 |
kimvette
Lives in
Boston area USA, MA, United States
Works as a
video survillance systems, information technology
Has a website at
http://www.kimvette.org/
Joined on
Jul 12, 2007
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Marques Lamont: An interesting question I have is this:
In general, how much do you plan on spending on photography per year?
I think this question will make things a bit clearer.
I take it that many here don't plan on spending more than $500 per year?
You lay out a SINGLE lump of cash for a lens, a body, a filter, a bag, etc.
You don't have to add a monthly bill to your budget.
THAT is the problem. I suspect most would pay a little more up front and OWN the product than to add another monthly bill, which is an inconvenience and an uncertainty.
This move by Adobe is downright customer hostile - they have become arrogant like Microsoft.
Digitall: Sigma makes it optimized for FF please.
A full-frame version of this lens would be much larger, heavier, and more costly.
Timbukto: We are getting to the point where comparing higher MPs, AA vs AA-less, are all pointless and feeding hype and marketing when there are more important things to measure. The quality of shutters and mirror actuation and their influence on micro-blur (which is already of higher significance than these high MP AA vs AA-less tests). The quality and precision of AF sensors and *not* the number of them. The quality of lenses at different apertures and the quality of actually getting lenses within tolerance (so far we have very few tests on a few lens most of which seem to be super zooms).
They do provide that option, via a battery holder you insert into the battery grip add-on.
The way I see it, the creator has the right to create and distribute as many copies as he sees fit, unless it's a work for hire in which case the copyright would belong to the one who commissioned the work. If Sobel felt so strongly about it, perhaps he ought to have purchased the copyright from Eggleston?
. . . and with this one video, GoPro notice a tenfold sales increase
The Nexus has everything going for it - except the lack of an SD slot. I tolerate that in a phone, but for a tablet it is a deal breaker.
Francis Carver: Who cares what Canon does with its $3,500 list Price EOS 5D Mark III? Especially since these "improvements" won't even happen until sometime next year.
If you need uncompressed video from your DSLR in 4:2:2 chroma and 8-bit color quality, just get a Nikon D600 for $2,100. The Nikon already has what the Canon promises via a firmware upgrade.
After Nikon, Sony, Panasonic all came out with cameras outputting uncompressed video via HDMI, at dead last Canon is also thinking about it? Hah! Too little too late, Canon.
Francis Carver - haven't you ever noticed that depth of field sometimes changes (with no other changes with focus or field of view) during a movie? That's because they adjusted aperture while filming.
Customers demand it. Isn't that justification for a feature?
I ♥ flickr as it exists already :)
CLEANSHOT: For those of us deciding between Nikon D800 and Canon 5D Mark iii, Canon has probably lost hundreds if not thousand's of potential sales with their "tape fix". Just not acceptable, considering the price tag.
> Stop being a baby. Cars that cost six figures have electrical tape throughout.
As do aircraft costing nine figures, almost every laptop made and almost every AV receiver, Blu-Ray or DVD player, or television. Some of the tape is mylar, some is kapton (for withstanding high temperatures), and some is foil tape, depending on the purpose.
It is a perfectly valid fix and is nothing to be concerned about.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: The question that comes to mind from an ignorant person about astrophotography.. Can one use this as a regular camera?
Yes, if you are willing to invest in a "hot mirror"/IR filter to put on the front of your lenses.
One like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Tiffen-52mm-Hot-Mirror-Filter/dp/B00004ZCKQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333475220&sr=8-1
This camera should also be very good for IR photography in general, of landscapes and cityscapes.
By the way this photo is NOT mine; I participated in a thread where someone posted a noisy photo claiming a certain ISO was worthless so I posted an example that I spent maybe one minute reducing noise and sharpening.
Frank C.: $3500 and still no flash + lower pixel count ... ouch! Hard sell vs D800 imo. Good luck to Canon
On-camera flash like the 7D is only good for fill flash, as a master to control remote flashes, or snapshots. It really is that bad, and I'd rather have RF to control remote flashes.
I'm sold on the 5D mk III because it now has better AF - the weak AF is why I went with the 7D before. I can count on one hand how many shots I've taken with the built-in flash. It's always, always, always inferior to the Speedlite.
I'm buying one after initial demand has been met and the predictable price drop comes 4-6 months after release. :)
Still very noisy, but even so it is remarkable given the sensor size.
And, this is exactly why so many call it "imaginary property."
Big Corp(TM) took a photo of a red bus with Palace of Westminster in the background, therefore no one else can!
Is there any wonder that pro-piracy groups and rampant willful copyright infringement is growing, not decreasing with moronic court actions and legislation? They have become so ridiculous with imaginary property legislation and litigation that copyright has ceased to mean /anything/ in the eyes of consumers.
Eh, I dunno. DRM-free DVDFab, DVDShrink, Handbrake, and DVD::Rip all work just fine for me - I can already effortlessly transfer any of my Blu-Ray or DVD movies to any of my portable devices.
Nice effort, though!
kimvette: Somehow, I think even with the stats and analysis posted here in this article, we will still have daily "my lens is soft" and "I exchanged five copies of my foomatic f/2.8 lens before I got a sharp one" threads.
My used 18-55mm was sharp out of the box but the others were a bit soft - but sharp in liveview with contrast AF. A few minutes with a printed target and microadjust cleared it right up - no complaining and exchanging lenses nonsense because obviously given microns' worth of tolerance, even a "perfect" lens would no longer be perfect after being handled by UPS.
I'd love to see an article by Cicala covering high-end DSLR image "softness" compared to P&S and even entry-level DSLRs, along with an analysis of the underlying causes and reasons for it. And yet, that still would not stop the nonsense.
But even high-end body owners post that they keep exchanging lenses until they get a good one. It is a topic that comes up from time to time and explaining what the impact of even tighter tolerances when it's already in the micron range would have on the price of glass, they still insist that they should not have to adjust for front/back focus (aka microfocus adjustment).
The tolerance on these things is so tight that a lens that is "perfect" on your camera may not be perfect after being subjected to UPS's mishandling of packages, and one that is not "perfect" from the factory very well may be "perfect" for your body when it arrives.
IMHO If it is within the +/- range MFA allows for, it's a keeper (and it's very rare it won't be within that range).
Somehow, I think even with the stats and analysis posted here in this article, we will still have daily "my lens is soft" and "I exchanged five copies of my foomatic f/2.8 lens before I got a sharp one" threads.
My used 18-55mm was sharp out of the box but the others were a bit soft - but sharp in liveview with contrast AF. A few minutes with a printed target and microadjust cleared it right up - no complaining and exchanging lenses nonsense because obviously given microns' worth of tolerance, even a "perfect" lens would no longer be perfect after being handled by UPS.
I'd love to see an article by Cicala covering high-end DSLR image "softness" compared to P&S and even entry-level DSLRs, along with an analysis of the underlying causes and reasons for it. And yet, that still would not stop the nonsense.
Vortex1999: Any tripod more than $200 is over priced.
http://bythom.com/support.htm
"Thom's Maxim #2: You can spend US$1700 to buy a good tripod and head, or you can spend US$1000 and do the same thing. (Corollary: eventually you'll do one or the other.)"
gaiaswill: It's 64-bit support. It may be incomplete, but damn, Canon doesn't provide that for ANY model. Grade appropriately.
Nobody asked or expected Microsoft to do this. What I'm more curious about is why MS felt they should do it anyway.
M$ wants to compete with Adobe since the Windows market is long past peak and is on the decline so Microsoft is looking for new ways to grow again. Hence, the live gallery freebies, which encourages you to consider buying the Microsoft Expression suite (Microsoft's answer to the Adobe Creative Suite).
Rob: Installed this for my W7 64 bit system. I only wanted to be able to view image thumbnails when browsing in Explorer, but it does't. It shows a CR2 file type thumbnail, but no thumbnail of the image. Should it show thumbnail of the image?
I installed it and am getting the thumbnails. Check the following settings:
in Explorer click view -> large icons (if you don't have the menu bar press the alt key first)
If that doesn't work then thumbnails are disabled. To enable them do this:
Start (er, M$ logo button) -> control panel -> system
click the Advanced System Settings linkbutton
Advanced tab -> performance group -> Settings button
Scroll until you see "Show thumbnails instead of icons" and check it, then click OK. Now thumbnails should work but you *may* have to hit F5 (or view -> refresh) before the folder redraws, depending on your video card drivers.