November 21, 2017, 04:35:44 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
1


This isn't shocking when you consider how weak the feature set on that body really is.  I'd rather shoot a 6Dm1 - better ISO and DR.

What I find shocking is numpties using adjectives like that about a product that is well designed but seems to have garnered negative press from people whining that a new body does not meet their individual needs.
I think the 6D is a great camera but the mkiii is an excellent upgrade on the tilt screen and improved AF alone. And I cannot believe the acrimony based on little more than hearsay and social media pack mentality, with DR virtually indistinguishable in real world use and a sensor that many who actually paid the money says is much more friendly in post processing.
2
Lenses / Re: Criteria when buying lens
« Last post by johnf3f on Today at 03:50:27 PM »

The one thing I do not want is IS/OS/VR etc. Why? Simply because I have wasted a lot of petrol/time/effort etc going to locations only to have stabilisers muck up my day!

Just my 2p

Your gear list is: Canon 1DX, 7D2, 16-35 F4 L IS, 24-70 F2.8 V2, 100 F2.8 Macro, 100-400 L IS Mk2, 300 F2.8 L IS, 800 F5.6 L IS, Holga Pinhole lens.
How do the stabilisers on your telephotos muck up your day?  Do you turn off the IS on those lenses when you them? I'm not disputing your choice, just that I am just curious as to why you made such a strong statement.

Unfortunately there were no (current at time of purchase) alternatives to the IS versions of my lenses so I had no choice! For reference it will be 4 years, at the end of December, since I have used IS and my results have been better in that time - hence my reluctance to pay for a feature that is of no use to me.

At a recent Canon Day (local camera shop) I had the Canon Rep getting better results with a 500 F4 L IS Mk2 and Canon 5D4 hand held with the IS off. He was a little surprised to say the least but had to agree IS did not help at 1/160 sec and 500mm. Note we were shooting static subjects - moving subjects would have shown a greater difference i favour of IS Off.

The first time I noticed how much IS can interfere was at a Red Kite center in West Wales. On my first visit with my (then) new lens I got a 100% failure rate! Not a single really sharp frame out of about 300. I returned the following weekend with the same gear turned IS off and got about 60% sharp of which about half were really sharp. True this lens had an early IS system but it illustrates my point. Subsequently I noticed no loss of quality on static subjects and the AF was faster so why turn it on? Or fit it in the first place?

These are just my experiences but I am sure others will disagree. I am just glad that I got an instant improvement in my photography for free! Try the Off setting - you may be pleasantly surprised..........

3
Lenses / Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Last post by jaell on Today at 03:40:28 PM »
I'd ask Bryan and Sean about this... your assumption about things being 'uncool' and bad manners is ridiculous imho. They are very easy going people and not so hung up on these minor particulars as your post makes you appear.

They might not care at all, you're right. But by and large, it's very much net etiquette not to post linked images someone else is hosting. Their bandwidth gets eaten up. Which is why so many commercial sites explicitly disallow it.

Given that Bryan has numerous disclaimers up about how much time/effort he puts into the site, and he solicits commissions and even donations, I go on the assumption that it's more polite to not do something that would cost him money (even if it is pennies on bandwidth).

Plus, it's not like it takes that much effort to host an image, or to simply link to the page so the owner gets some page-hits/advertising revenue.

You're preaching to someone who has donated to his site many times. Thanks for the school marm treatment.

Ahh. I didn't realize that if you've donated to a site, you get to make your own rules.

Another poster--not you--posted images hosted by Bryan at TDP. I said, "hey, that's a bit rude. Think again."  And I gave reasons why it's considered bad etiquette, and why it literally costs the image host money. Plenty of forums have rules explicitly forbidding this, and plenty of hosts block images from being posted like that.

You disagree? Fine. You don't think it's rude. And your contributions to TDP allow you to do whatever you want, apparently. I'm not the arbiter of Fairness and Justice on the Internet. I'm just sharing what is common practice.

If your undies are in a bunch about it, that's your problem and not mine, childish insults notwithstanding.

And, given that I'm a college professor, comparing me to a school marm isn't so far off the mark.
4
Landscape / Re: Winter
« Last post by Click on Today at 03:30:01 PM »
Nice picture, dpc.
5
Landscape / Re: Winter
« Last post by dpc on Today at 03:26:49 PM »
Abandoned barn - yesterday morning...
6
It can not import from a camera and came up with a really really lame excuse, I find it insulting, you can control the popup import window both in lightroom and in windows settings.  I certainly do not loathe the import window that pops up when I insert my card into my reader.

There are few ways to do it right, and several to annoy the users. Lightroom under Windows correctly used the AutoPlay facility to let the users configure what they like to do when a card is inserted - and keeps it correctly updated when you update/upgrade LR.

Canon does something silly that multiply the number of devices in the AutoPlay settings - I guess they change something in the firmware with each update that presents the camera as a new device (the Kobo e-reader does that too, for example), and don't clean up previous instances - cleaning it manually require a fairly good knowledge of how it works.

But could be worse - some applications (i.e. the last version of Paint Shop Pro I used) install services or other background application that wait for a card (clashing with the OS facility), or scan continuously looking for new images to add to their collections, often installed without the user knowledge, and just wasting resources.

If they don't know how to get it right, it's probably better they don't do anything at all.
7
That 6D2 deal is shocking.  That camera cost $1999 five months ago, and now you can get it + grip + all kinds of other crap for $1369.

Shocking.

I know the price will spring back up, but this is effectively a margin-free giveaway for Canon to rack up units sold in Q4.  Consider: the remaining inventory of new 6D1s are going for $1269 right now.

- A

This isn't shocking when you consider how weak the feature set on that body really is.  I'd rather shoot a 6Dm1 - better ISO and DR.
8
Lenses / Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Last post by PavelR on Today at 02:18:37 PM »
Nothing from Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. have come close.
You are wrong - Sony 85GM is at least equal to Sigma...
9
EOS Bodies / Re: The 5DsR mk2
« Last post by scottkinfw on Today at 02:17:39 PM »
What is everyone's experience using the 5Ds/r for landscape or wildlife photography?  Can you use it hand-held?  Any reason to be concerned if you are using only L glass?   

I got the 5D IV and returned it as it wasn't a big enough jump over my 5D III.  The extra DR was nice, but not enough to make me pay the original 3400.  I wanted to see if the 5Dsr might be an attractive option for the outdoor photos.  I don't use my camera for videos, but really do want higher resolution as I really value details in the photos I take.  My taste, please no stones...

I'm not expert on the questions, but with that said, the R would not be my first choice for low light, or wildlife that is moving.  Depending on your lens and the lighting, you should be able to hand hold.
Landscape photography typically relies on tripods and filters (though not always), so I would imagine that this is how it would be used for landscape pics.  The high resolution of this sensor screams for the best resolving lenses, so L lenses, especially newer releases would be ideal.  If I misstate anything, I apologize.

Scott
10
Lenses / Re: Sigma 85 looks better in corners
« Last post by slclick on Today at 02:05:36 PM »
I'd ask Bryan and Sean about this... your assumption about things being 'uncool' and bad manners is ridiculous imho. They are very easy going people and not so hung up on these minor particulars as your post makes you appear.

They might not care at all, you're right. But by and large, it's very much net etiquette not to post linked images someone else is hosting. Their bandwidth gets eaten up. Which is why so many commercial sites explicitly disallow it.

Given that Bryan has numerous disclaimers up about how much time/effort he puts into the site, and he solicits commissions and even donations, I go on the assumption that it's more polite to not do something that would cost him money (even if it is pennies on bandwidth).

Plus, it's not like it takes that much effort to host an image, or to simply link to the page so the owner gets some page-hits/advertising revenue.

You're preaching to someone who has donated to his site many times. Thanks for the school marm treatment.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10