SteB

SteB

Lives in United Kingdom North Shropshire, United Kingdom
Joined on Apr 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 355, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Canon releases firmware update for the EOS R (210 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteB: As I've said before I don't think Canon was really prepared to release their FF mirrorless system, an would not otherwise have announced it, if it wasn't for Nikon releasing their FF mirrorless system. I suspect Canon were aware of this a long time before the public rumours about the Nikon FF mirrorless announcement. Likewise I think Nikon were forced to announce their own FF mirrorless system because of the inroads being made by Sony. Canon and Nikon seem to have put emphasis on different parts, with Nikon prioritizing the cameras and Canon the lenses.

@NCB - That was the whole point I was making, so I have no idea what you think you are arguing against. I didn't say Canon, or Nikon for that were stupid to release their FF mirroless. It's entirely sensible. However, launching early means that it will take a couple of years before the cameras and lens systems have caught up with Sony. But then Sony didn't release their third generation FF mirrorless cameras and present lens range from day one.

In other words I was simply explaining how things are, not making criticisms. There are scores of complaints saying why didn't Canon or Nikon for that produce this or that, when they will over the next few years. People are arguing as if camera manufacturers can just produce cameras and lenses out of a hat, when they take several years to develop.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2019 at 06:45 UTC
On article Canon releases firmware update for the EOS R (210 comments in total)
In reply to:

SteB: As I've said before I don't think Canon was really prepared to release their FF mirrorless system, an would not otherwise have announced it, if it wasn't for Nikon releasing their FF mirrorless system. I suspect Canon were aware of this a long time before the public rumours about the Nikon FF mirrorless announcement. Likewise I think Nikon were forced to announce their own FF mirrorless system because of the inroads being made by Sony. Canon and Nikon seem to have put emphasis on different parts, with Nikon prioritizing the cameras and Canon the lenses.

@moimoi - That is a puerile response. Research and development takes a long time i.e. several years. I clearly acknowledged that Canon had emphasized lens lens development. However, there's self-evidently a mismatch. Canon has developed some of it's best lenses ever for the R system, and the RF 50 f1.2 L is perhaps the best 50mm lens available. Canon is also going to introduce more top quality RF L lenses. However, Canon does not yet have a pro-level body of 5D mkIV standard or above to use these lenses with.

I'm pretty certain that Canon does have a pro-level body in development i.e. one with 2 card slots and an adequate continuous shooting mode, but it's clearly not yet ready for release. This supports my point i.e. that Canon would likely have preferred to launch the R system in about 12-18 months time, so they had at least one R camera of the level to support these lenses.

btw. I am a Canon shooter.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 13:20 UTC
On article Canon releases firmware update for the EOS R (210 comments in total)

As I've said before I don't think Canon was really prepared to release their FF mirrorless system, an would not otherwise have announced it, if it wasn't for Nikon releasing their FF mirrorless system. I suspect Canon were aware of this a long time before the public rumours about the Nikon FF mirrorless announcement. Likewise I think Nikon were forced to announce their own FF mirrorless system because of the inroads being made by Sony. Canon and Nikon seem to have put emphasis on different parts, with Nikon prioritizing the cameras and Canon the lenses.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2019 at 10:57 UTC as 18th comment | 5 replies

I think f4.5 was a good choice as f4 would would have made this zoom lens much heavier and more expensive. The big question from this mock-up/prototype and the information provided is whether it's a fixed length zoom or an extending zoom. At first I thought it was a fixed length zoom, but the structures at the end of the lens look more like it's an extending zoom. This is why the double band structures around the end of the lens, if it is a fixed lens zoom.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2019 at 16:18 UTC as 11th comment

As a nature photographer the animal eye AF is the most interesting feature to me. It could be revolutionary, depending on how well it works on what i.e. would it work on birds as well as mammals. This is because when photographing song birds it can be very difficult to focus on the eye, because of the way, at times, they constantly shift their body position, or their head when they are feeding. You missing a lot of opportunities trying to shift the focus point, or focusing manually. Also if it would work with flying birds it could increase the rate of keepers.

It also would be good if they could do butterfly eye AF, because when they're feeding it can be difficult to keep track.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2019 at 09:22 UTC as 46th comment

I think it's worth bearing in mind that Canon cinema cameras, which are currently EF mount, would be much better suited to an R mount. In other words, just because a camera might be 8k capably, doesn't necessarily mean it would be a mirrorless stills cam. After all, Canon have been well behind the curve implementing 4k in their stills cams.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2019 at 11:03 UTC as 29th comment
On article Canon EOS R review (3227 comments in total)
In reply to:

LiangMing: The EOS-R gets lower score than the 6D MK II. What a shame, Canon.

Which just demonstrates how meaningless this rating system is. The Canon R has a much better sensor than the 6D mkII, and 4K. I was actually looking to get a 6D mkII. But I thought no way would I bother with it. Whereas I could use a Canon R, if I'm still shooting with Canon, and the price drops.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 11:41 UTC
On article Canon EOS R review (3227 comments in total)
In reply to:

T3: 2017: Canon is taking their time, they are learning, they are perfecting the technology in their mirrorless camera. And when it is released, it will blow all other mirrorless cameras out of the water.

2018: Uh, never mind.

It just goes to show how overly optimistic people were.

I generally agree with the perfecting bit. But I don't think that the proper Canon R cameras will blow all other mirrorless cameras out of the water. I'm expecting them to be good, and the lenses even better. However, the Sony A9 has been out for over 18 months and must be due to be updated in the next year or so. I'm sure Canon can produce mirrorless cameras which are roughly equal to the top mirrorless cameras from the other manufacturers. But to blow them out of the water, would mean an incredible leap in camera technology which seems unlikely.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 11:37 UTC
On article Canon EOS R review (3227 comments in total)

I think essentially the Canon R started out as a working prototype on which Canon could test their new FF mirrorless lenses as they developed them. After all Canon doesn't have a FF mirrorless body, so needed to create one to test these lenses. This is why the R is essentially bits of a 5D mkIV with some off the shelf components, whilst Canon finishes developing their real R cameras with new technology, and developing the rest of the basic lens range. Canon made incredibly little of their camera at launch, but made a lot more noise about their lenses, and the whole system.

If Nikon hadn't introduced their mirrorless cameras, I think Canon would have held off launching their FF mirrorless system for a year or so. All they did is to polish their working prototype so it could be put put into production, and then slap on the M.FN bar as a gimmick. It holds a space. It gives a reasonably competent camera to use with the new lenses and which integrates with the DSLR system.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 11:26 UTC as 210th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

SteB: The climate change denial btl here is deeply worrying. I know very well climate change deniers deny being deniers, and come out with meaningless assertions like the climate is always changing, or they are not denying climate change, just questioning how much is caused by humans. However, science has already answered all these very weak arguments in depth. Every single study or paper from a contrarian point of view has been found to be riddled with basic errors. Every single major scientific institute and organization in the world bar none, essentially supports the view of climate change summarised by the IPCC. The basis of climate science goes back to the early 19th Century, and is fully in line with mainstream science. If you disagree with the broad tenets of anthropogenic climate change, then like it or not, you are in denial of massive evidence.

The science is not political, but the denial of it is. The comments in the article are evidence based.

@Kenferg1

It's turned out to be very entertaining, especially your howler about "anthropomorphic climate". Anthropomorphism is when you impose human characteristics on animals. The term is anthropogenic.

You obviously have no scientific education from your laughable mistaken ideas about how science works. Science is self-correcting. That is research is published, and if there are any errors in it, other scientists make their names by pointing out these errors. Really, science is very rigorous like that. Anyone can make mistakes as you just did.

This is how we know that climate change denial, contrarianism is nonsense. Every contrarian paper ever published, bar none, which appeared to contradict the mainstream view on anthropogenic climate change has been found to have made basic errors i.e. it only appeared to contradict this view, because they got their calculations wrong. Ironic or what. This correction mechanism in science is why we know the core ideas about ACC are correct.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 10:38 UTC

Most of the best documentary photography and photojournalism has been done by people who were concerned about the state of things, and who wanted to bring home that reality to a wider audience. Stuart Palley's photography, his points about forest management, and climate change are in that tradition. I was grateful for the points made about this, because they were accurate and insightful.

It's very worrying that we have reached a level where the objective description of the world we live in is seen as political. Stuart Palley actually says he wishes climate change hadn't become politicised in the US. Climate change never used to be split along these political lines, and really this has only happened within about the last 15 years. In the late 1980s, it was the very right wing hawkish Margaret Thatcher who delivered a speech to the UN about the dangers of climate change. Previous US Republican presidents have not denied climate change.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 21:23 UTC as 128th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: There are really only two ways of looking at this:

1. These disasters are the direct result of Climate Change. We blame Trump for not doing enough to combat climate change, and anyone who thinks this isn't the real problem is a fascist, a racist or an ignorant rube.

2. The earth's climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years, and human activity probably has some effect on those changes. It is probably a good idea to stop building houses so close to major forests, in river flood plains, or along coastal areas prone to hurricanes and flooding. It really makes more sense to modify our own behavior than to try to fight Mother Nature.

You can count me in group number two.

Hi Marty4650

The strong evidence, and a massive amount of research demonstrates that nearly all the big increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels. This is not political. The first scientists who documented this mistakenly thought this warming would be good. It is only with our much better understanding of natural systems and ecosystems, that it became understood how devastating this will be. It will likely result in the collapse of our civilization, and the starvation of billions if it goes on unchecked. The solution has been known for years, and that is to rapidly phase out the burning of fossil fuels. This isn't political, it's a statement of fact and massive scientific evidence. Denial of it is political, because it conflicts with free market and neoliberal ideology.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

SteB: The climate change denial btl here is deeply worrying. I know very well climate change deniers deny being deniers, and come out with meaningless assertions like the climate is always changing, or they are not denying climate change, just questioning how much is caused by humans. However, science has already answered all these very weak arguments in depth. Every single study or paper from a contrarian point of view has been found to be riddled with basic errors. Every single major scientific institute and organization in the world bar none, essentially supports the view of climate change summarised by the IPCC. The basis of climate science goes back to the early 19th Century, and is fully in line with mainstream science. If you disagree with the broad tenets of anthropogenic climate change, then like it or not, you are in denial of massive evidence.

The science is not political, but the denial of it is. The comments in the article are evidence based.

I'm sorry for having to word my comment so strongly. However, as the IPCC's most recent report makes clear, we have less than 12 years to take radical action to prevent planetary catastrophe. There is no longer time to indulge the idiosyncratic denial of anthropogenic climate change for ideological reasons. All right thinking moral people must take a firm position on this, for the sake of our children and all future generations. The comments in the article are firmly in line with the best possible scientific evidence, and this is not controversial unless you deny anthropogenic climate change for ideological reasons.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 17:02 UTC

The climate change denial btl here is deeply worrying. I know very well climate change deniers deny being deniers, and come out with meaningless assertions like the climate is always changing, or they are not denying climate change, just questioning how much is caused by humans. However, science has already answered all these very weak arguments in depth. Every single study or paper from a contrarian point of view has been found to be riddled with basic errors. Every single major scientific institute and organization in the world bar none, essentially supports the view of climate change summarised by the IPCC. The basis of climate science goes back to the early 19th Century, and is fully in line with mainstream science. If you disagree with the broad tenets of anthropogenic climate change, then like it or not, you are in denial of massive evidence.

The science is not political, but the denial of it is. The comments in the article are evidence based.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 16:58 UTC as 134th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Marty4650: There are really only two ways of looking at this:

1. These disasters are the direct result of Climate Change. We blame Trump for not doing enough to combat climate change, and anyone who thinks this isn't the real problem is a fascist, a racist or an ignorant rube.

2. The earth's climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years, and human activity probably has some effect on those changes. It is probably a good idea to stop building houses so close to major forests, in river flood plains, or along coastal areas prone to hurricanes and flooding. It really makes more sense to modify our own behavior than to try to fight Mother Nature.

You can count me in group number two.

It really isn't a matter of conjecture. The evidence for climate change caused any anthropogenic carbon emissions is massive. The science behind it goes right back to the early 19th Century with Joseph Fourier's description/discovery of the greenhouse gas. Modern climate science is built upon the same foundations as all science.

Every major scientific institute and organization in the world supports the view of climate change described by the IPCC. Every single paper published by climate change contrarians has been found to be full of basic errors.

Climate change denial is political ideology.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 10:31 UTC
In reply to:

Nukunukoo: I just wish people start believing in the Science as it has no agenda, instead of politics.

Exactly, science is about describing reality. Yes, this reality may be inconvenient to some people, but that does not make it political.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2018 at 10:09 UTC
In reply to:

worldaccordingtojim: As a Sony user I love seeing things like this, this will drive the market to a new standard. The EOS R on the other hand is a complete loss as most people expected. After the d850, if nothing else Nikon is putting 100% into their cameras. Full frame 4k, IBIS, great build quality, and decent AF. Bring on the competition, can't wait to see the next Sonys.

@Mared - Fact check, the points about bodies above and below the Canon R, and the points about lenses, came from Canon officials in interviews and by personal communication from those attending the R launch in Hawaii. It's isn't speculation. Yes there is no full lens roadmap yes, but the points I made were not speculation but things said by Canon officials. I said possibly with the other fast primes, because they were alluded to, but the focal lengths weren't disclosed. Likewise the focal length of the trinity of pro lenses wasn't stated, only that they were developed 3 f2.8 zooms for professionals in the coming year. We can fairly safely speculate that these will be something like a 70-200mm, a 24-70mm and a 16-35mm. No one can be sure of their exact focal length, but they should be around this. Once again it is not speculation.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

worldaccordingtojim: As a Sony user I love seeing things like this, this will drive the market to a new standard. The EOS R on the other hand is a complete loss as most people expected. After the d850, if nothing else Nikon is putting 100% into their cameras. Full frame 4k, IBIS, great build quality, and decent AF. Bring on the competition, can't wait to see the next Sonys.

Canon have clearly explained that the most important thing about the R system is the lenses, and that more cameras will appear. The future Canon R cameras will address all these issues, and the fact is that the few lenses Canon have released, outshine anything every produced by Sony, Nikon etc. Where's their super sharp 50mm f1.2 of f2 standard zoom. Remember Canon say they are going to bring out a whole raft of new lenses for this system in the next year. The trinity of professional zooms. Possibly an 85mm f1.2 and perhaps a 24mm f1.2. This along with a pro R body in the next year, means in 12 months time, this sort of argument is likely to look as silly as it is. For the record, I believe that the next generation of Sony's will be much improved. What they did with the A9 is amazing, and the next iteration will be awesome.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 09:30 UTC

The whole recurring theme of over-processing in the comments here is just nonsense. This idea that there is some sort of neutral, authentic out of camera image is just a contrivance. Do people think Ansel Adam's images were straight prints? Dodging, burning, different grades of paper and toning is virtually as old as photography itself, and so is actual air-brushing.

Standard settings on a camera are for standard scenes. Our eyes just don't see in the same way as a digital sensor or film come to that. It's quite legitimate to make tonal changes etc, because they often make the image far more like we saw it at the time, than the OOC image.

What's more there are strict rules with the Wildlife Photographer of the Year on what sort of post-processing, and the type and degree of adjustments allowed. I've haven't checked the rules recently, but they used to say that winning entries must make RAW images available to the judges. Learn to take good images rather than sniping.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2018 at 09:02 UTC as 28th comment | 2 replies

The wonders of reciprocity failure, where any exposure of more than a second develops weird and whacky colours, not least of all because you need to expose it for much longer.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2018 at 10:15 UTC as 39th comment | 5 replies
Total: 355, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »