Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dsmeltz
Page: <<prev 1 ... 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 ... 630 next>>
Nov 21, 2014 13:32:38   #
Gifted One wrote:
Adorama and they have a unadvertised special for $1599 for the body only. Only available through phone orders not online. Not sure how long it will last but as of 1:30 pm EST it was still on. free overnight shipping, and extended 2 year warrantee with drops and spills coverage, but only if you ask.

J. R.

I believe that there will also be promotions on the Mark 2 m lens.


Wish I hadn't asked. I can't afford it right now even at that price. :cry:
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 13:13:59   #
Jim216 wrote:
Under the hood I was referring to the OS. Should have been more clear :)


Hey, I used to do UNIX as well. If Ma Bell had not been broken up, we would all be happily using clean UNIX computers today.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 13:12:24   #
Gifted One wrote:
There is a special offering at Adorama, that is a phone order special that you have to ask for.

J. R.



Well, what is the offer other than "special"? Is it for the camera or lens?
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 13:05:59   #
pterosonus wrote:
I put a filter on all my lenses and only remove it when I use a polarizer. I also always use a hood. For digital cameras there is no difference between UV or clear protector. Try selling your lens when you say "has slight scratches or cleaning marks that don't affect image quality" and see how much less it sells for.
Buy top of the line from B+W, Heliopan, Hoya, Kenko or Marumi. B+W and Heliopan have brass threads that don't bind, but all my lenses have plastic threads so I don't think that matters. The best filters have multiple coatings (up to 8 on each side) to reduce flare and ghosting, hardened optical quality glass, are anti-static and clean easily. Only buy Hoya from authorized dealers. There have been fakes sold recently.
I put a filter on all my lenses and only remove it... (show quote)


Belt and suspenders is not a bad idea. Esp. when the pants cost hundereds or thousands of dollars. :wink:
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 13:03:04   #
To be honest, I just take a P&S to weddings for shots of interest to me. I want to enjoy the event. If I take full gear, I can't do that.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 13:00:27   #
TheDman wrote:
Good thing. If you had loosed it, it would have fallen to the ground!


Thank you! Alway need the typo police. :wink:
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 11:48:42   #
Peekayoh wrote:
I guess I didn't make myself clear so I'll try again. If the OP were to increase the ISO by one stop to iso12800, the resultant image would be more degraded by noise than the one posted. I hope that we all know that! By saying "to what end?" I'm simply asking, what's the point.

Just to be doubly clear about this, pushing the iso when there is plenty of available light is no test of a camera's low noise capability. Any camera will do better in those circumstances. The only real test of low noise capability comes in really poor light and when you can only get the shot by raising the iso.
I guess I didn't make myself clear so I'll try aga... (show quote)


Not disagreeing with that.

Just that you were not actually addressing the comment you were responding to nor was your comment it in line with the nature of this thread (until hijacked), which was about noise on the 7DII that used an image to illustrate and not about a critique of a picture.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 11:43:50   #
Gene51 wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup:

I will never understand the blind loyalty of Mac users to their brand, in spite of being shown over and over again where it falls short compared to the alternatives - yet they insist on buying an outstandingly mediocre product and paying a premium price for it, with no discernible difference other than the coolness factor (status symbol) and it's visual appeal. I don't buy computers on visual appeal - they have to do what I need them to do, reliably and as cheaply as possible.
:thumbup: :thumbup: br br I will never understa... (show quote)


But that is the appeal. It is not just mediocre, it is outstandingly mediocre!
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:53:32   #
Gene51 wrote:
Good Lord!!!!! It's NOT PERFECT? WHERE'S THE MAGIC???

REALLY!!!

Man, that stinks!!!!

:XD:

Talk about selling the unsuspecting public a bill of goods . . .


Something I was taught when studying Operations Research and economics.

Every model we develop to explain how things work will eventually be proven wrong in some important and fundamental way, but, until it is and as long as it working for what we need right now, keep using it.

When it is finally proven wrong, move on.

The same is true for OS’s and cameras.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:44:37   #
tomw wrote:
Pentax DSLRs are sealed, and they have sealed lenses to go with them. I don't know how to determine which company's sealing system is best.


Got a pool nearby? :wink:
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:43:12   #
Gene51 wrote:
Well, I'd tend to agree with you, except that the latest update to the MacOS, Yosemite, seems to be causing difficulties for Lightroom and Photoshop users, on Macbook Pros, iMacs etc.

Specifically, PS won't launch, and LR shuts down after a while, sometimes during metadata updating. Hmm . . .

Perfect systems like the Mac OS, should not be having problems like this.


Which means....... Come on .... you know what it means....

Mac OS is not perfect. :wink:
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:41:54   #
Weight is relative... but only important relative to what you do and need.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:38:54   #
imagemeister wrote:
Why, because Canon's sensors are lagging behind - their lenses are and always have been cutting edge great.


But their cameras maximize the sensor in the body. It is about a camera not about a sensor. The sensor is just one part and not the most important part of a camera.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:30:56   #
ecar wrote:
I guess I'm blind, but I can't see a difference between the two, and the full bird is magnificant! But with that camera, I think you could've upped the ISO even more!!


Peekayoh wrote:
To what end? Unnecessarily increasing the ISO is counter-productive and would soften the image even more.


My comments were about the question raised regarding a valid comment stemming from one individuals observation that they did not see a difference and would want to see it pushed further. That was the end to which the suggested change was directed. The question was “To what end?” I was simply answering THAT question.

As to the other comments by those who have not added to the content of the discussion… Well I try to ignore trolls.
Go to
Nov 21, 2014 10:14:19   #
mrcando wrote:
My interests are definitely landscapes, studio portraits, city architecture- none of which has much, if any movement involved. Fast focusing glass would be a low priority for me. Auto focus is nice of course, but I wouldn't mind finding a high quality manual lens to use as long as I have good eyesight (I'll be 68 this Jan.)


You will still want a fast lens(as in large aperture lens, has nothing to do with how fast it focuses) for depth of field, esp. with portraits. You should be happy with either Canon or Nikon for your uses. In your initial post you mentioned wildlife, which I take it is not really a priority for you. If it were I would push more for one of the Canons designed with action in mind.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 ... 630 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.