T3

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 1, 2003

Comments

Total: 2615, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

maxnimo: Besides distant landscapes and product photography, what other markets would this camera be used for? The DOF is really narrow even at F8.

Same kind of stuff that current medium format digital cameras are used for: fashion photography, product photography, landscape photography, etc. DOF has always been narrower with medium format. And it was even narrower with medium format film (which is actually bigger than medium format digital sensors). So your question was literally answered decades ago when the first medium format cameras came onto the scene! 645 film has been used for decades, and is still being used. So your assertion that the H1D should only be used for "archiving flat art and manuscripts" is totally absurd. Take, for example, Vivian Meier's street photography, which was shot with a Rolleiflex TLR medium format camera! The film she was using was a larger format than the H1D's frame size.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 23:13 UTC

Wow, what a great price and size for this feature set. Definitely going to pick up one or two of them for my A6000 kit.

Link | Posted on Nov 24, 2016 at 14:57 UTC as 4th comment
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: Sure, it's only my personal taste, but I find the grey body looks like cheap plastic.

@BarnET - I was talking about bodies, not lenses. Go take a look at the Canon AE-1. My dad had one. Looked very much like a metal body.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2016 at 16:28 UTC
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul B Jones: Wow, Canon really needs to listen to the experts here.

On the other hand, as the best selling non-phone camera maker, I guess maybe the company knows what it is doing.

@ttran88 MacDonald's sales have been declining for a while now.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/22/mcdonalds-sales-decline/
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/23/investing/mcdonalds-earnings-sales-down/
http://m.bakingbusiness.com/articles/news_home/Food-Service/2015/05/What_led_to_McDonalds_decline.aspx?ID=%7B0980ACCF-0AC7-476A-85B8-B0036028AB4B%7D&cck=1

They've been scrambling to make changes to their restaurants and menu. TImes change, and MacDonald's has been trying to figure out how to change with the times.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: Sure, it's only my personal taste, but I find the grey body looks like cheap plastic.

Yeah, there are ways to make silver plastic look less cheap. Fuji and Olympus manage to do it. Even Canon was doing it back in the 70's with their silver AE-1. which most people have long mistaken for being a metal body (even though the body was all plastic). But this Canon's silver plastic body looks as cheap as the first Canon Digital Rebel (300D), which also had a cheap-looking silver plastic.

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 21:26 UTC
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)

That new grey strap is a real game-changer. True innovation and leadership.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 21:12 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

T3: Camera bags that force you to take them off and put them down in order to get your gear out of them kinda suck. Very impractical and cumbersome. I call these "never-ready" bags, because with your gear so out of reach and inaccessible, these camera bags mean you're never ready to shoot. These kinds of bags are fine for transporting all your stuff to a shoot location, at which time you put down the bag and set up shop, so to speak. But they are terrible for travel or street shooting where you really want to be able to access any piece of equipment at a moment's notice.

@@Erick L - it really comes down to what your priorities are. If you simply want a gear-carrying product, and quick accessibility is not a priority, photo backpacks are great. But if you want a gear-carrying product that *also* allows quick access to your gear, side-access bags (either sling bags or backpacks that offer side access) are better. However, what conventional photo backpacks do better is that they generally offer superior carrying capacity for LOTS of gear/lenses. So if you're carrying a ton of lenses, and you don't need to access them quickly, get a photo backpack. On the other hand, if you aren't traveling with a ton of lenses, and you primarily want quick access, without having to take your bag off your back, I find that side-access bags do a better job. It just comes down to what your priorities are.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Camera bags that force you to take them off and put them down in order to get your gear out of them kinda suck. Very impractical and cumbersome. I call these "never-ready" bags, because with your gear so out of reach and inaccessible, these camera bags mean you're never ready to shoot. These kinds of bags are fine for transporting all your stuff to a shoot location, at which time you put down the bag and set up shop, so to speak. But they are terrible for travel or street shooting where you really want to be able to access any piece of equipment at a moment's notice.

@Erick L- clearly you've never used a side-access bag. I used a photo backpack for years. Then I switched to side-access sling bags. I've had the Case Logic SLR Camera Sling (DCB-308), which I gave to a friend. I currently use the Think Tank Turnstyle 20. These bags offer considerably superior access to gear than photo backpacks. Having used side-access bags, I'll never go back to a regular photo backpack. I still own a Lowepro photo backpack, so it's very easy for me to do a comparison of how easy/quick it is to get something out of the backpack versus a side-access bag. It is, without a doubt, easier/quicker to get gear out of a side-access bag than a regular photo backpack. Believe me, I've tried to love my backpack; it would have saved me the additional cost of trying/buying new bags. But it's just not as good as side-access bags. Regular photo backpacks are simply *DESIGNED* to be removed from your back to get your gear out, which is inherently slower and more cumbersome.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 05:01 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Camera bags that force you to take them off and put them down in order to get your gear out of them kinda suck. Very impractical and cumbersome. I call these "never-ready" bags, because with your gear so out of reach and inaccessible, these camera bags mean you're never ready to shoot. These kinds of bags are fine for transporting all your stuff to a shoot location, at which time you put down the bag and set up shop, so to speak. But they are terrible for travel or street shooting where you really want to be able to access any piece of equipment at a moment's notice.

@Erick L-- "If I need to be ready, I carry the camera around the neck and lenses in my pockets or the bag's outer pocket."

If you're carrying all of your stuff around your neck and in your pockets, then you aren't really using or needing a bag, are you? And as for sticking lenses in the outer pockets of the bag, that may work for hiking out in the wilderness, but it doesn't work too well for urban environments and populated areas because it invites the potential for easy theft. I definitely don't want lenses in the outer pockets of my backpack while walking through a city for anyone to grab. Those pockets are for water bottles, not for lenses or any other valuable items.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 23:36 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Camera bags that force you to take them off and put them down in order to get your gear out of them kinda suck. Very impractical and cumbersome. I call these "never-ready" bags, because with your gear so out of reach and inaccessible, these camera bags mean you're never ready to shoot. These kinds of bags are fine for transporting all your stuff to a shoot location, at which time you put down the bag and set up shop, so to speak. But they are terrible for travel or street shooting where you really want to be able to access any piece of equipment at a moment's notice.

@NaBalam -- (continued)
But after a recent trip to Asia, I decided I wanted to move to a backpack which still provided side access. And I want more carrying capacity so I would not need the Apecase Envoy. I've decided to bite the bullet and buy the pricey Peak Design Every Day Backpack. It does everything I want it to: side access from both sides, very configurable dividers, and numerous compartments, and-- most importantly-- it has huge expandable carrying capacity. The expandable storage area that is separate from the camera gear is a big factor for me. If I end up buying something big while I'm out and about -- I don't know, a coconut for example-- it'll fit inside the expandable section! It's amazing that a camera bag can swallow something that big, in addition to still carrying all your gear. So even though the Everyday Backpack is pricey, I have not seen any better or more versatile alternative.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 20:04 UTC
In reply to:

T3: Camera bags that force you to take them off and put them down in order to get your gear out of them kinda suck. Very impractical and cumbersome. I call these "never-ready" bags, because with your gear so out of reach and inaccessible, these camera bags mean you're never ready to shoot. These kinds of bags are fine for transporting all your stuff to a shoot location, at which time you put down the bag and set up shop, so to speak. But they are terrible for travel or street shooting where you really want to be able to access any piece of equipment at a moment's notice.

@NaBalam- Yes, I *strongly* recommend you get a backpack that allows side access...something that you do not need to take off and put down in order to access your gear. I'm using mirrorless gear, so my experience with side-access bags is limited to smaller bags. (When I was using DSLR gear, I had been using conventional "never-ready" backbpacks.) Right now I use a Think Tank Turnstyle 20 (a sling-style bag) which is just big enough for your gear collection, but won't leave room for much else. I also use a small Apecase Envoy messenger-style shoulder bag to carry odds-and-ends stuff, like souvenirs, food, water, a jacket, or whatever else that can't fit into my Turnstyle. The Apecase is very light, compact, conforms to my body, and very versatile.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2016 at 20:01 UTC

No thanks. Not a fan of dongles, especially when so many of these things should be built into the laptop, like so many other laptops are doing. USB-C-to-USB adapter? How about just having a USB slot like every other laptop does. USB-C-to-SD adapter? How about just having an SD slot like every other laptop does. USB-to-Lightning? Lightning is Apple's own freaking port, and they won't even put it into their laptop! You can't even plug Apple's own Lightning-connector headphones into a new MBP without an adapter! How stupid is that? And how much room does a tiny Lighting port take up? Come on, Apple, you're being ridiculous.

Even if Apple were giving away these adapters, I still don't want to have to carry one (or several). So it isn't really a matter of cost. It's really about the inconvenience of having to use an adapter in the first place just to use your SD card or USB thumb drive!

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 18:07 UTC as 123rd comment | 6 replies

Camera bags that force you to take them off and put them down in order to get your gear out of them kinda suck. Very impractical and cumbersome. I call these "never-ready" bags, because with your gear so out of reach and inaccessible, these camera bags mean you're never ready to shoot. These kinds of bags are fine for transporting all your stuff to a shoot location, at which time you put down the bag and set up shop, so to speak. But they are terrible for travel or street shooting where you really want to be able to access any piece of equipment at a moment's notice.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 18:00 UTC as 12th comment | 18 replies
In reply to:

Brian Slater: I would have thought that after decades of second guessing Apple's moves and motives people would be prepared to give them some recognition for bold decisions that jolt industry standards foward. Peripheral connections have been shambolic for far too long. A laptop that has sufficient dedicated i/o for every kind of peripheral and connector would certainly not be totable. At long last we see real convergence. Sure, lots of folks have SD cards. But many potential users of Apple pro laptops have other card needs that never have had a dedicated slot. Memory manufacturers continue to proliferate different storage media, and camera makers enable them by choosing different types. Then there are all the disparate serial, display and networking types. At last with Thunderbot 3 / USBC-C there is a single standard that can be used to connect just about anything including power. No need to choose which slot or connector orientation. Wireless and TB3: a much simpler and more elegant future.

@Gesture - yep, I keep an SD card in my wallet all the time just for this purpose. It's a quick and handy way to back up or transfer lots of data, on something that's more compact and slimmer than a USB thumb drive.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 01:26 UTC
In reply to:

halai: What a bone headed move by Apple. So now I have to go buy an adapt instead? Thank you for not taking my money Apple!

Even if they gave that adapter away for free, I would hate the fact that I have to carry it, and plug it in to use it, and have it hanging off the side of my laptop when I'm using it. And one day I'll probably lose it, or forget it at home when I needed it, which will leave me unable to do what virtually every other laptop can do: read an SD card.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 01:18 UTC
In reply to:

Corwin Lee: As a long time supporter of Apple, I will seriously reconsider either to buy their product again. This step simply show how clueless they are on the impact by not having a SD card, it just say if you want to have convenient for your SD card, go some where else.
I believe Photography user is a majority for osx, so they demand us to transfer 64GB or even 128GB+ via wireless....
Good luck!

@Vik2012 - Really? Apple sales have been falling, and their profits have dropped for the first time in 15 years.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/26/technology/apple-sales-slump-continues/

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/25/apple-profits-sales-decline-2016-iphone-7

I'm an Apple user, but PCs are getting better and more innovative, while Apple keeps cutting things out of their products. On my next laptop, I'd love a touchscreen. It doesn't mean I'm going to use it all the time, but I can see the convenience and benefit of it, especially if you get one of those laptops where the screen can fold over to become a tablet. Apple refuses to offer a full touchscreen. I also find an SD slot and USB 3 slots to be very valuable. Apple has decided those things are too "cumbersome". It looks like my next laptop will be a PC, because too many of the things I want in a laptop are unavailable with Apple. And I'm not the only Apple user who feels this way.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 01:15 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Actually, I'm surprised that the industry hasn't yet adopted a universal super-fast short-range wireless standard for all gadgets.

Sure, that's a great wish. But in the meantime, it makes sense to keep using reliable and ubiquitous flash memory such as SD (which most cameras today use). Wireless may work well for certain situations, but it shouldn't be a replacement for flash memory. Even if the industry did adopt "a universal super-fast short-range wireless standard", most current and future cameras are still probably going to continue to use SD cards. There is a value to removable memory cards, for numerous reasons.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

Brian Slater: I would have thought that after decades of second guessing Apple's moves and motives people would be prepared to give them some recognition for bold decisions that jolt industry standards foward. Peripheral connections have been shambolic for far too long. A laptop that has sufficient dedicated i/o for every kind of peripheral and connector would certainly not be totable. At long last we see real convergence. Sure, lots of folks have SD cards. But many potential users of Apple pro laptops have other card needs that never have had a dedicated slot. Memory manufacturers continue to proliferate different storage media, and camera makers enable them by choosing different types. Then there are all the disparate serial, display and networking types. At last with Thunderbot 3 / USBC-C there is a single standard that can be used to connect just about anything including power. No need to choose which slot or connector orientation. Wireless and TB3: a much simpler and more elegant future.

SD is easily the most commonly used memory card format currently in use. Therefore, SD card slot meets the needs of most people; let's say, 80% of the people. The remaining 20% need to use a dongle. So 80% of the people have the convenience of a slot, while 20% are inconvenienced by a dongle. Apple's stupid decision is to now inconvenience 100% of the people by requiring EVERYONE to use a dongle. That makes no sense, and it's a stupid argument.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 16:25 UTC
In reply to:

electrophoto: A fast built in SD-Card reader - is amongst the better features of my current Macbook Pro ... used daily.
Gone are the days where the "oh, cr... where's the SD Card reader"... or "the cable".... ...take SD out... put it into the computer and here are my photos.

Apple's "Reply" to this is simply silly.

Yep, totally agree. That's one thing I really loved about switching to cameras that used SD cards. I had been a Canon DSLR user, and when the 60D switched from CF to SD, I was very pleased. No more stupid external CF card reader to plug into my laptop! I love being able to stick the SD straight into any laptop. The new MBP is definitely a bad step backwards. When it comes to upgrading from my current MBP, I'll definitetly be looking for a laptop with an SD card slot. Wireless transfer doesn't do it for me. It's impractical for multiple SD cards, especially if you don't want to tie up your camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

Miguel88: I've never used the SD slot on any macbook I've had ( I've prolly had 10 over the years). I've always used a small adapter for my CF cards and would have different one for CFAST If I had a 1DXII and yet another if I had a D5. It'd really drive the laptop size up if they included a slot for every card format. So I don't get the big deal. Just get a USB adapter. It's fast and the one I use is the size of a USB stick . I know it's one more thing to carry but they are cheap so keep several around.
Cheers
M

We're not asking that they include "a slot for every card format." Don't be asinine. No one is saying that. We're saying that they should have simply kept the existing, elegant, non-cumbersome little SD slot that previous Macbooks have had, to accommodate the most ubiquitous and most widely used card format currently in use.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 02:00 UTC
Total: 2615, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »