RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Tools > Hardware
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Hardware Computers, displays, tablets, scanners, cameras, printers, etc.

Canon raises the bar!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 09-19-2003, 08:48 PM
TwinbNJ's Avatar
TwinbNJ TwinbNJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 375
Quote:
FROM: Fishboy,Don, Photomauler ... who ever.....
Most people do not have the capacity to figure out what is best fior them. In other words they are to stubborn, too stupid, too naive, or just to biased or rapped up in their own egotistical bulljargon, etc, etc, etc...

soooo I guess Jean would fall into one of the above ???????


Well I guess that explains the lack of posts ------- LOL

That saves ME a phone call !!!!

Last edited by TwinbNJ; 10-03-2003 at 11:32 PM.
Reply With Quote top
  #32  
Old 09-19-2003, 08:55 PM
TwinbNJ's Avatar
TwinbNJ TwinbNJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by photomauler
Here are two pieces of proganda to be more specific. Actually they are falsehoods to be more accurate. Extracted from early posts in this thread.

From KevenBE and KevinC

Especially when a "live preview" is all you can get.

And the 300D will permit that; the 828 will not.

Sont this I say. i actually hate Sony and own ZERO pieces of Sony gear. My house is filled with gear. I have my baseboards around all walld lined with at least 6 different cables. I do tvo, staellite, bose surround sound, burglar alarms, wireless headphones and on and on and on. I am the MINOLTAMAN lol. I own no canon either. I would not miind tryin one of there latest printers though, Very fast compared to the Epsons.


I ams sure siisy will be happy. I know you will be having some fun. I would kick the camera out of my closet if one found it's way in. I just would not spend MY money on it. Rock on superT.
Yup that tells me all ---- "Sont this I say" LOL

Have another cocktail ---- LOL
Reply With Quote top
  #33  
Old 09-19-2003, 09:34 PM
TwinbNJ's Avatar
TwinbNJ TwinbNJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by TwinbNJ
QUOTE: " but it is on itg's way now. I can't find another one like it for anywhere near the original privce I paid for this one."
OK take the food budget and get that keyboard -- lol ---need I quote more?


Now back to the subject at hand -----
When Jean (silly or not) buys this puppy and I get to take it on the 10,000,000 image test dirve I'll let you all know what I think ----yup that will change the industry! LOL

I am not a canon fan but will trust my twins research and judgement for what will work for her
Reply With Quote top
  #34  
Old 09-19-2003, 09:43 PM
TwinbNJ's Avatar
TwinbNJ TwinbNJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 375
Funny you should bring up that wonderful shot --- it was with her Kodak or my sony - we went back and forth. --- LOL

Now back to Canon she is still researching (YES RESEARCHING) what will best suit her needs...... My husband Bob has len's that will work with this camera --- NICE --- so we can play before we buy.


Sooooo

I guess the comment stays the same - Kevin thank you for the update and info..... RESEARCH and pick what YOU feel is BEST for YOU ---

The picture STARTS with YOU -- the eye behind the lens !!!!
The camera is only YOUR TOOL !!!
Reply With Quote top
  #35  
Old 09-19-2003, 09:57 PM
TwinbNJ's Avatar
TwinbNJ TwinbNJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 375
Quote:
Originally posted by photomauler
You know as well as I that all of these cameras can do a very good job. You will be having fun with whatever she chooses..
Now that was said well --- but I think we all knew that in the first place ---- huh ?


Good luck to all of you -- I know this puppy will take GREAT shots --- but then again I know who is behind the lens
Reply With Quote top
  #36  
Old 09-19-2003, 10:15 PM
Kevin Connery's Avatar
Kevin Connery Kevin Connery is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 82
I agree there are other deceptive practices, whether it's calling software "turbo" (hot air, anyone?), or 1000 being equated to 1024 and so on, the fact of the matter is that 55 isn't 200.

Quote:
I have never heard anyone ever complain of this labeling system before. Plus they all state that it is an equivelant. Not the actual focal length.
Many of the photographers I've worked with have complained about it. And the boxes, brochures, and other collateral for the cameras often does NOT list the focal length, and the word "equivalent" is becoming more and more scarce.

Call it 'wide', 'medium', and 'long' if you want to simplify things, or list the angle of view if you want to be useful. Calling a duck a rose doesn't make it a rose, any more than saying a 55mm lens is a 200 mm lens. (FWIW, I've used cameras for which 200mm lens was a wide angle lens, not a telephoto or supertelephoto lens. The lens was labeled 8 inches, which is rounding, but is at least close to the actual focal length [and useful when I used that same lens on a smaller camera, where it was a "normal" lens.])

Quote:
Since prosumers do not have this flm problem. I will bow out of this part of the discussion unless I see something that seems pretty radical.
Demonstrated to be untrue. (See earlier in the thread, or even your own responses.)

You've not yet shown that the examples I posted can be created with the cameras you're touting. "Or in this one, where even her left eye (camera right) isn't as crisp as the right one, and the background is all soft.)" To get a comparable result to that example (f/2.8, around 4 feet, 165mm) from the Sony 828, you'd need the lens to be faster than f/1.0 (roughly f/0.5 according to the numbers), and that's not happening in this world today.

If you want to rebut any of my facts ("claims" if you prefer), you're more than welcome to try. But try apples to apples, not ducks to roses.

I'll cheerfully concede price, weight, convenience, general sharpness, dust, "what the eye behind the camera had seen", tilt up viewfinders, onscreen histograms, burglar alarms, infrared capabilities, or changing the baby's diapers if it'll help keep the focus on depth of field.

And I'll just as cheerfully concede that most people don't care about this. I do, and many of my colleagues do. That we're in the minority doesn't make it any less real an issue to us.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
--Aldous Huxley
Reply With Quote top
  #37  
Old 09-20-2003, 12:08 AM
Kevin Connery's Avatar
Kevin Connery Kevin Connery is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 82
I've always been a fan of ad hominem attacks; they're so very ... persuasive.

Quote:
Why don't you stop talking about dof and start talking about some of the other characteristics/nuances of photography.
Because, excluding that issue, for my purposes, almost any current digital camera with a halfway decent response time is sufficient. That's why I conceded all those points ahead of time, and why I brought that ONE issue up in the first place.

Quote:
have been touring your galleries some more and a lot of stuff seems flat and colourless. What camera and lenses are you using?
For the ones you listed, either Canon's F1, using a mix of 28mm, 85mm, or 80-200mm lenses. Shot on Portra (film!), and scanned to floppies--the examples you listed are from 1998/1999 and are clearly identified as such on their pages. There's some truly horrible ones from 1978/79 you seem to have overlooked; they're completely without color, and have contrast problems to boot. (Amazingly enough, that 1972-era camera didn't have a "histogram readout, live preview, good compensation circuits, ", etc. No digital capabilities whatsoever, in fact. So the quality of the image was dependent on a $3.99/roll scanning job--each roll fit on one floppy. Not surprisingly, the scans sucked, but for snapshots--which is all those galleries are--it was fine.)

Alas, I have no shots of squirrels or cats, fireworks or fish, so you will have to be content taking more potshots at my candids of people shot at high noon, or the handful of photographs at

http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...4_161151r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...04largeweb.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...824_170142.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...4_124346r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...5_160600r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...0824_strip.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...0154c2r3bw.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...162722c1r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...162040c1r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...0746c2r4bw.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_imag...155448c1r1.jpg

Since I wasn't discussing the quality of my images, though, merely calling attention to ONE aspect of photography that seemed to be getting dismissed, it really doesn't matter if all my photos suck horribly; the facts remain, utterly unswayed by either my beliefs or yours.

I've made my points as best I could, and, as you do not seem interested in responding to them, or even reading what I wrote (rather than what you appear to have wanted me to have written), I will bother you no longer.

"Little people with little minds and little imagination jog through life in little ruts, smugly resisting all changes which would jar their little worlds."
-- Marie Fraser

Last edited by Kevin Connery; 09-20-2003 at 03:06 AM.
Reply With Quote top
  #38  
Old 09-20-2003, 12:44 AM
Toad's Avatar
Toad Toad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 177
A friend of mine at work just purchased the Canon 300D. He will be bringing it in to show me on Monday - so I may be able to post a more informed opinion at that point - maybe even get a chance to shoot a few photos.

The photos are what this is about isn't it? This discussion of the relative merits of a couple of new cameras seems to have degenerated quite a bit from where I am sitting.

Can't we all just get along? (misquoted from Rodney King I think)
Reply With Quote top
  #39  
Old 09-20-2003, 12:46 AM
catia's Avatar
catia catia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 255
Nice photos Kevin. I really like the second one. I like the composition, color, and focus. My focus was drawn to her eyes immediately and it was hard not to gaze into them. Nice work.

Catia
Reply With Quote top
  #40  
Old 09-20-2003, 12:18 PM
Toad's Avatar
Toad Toad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 177
Yes - I have no doubt that a top of the line prosumer camera will be adequate for my needs - as it is most people are surprised that I use the picnic portable that I do for my shots. Having said that, I also have been told that my current camera is limiting my abilities - whatever.

I know it is a cliche - but it is the photographer and not the camera. I think it is about personal style. I have a drawer full of 35mm cameras with several interchangeable lenses - and I even have an old 4x5 in there somewhere. That is not where I am at personally - I am about simplicity and portability - but I TOTALLY support the idea that photographers should choose the equipment that they feel that they need and does the job for them.

Does the 300D lack critical features for a dedicated DSLR user? Maybe - maybe not. Is the F828 too limited for you? Maybe - maybe not. Will either camera or any other camera make you a better photographer? Absolutely not. It might help you get that shot that you coul dnot before - but the shot still occurs first in the eye and brain. If it ain't there - the camera won't help.

For some work - I think about Sports photography as an example - you clearly need the equipment that will deliver the shot best. For the average garden variety user - a consumer grade portable is probably sufficient. Has been for me so far.

So what's the point of this rambling? No point. Pick what camera you like - it's your money.
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Tools > Hardware


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW Image Thumbnailer and Viewer Syd Software 4 08-21-2007 11:51 AM
Canon S45 to XP home upload Old Canoeist Hardware 3 02-27-2007 11:53 AM
HP 7900 or Canon i9900 ? 1STLITE Input/Output/Workflow 8 05-24-2004 09:20 AM
Missing scroll bar? CJ Swartz Website Feedback 38 09-08-2002 04:50 AM
Canon S800 Printer Marni Hardware 11 09-03-2001 08:49 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved