>> Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape.
> Anyone owning lenses designed for film are the ones who will have no > escape. > --
> Stacey
Stacey, remind me of this statement in a couple of weeks, when I have a chance to test out the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS on my 5D. I'll bet they'll compare favorable you anything you have in your lens quiver. I've seen what the camera will do in a quickie shot with the 100 f2. Can't do the test, right now, because I'm too busy shooting weddings with the cameras and my favorite test spot, Petco Park, is a little busy, right now...
Look mate I don't have a major beef...but I think if you make sweeping statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be backing that up pretty clearly.
> If grass didn't grow and man was not so lazy... The lawn mower would not > exist - be no need for it. If there was no need to stand 200 yards away > from a subject, Telephoto lenses which facilitate filling the frame at > that distance would not exist either. > There is not a profitable business in the world that has produced a > product no one buys and grown their sales with it... Simple Aussie logic? > Nah... Just plain bloody common sense, mate.
People will buy ANYTHING that is made as long as it's at the right price point, this is a economy driven by trying not to create products that fulfil needs but more creating the need and then selling the product.
> DxO is an advanced developer of software specifically related to digital > images. They are pretty good at what they do... They'd need to be because > their products are expensive. Certainly not something the average amateur > would buy.
> DxO make a very unique RAW data converter with modules for specific > lenses. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable flaws > attributed to specific lenses... Read that as fixing the faulty images > some "L" series lenses create. Keep in mind too, that "L" series lenses > are not optimized for digital cameras, much less full frame ones.
> One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras (no > news in this, Canon sell more cameras than the rest).
> Until quite recently, when you bought the DxO product, you got one lens > module. Yes... A module devoted to just one lens. Any other lens modules > you wanted had to be bought on top of the original.
> Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all > the lens error correction modules with the converter, the 24-70 f2.8 "L" > series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module > added to the purchase price?... Hmm? The rest I'll leave to your fertile > mind to figure out.
A few points here about the statements you make. 1. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable
>flaws attributed to specific lenses. Read that as fixing the faulty images >some "L" series lenses create.
How do you draw this analogy? You state that this product is not really for the amateur right? Given that Nikon and Canon make up the bulk of the pro market it stands to reason that for this product to exist they would need to make modules for these lenses right?
2. One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras How do you know this? Do you have a breakdown of how many units they sell and of what configuration? What is this assumption based on?
3. Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all
> the lens error correction modules with the converter, the 24-70 f2.8 "L" > series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module > added to the purchase price?...
Again there seem to be a few assumptions made here. Why do you suppose they bundled this? Why does every version of the windows OS incorporate the most successful third party apps available prior to release? To keep market share? To compete? I don't think you can draw a direct link from one to the other...
Again how dod you know that this was their most popular module? Even it was it stands to reason does it? CA is more likely to occur with wide lenses. Canon and Nikon are the two most likely lens manufacters given the pro status of the software, so it stands to reason that it WOULD be their most popular model would it not? It just makes sense. Chromatic aberation is function of the property of light and no lens I know is completely free of it especially in the wide zoom range.
> First rule of business. Make sure there is a need for your product before > you commit a few million bucks to producing it... They did.
Is reducing CA the total functionality of this software? Is it the only thing that it does? Or is it just one of it's features? Photoshop corrects CA too...amongst many many other things too...
For the record I use Nikon and have no affinity to any brand really. I would be interested to hear how you can back up all your assumptions...
Steve Franklin wrote: > Look mate I don't have a major beef...but I think if you make sweeping > statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be > backing that up pretty clearly.
You are arguing with a freakin' lunatic FUDster. As far as anyone has been able to tell, he just makes it all up as he goes along.
Steve Franklin wrote: > Look mate I don't have a major beef...but I think if you make sweeping > statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be > backing that up pretty clearly.
snip
> Again there seem to be a few assumptions made here.
snip
> Again how dod you know that this was their most popular module? Even it was > it stands to reason does it? CA is more likely to occur with wide lenses. > Canon and Nikon are the two most likely lens manufacters given the pro > status of the software, so it stands to reason that it WOULD be their most > popular model would it not? It just makes sense. Chromatic aberation is > function of the property of light and no lens I know is completely free of > it especially in the wide zoom range.
nip
> Is reducing CA the total functionality of this software? Is it the only > thing that it does? Or is it just one of it's features? Photoshop corrects > CA too...amongst many many other things too...
> For the record I use Nikon and have no affinity to any brand really. I would > be interested to hear how you can back up all your assumptions...
Your entire response is to question me instead of looking at the sources. Accusing me of making assumptions when you yourself are making some substantial ones. You are doing this even when provided with the source to get answers. Open your mind and discover for yourself.
To question me and demand proof when all you have to do is download a free trial and have all the proof you need is just baiting me. Don't do it. It's the sign of an arsehole.
>>>Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape.
>>Anyone owning lenses designed for film are the ones who will have no >>escape. >>--
>> Stacey
> Stacey, remind me of this statement in a couple of weeks, when I have a > chance to test out the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400 > f4.5-5.6L IS on my 5D. I'll bet they'll compare favorable you anything you > have in your lens quiver. I've seen what the camera will do in a quickie > shot with the 100 f2. > Can't do the test, right now, because I'm too busy shooting weddings with > the cameras and my favorite test spot, Petco Park, is a little busy, right > now...
Do I read this right?
You bough a brand new camera a few days ago and you're busy shooting weddings with it already? I'm impressed Skip. It sounds like you shoot a wedding every day. You must have a pretty big staff to process and compile everything. I shudder to thing how big your album account is. Your bill must look like a serial number.
It takes me 2 days just to process the photos from a Saturday Wedding and another day (sometimes two) to put the album and CD together. I spend another 2 days a week just talking to couples and of course, I have to take the pictures too. So for me, shooting a mere 36 or so weddings a year, I have to work 6 days a week, every week and only get to shoot weddings on Saturdays. Now I know where my time is wasted... Here!
Maybe you could share some of the secrets you obviously have, that might help me avoid passing 20 or 30 weddings a year to other photographers? Are you going to keep the 20Ds for backups? how do you propose to handle the area coverage difference?
I looked at a 5D myself and although it "seems" a nice enough camera in the store, after the fiasco of my Canon experiences, I won't bother with one anytime soon.
I am curious though, how you are going to address the issue of coverage. these cameras are going to be pretty useless at a wedding with a 16-35mm lens, which would have been useful on a 1.6 crop. Even at 24mm the distortion will be noticeable enough to make you avoid using it.
I'd suspect the 70-200 would get a good workout - if you can hold it all day! Otherwise... I can see some new lenses coming up here. Now wouldn't it be convenient if Canon all of a sudden announced a "D" series lens in the range 28-120, f2.8, designed specifically for digital cameras? Maybe there is a God? Prey Skip!
"Douglas..." <canvas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: >Do I read this right?
>You bough a brand new camera a few days ago and you're busy shooting >weddings with it already? I'm impressed Skip. It sounds like you shoot a >wedding every day. You must have a pretty big staff to process and >compile everything. I shudder to thing how big your album account is. >Your bill must look like a serial number.
>It takes me 2 days just to process the photos from a Saturday Wedding >and another day (sometimes two) to put the album and CD together. I >spend another 2 days a week just talking to couples and of course, I >have to take the pictures too. So for me, shooting a mere 36 or so >weddings a year, I have to work 6 days a week, every week and only get >to shoot weddings on Saturdays. Now I know where my time is wasted... Here!
>Maybe you could share some of the secrets you obviously have, that might >help me avoid passing 20 or 30 weddings a year to other photographers? >Are you going to keep the 20Ds for backups? how do you propose to handle >the area coverage difference?
>I looked at a 5D myself and although it "seems" a nice enough camera in >the store, after the fiasco of my Canon experiences, I won't bother with >one anytime soon.
>I am curious though, how you are going to address the issue of coverage. >these cameras are going to be pretty useless at a wedding with a 16-35mm >lens, which would have been useful on a 1.6 crop. Even at 24mm the >distortion will be noticeable enough to make you avoid using it.
>I'd suspect the 70-200 would get a good workout - if you can hold it all >day! Otherwise... I can see some new lenses coming up here. Now wouldn't >it be convenient if Canon all of a sudden announced a "D" series lens in >the range 28-120, f2.8, designed specifically for digital cameras? Maybe >there is a God? Prey Skip!
"It'd be a real first if you ever refrained from passing comment when you have nothing to say, wouldn't it?"
>>>>Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape.
>>>Anyone owning lenses designed for film are the ones who will have no >>>escape. >>>--
>>> Stacey
>> Stacey, remind me of this statement in a couple of weeks, when I have a >> chance to test out the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and >> 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS on my 5D. I'll bet they'll compare favorable you >> anything you have in your lens quiver. I've seen what the camera will do >> in a quickie shot with the 100 f2. >> Can't do the test, right now, because I'm too busy shooting weddings with >> the cameras and my favorite test spot, Petco Park, is a little busy, >> right now...
> Do I read this right?
> You bough a brand new camera a few days ago and you're busy shooting > weddings with it already? I'm impressed Skip. It sounds like you shoot a > wedding every day. You must have a pretty big staff to process and compile > everything. I shudder to thing how big your album account is. Your bill > must look like a serial number.
No, I have a day job, too. So I only have time on the weekend days that we're not doing a wedding to shoot, and sometimes in the afternoon, at which time the lighting on the ballpark isn't ideal and, until either the St Louis Cardinals or the Atlanta Braves knock them out of the playoffs, the Padres baseball team is still using it.
> It takes me 2 days just to process the photos from a Saturday Wedding and > another day (sometimes two) to put the album and CD together. I spend > another 2 days a week just talking to couples and of course, I have to > take the pictures too. So for me, shooting a mere 36 or so weddings a > year, I have to work 6 days a week, every week and only get to shoot > weddings on Saturdays. Now I know where my time is wasted... Here!
My wife does most of the post production work, I help when I get home from the pesky day job. Your timeline looks pretty much like ours, 4-5 days, 8-10 hrs. a day. 30-35 weddings is our max, too. (38 done or booked so far, this year. We've kept my wife's cousin busy with our overflow...)
> Maybe you could share some of the secrets you obviously have, that might > help me avoid passing 20 or 30 weddings a year to other photographers? Are > you going to keep the 20Ds for backups? how do you propose to handle the > area coverage difference?
Yes, we're using the 20Ds as backups, and, frankly, we're not sure how we're going to deal with area coverage differences. (I assume you're talking about the difference in, say, a 16-35 on a 1.6x and FF.) Hoping we won't have to use them, I guess...
> I looked at a 5D myself and although it "seems" a nice enough camera in > the store, after the fiasco of my Canon experiences, I won't bother with > one anytime soon.
Well, we'll see. It doesn't seem to require the workarounds for proper flash usage that the 20D does, on limited testing yesterday. And it has no problem focusing in tough lighting situations. Remember, you mentioned getting the 20D to focus, shooting straight into a sunset? Well, I just made sure that I was focused on something that didn't have the sun glaring back at the lens, too. But with the 5D, I don't have to do that. And the inadequacy of the 420EX flash for fill in that same situation turns out to be an inadequacy of the 20D, with the 5D, there's adequate fill.
> I am curious though, how you are going to address the issue of coverage. > these cameras are going to be pretty useless at a wedding with a 16-35mm > lens, which would have been useful on a 1.6 crop. Even at 24mm the > distortion will be noticeable enough to make you avoid using it.
Actually, the reason for the purchase was to get the 16mm width out of the lenses, some of the venues we work in, we can't get the entire family group in the shot with the 20D and the 16-35 without getting up on a ladder. That makes for a nice shot, sometimes, but not always. Plus, it gets a little repetitive. The main concern was the 24-70s getting a little short. Thus the purchase of the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
> I'd suspect the 70-200 would get a good workout - if you can hold it all > day! Otherwise... I can see some new lenses coming up here. Now wouldn't > it be convenient if Canon all of a sudden announced a "D" series lens in > the range 28-120, f2.8, designed specifically for digital cameras? Maybe > there is a God? Prey Skip!
Actually, my wife gets to use the 70-200, we got her a very nice monopod to work with it. One of other reasons for the purchase was that Canon seems reluctant to put out an f2.8 WA in EF-S mount, as do most mfrs seem to shy away from an f2.8 WA for specifically for their 1.5/1.6x bodies.
In article <43443...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, canvas...@yahoo.com.au says...
> What is it about you in particular that makes you think, when someone > else makes a post you can't accept could be true, you have to try and > make a issue of it? Of course I've owned the things I post about... I > part own (Amongst several other businesses) a second hand camera store, > for Christ Sake!
That doesn't make you correct.
It makes you look stupid.
No one is making an issue out of this except you. Maybe if you stopped posting idiotic crap all the time you wouldn't have to. -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Douglas... <canvas...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > snip > snip > nip > Your entire response is to question me instead of looking at the > sources.
It is to question the veracity of some statements. You are, arguably, the source of your statements, right?
> Accusing me of making assumptions when you yourself are making > some substantial ones. You are doing this even when provided with the > source to get answers. Open your mind and discover for yourself.
1. You claim, you prove. 2. The sources you named are not talking or don't show what you claim they do.
> To question me and demand proof when all you have to do is download a > free trial and have all the proof you need is just baiting me. Don't do > it. It's the sign of an arsehole.
The free trial can only show that there is a module. It cannot show that: - some L lenses create faulty images (it only demonstrates that there is a transform function for some L lenses) - "[o]ne of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras" (it only points out that they have such a product, but not any sales numbers, nor that this is a popular RAW converter on the market) - "the 24-70 f2.8 "L" series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module" (again only that they added it can be proven, the popularity is not provable. At best we'll have a claim from the marketing department, and we know these guys.)
Actually, even the seller wouldn't really know what module was most popular, unless they use spyware telling them how often each module is called and how long it runs. They can at best guestimate using surveys, but these tend to have restrictions, the limit of the insight of people into their own behavior being not the least one.
Is it "Don't question authority -- it doesn't know either." or is it "Always question authority. Hot pokers and electrodes are optional, but generally preferred for this."?
Did you read any of them? Of course you didn't! You don't need to! When you make it up as you go along -- "spoofed address", etc -- things like "facts" and "rational arguments" are immaterial, right?
|
