/sandisk_sdcfxps_016g_a46_16gb_extrm_pro_compact.html

but I'm cheap... and so my problem is determining whether it is actually worth it for me to upgrade... and I keep leaning towards no...

So I'm kinda the same way about wanting to save money... but I buy the cards that I trust... but I also don't buy the card because I'm cheap.

654
Reminiscent of automatic/manual transmission discussions over the years.  As in - why would you every buy an expensive car with a manual transmission?  ::)

I don't like the fake manual transmissions.   it is like driving an automatic with more work to do. 

 give me a stick shift, a  clutch,  and a babe at my side...  or on my lap.

655
 back when I had an xs, 50 f1.8  and other entry level lenses, I  remember hearing about the 135L  and it's price tag and saying I would never be in the market for one of those.   And it doesn't even have image  stabilization.  I  still don't own one,  but five years later,  I'm in the market.

I  have the same reaction about this...  how much?   and it doesn't even have auto focus? 

656
Asking a digital photog for unedited images is like going to restaurant and asking the chef to take a steak out of the freezer and slap it straight onto a plate and serve it up.

Well he didn't have to cook it so it's cheaper, right?

No. You pay for the steak AND the cooking of it.

It's nothing like that, unless you were in the market for frozen steak.  Perhaps a better analogy would be a steak at a fine restaurant and a 'tube steak' from Weinerschnitzel.  I'm not going to eat the latter, but someone out there does, or they wouldn't be in business.

I agree with your philosophy, I don't even let my wife have photos off my camera for her Facebook until I've done my thing, but I'm not here to put my philosophy on others.  There are plenty of run and gun markets out there, from Sports guys, to the ultrabudget Realestate guys, to journalist, to business planning types, to even - sadly - wedding photographers.  If a market didn't exist for them, they wouldn't be out there.  I think there's a better way to do it, but if it works for them who am I to tell them otherwise.

 don't disparage Weinerschnitzel... I make a point to eat there every time I go back to my home town...  and of course I realize why I left.

657
Lenses / Re: Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM Announced
« on: October 09, 2013, 11:09:47 AM »
 interesting.  I  always held the 55-250  in  high regard  for its price. 

658
Technical Support / Re: Faulty CF card? Advice needed...
« on: October 09, 2013, 11:06:13 AM »
a long time ago I bought an sd card off eBay and it was so slow to write...  and while it technically worked,  it was a piece of trash.   so that was the last time I got a memory card from any other place than a gold standard.   Heck... I  don't even trust transcend  unless it is free  and even then...  it  doesn't ever see the light of day. 

659
Lenses / Re: Used gear
« on: October 08, 2013, 09:34:19 PM »


Regarding CL, I think that depends a lot on where you live since most transactions are carried out in person. In my area there is typically very little quality DSLR gear on CL, but if you live near a major metropolitan area you may have better luck.

I mostly agree.  But in the past year or so I have sold 100mm f2.8L's... 70-200mm f2.8L USM, 70-200mm f/4L USM, a 24-105mm f/4L, and then some entry level gear like a t3i, t4i, 60d, 55-250, 70-300mm, and a 75-300mm. 

And I have seen other people selling a 70-200mm f/2.8L usm, a 5d mkii, a 580 exii, a 50D, a 430 exii, a t1i, a 60mm macro, a 17-55mm, a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii, and some other stuff that doesn't immediately come to mind. 

And I live in Central PA... which I would not consider to be a big city area. 

660
Lenses / Re: Used gear
« on: October 08, 2013, 09:20:48 PM »
Can used lenses be trusted? where are the best places to get used gear?

Yes and no.  Depends on the source.  Adorama and B&H offer a 3 month warranty on used gear.  I bought a 430 exii from bandh and it was pretty beat up, but in perfectly fine working condition.  I kept it for about a year or 18 months and I was more than happy with it. 

I have gotten a few things from canon directly through their refurb program... all of them are either new or so close to new it is hard to tell that it isn't (though there was a small piece of lint in the felt).  They can be a pain because they will cancel your order and not tell you, but that doesn't happen all the time... just more than any of us would like. 

I have also picked up a few things from craig's list.  I usually check auto focus, listen to the motor to make sure there isn't any sand or grinding.  look at both exterior elements for scratches, look for interior dust... but more often than not, people are like me, just selling stuff they don't want/use anymore... and more often than not, are looking to upgrade. 

Pages: 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 122