March 02, 2015, 03:37:29 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - roadrunner

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]
« on: October 27, 2013, 01:16:04 PM »

Good grief.  EVFs are years, if not decades away from being usable in high-speed and/or low-light situations, plus we need a good factor of 4 increase in battery performance before we go that way.

A  bit of an overreaction? He didn't suggest building a space elevator.

Space elevators are at least possible.  EVF as good as OVFs are not possible, ever.

At least you confirmed suspicions of an over reaction =/

Who knows what will be possible in the next decade or so. I'll agree that it's not going ot happen for a few more years, but there's no way of knowing what will be possible in 10+ years, especially with anything technology related.

Lighting / Re: Pocket wizard x and 3
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:11:36 AM »
Thanks for your input guys... We have a handful of pocket wizard 3's and we are looking to get more but if the x's can do the same but half the cost and still communicate properly, we will get those instead.  As far as HSS, ETTL, Second curtain, we dont use those functions... These are for our studio and on location lighting... We have some canon flashes that are collecting dust but other than wedding receptions, we just don't really use them.  They just dont have the umph and consistency of my studio strobes, but triggering them outside without pocket wizards have proven challenging =)

Makes sense. I use hotshoe strobes a lot and moved over to the RT system and couldn't be happier, 100% reliability and consistency within the ETTL functionality. But they will never have the power of a studio light, even ganged.

I have to second this. After struggling for a couple years with my PW setup, I bit the bullet, sold it all (Including my Canon 580EX IIs and 430EX IIs) and purchased 4 600EX-RTs. I couldn't be happier. Looking to add another one or two to my collection shortly. I really didn't even take a financial hit, as I paid $500 for each of mine. The only real reason I can see sticking to a PW setup now is for studio strobes.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 26, 2013, 11:08:32 PM »
Doesn't it seem to anyone else that these should be branded under their SPORT line? I'm personally not a huge fan of the new nomenclature, but it would still be interesting if these can rival the mark II great whites (especially when it comes to AF and image quality with TC's).

Their new nomenclature is terrible. In my opinion, they should have just stuck to two lines. One for top of the line (Art to compete with Canon's L, perhaps?) and the rest. Alas, their art line has been great so far, so I can't criticize them too much.

I don't think she needs to change her company name. Just change the watermark. "BSP" or spelling out the "BS" would be a simple way to keep the company name without triggering unkind thoughts.

Or maybe she just doesn't care, and she can just continue on ignoring what other people think of name.

Lighting / Re: 600ex as main lights
« on: August 22, 2013, 07:19:56 PM »
I'm not afraid to go with non-Canon brands, if they perform as desired. I don't have experience with the Yongnuo, so I can't comment on them, but I have heard of some minor issues. Then again, I've heard great stories as well.

I was coming from a Canon 430EX II, 580EX II, and Pocket Wizard TT5 setup. Everyone knows that was not a cheap setup, and supposedly was a top of the line setup. I had nothing but issues with it. Reliability issues, the AC3 not making adjustments correctly, flashes behaving erradically. I was unhappy for something that cost so much money.

I recently switched to the 600EX-RT and couldn't be happier. I have 4 of them, and they work exactly as they should, every single time. The only thing I miss is the physical dials of the AC3, and I wish canon would put out a controller with physical dials. I don't see the cost to be that big of a deal, as it was cheaper than my Pocket Wizard/430EX II/580EX II setup was, and performs better to boot.

So here is one vote in major support of the Canon 600EX-RT system. Not to take anything away from the Yongnuos.

EDIT: I guess I didn't address your specific use for them. For large reception halls, yes, I find the 600EX-RT's to be underpowered, but you will have that with any flash. That is more of a job for studio strobe. I have lit receptions with them, but I either gang them together, shoot them bare (For backlighting), or bounce them off of the ceiling. I don't really think they have quite enough just to light a big reception hall with just 1 inside of a light modifier. Still an excellent system.

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot S120 Announced
« on: August 22, 2013, 08:03:51 AM »
I can't say I'm surprised that the aperture range was a typo, but this is a very promising camera on paper. Can't wait for the reviews to come in with in-depth image quality comparisons.

Also, I'm assuming that the 9FPS is JPEG only? Any word of the RAW burst rate, or will it be the same for the first X amount of images, and then slow down based on SD card? Either way, that is a very nice frame rate as well.

PowerShot / Re: PowerShot Announcements Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 21, 2013, 08:54:15 PM »
I'll keep an eye on s120. Will Canon be able to bring s120 to RX100 II level?

What I like about RX100 II:
1. Size - fits in jean pocket no problem
2. AF is fast - face detection is excellent
3. Flip screen - great to shoot kids at lower angle shots
4. Sharp at wide open
5. 1600ISO in low light looks really good

Both photos below are straight out from camera. only resized to post here

I'm wondering about this too. I bought my wife an RX 100 (Not II) in March for her birthday, and it is an awesome camera. From what I've heard the I and II are very similar strictly from an image quality standpoint. But yes, I will keep my eye on this S120, but I doubt it will touch the image quality of the RX100. Viewing the RX100 beside photos taken from my old Rebel XSi, I really can't tell the difference. Obviously my 5D3 blows the RX100 out of the water, but I feel like the RX100 is on another level when compared to most compact cameras. If the S120 can compete, I will be extremely impressed, especially at 9FPS.

The current Canon lineup at 50mm is abysmal at best..........

Isn't this a bit of an exaggeration? To what purpose?

You're right, it was a bit of an exaggeration. I apologize for that. I try to stay away from responses like that =)

More realistically, I should have said decent at best. I don't feel that would be an exaggeration. I'm a wedding/couples portrait photographer, so my needs don't cover everyone's needs. The Canon's 50mm F1.2L's weather sealing, while nice, isn't really completely necessary for me.

Here's my run down of Canon's current lineup, and why I refuse to make another 50mm purchase until they refresh it, or until Sigma comes out with their new 50mm.
Canon 50mm F1.2L - Great build quality, but the optics aren't up to current standards. Note, I did not say the optics suck, but they could clearly be better. This is a recurring theme across all their 50mm lenses right now though. Also, the price is far to high for me to even consider over their much more reasonably priced 50mm 1.4.

Canon 50mm F1.4 - The best value out of the line up, I would say, but it is still softer than I would like for making a purchase in 2013. Also, the autofocus is in need of an update. All-in-all, a decent lens.

Canon 50mm F1.8 - A great lens for the price, but at $99, just about anything would be a good deal. It is just as sharp as it's more expensive siblings, has abysmal build quality, loud and slow-ish autofocus, and not the best looking bokeh. I own two of these.

So yes, it isn't abysmal. But I would say it is in need of a refresh, and very soon. I'll make due with cheap, toy-like build quality of the 50mm f1.8, but I will definitely buy a new 50mm if and when Canon chooses to release one. I would much rather buy from Canon than Sigma for a few reasons, the 35mm is the only Sigma I own, but if Sigma were to release a new 50mm on par with the 35mm, and they priced it $400-$500 cheaper than the 50mm L, I would definitely purchase it.

Hopefully that clears up my post a bit with less exaggeration.

The current Canon lineup at 50mm is abysmal at best..........

Isn't this a bit of an exaggeration? To what purpose?

If you look at Amazon lens sales, Canon 50mm lenses are at #1, #5, and #38. The Sigma 50mm is at #65. I'm not saying sales is everything. But clearly the market doesn't agree. And I'm not saying Canon's 50mm lenses couldn't benefit from improvements (they each have shortcomings). Canon's 50mm f/1.4 might be delicate, but it's gotta be one of the best deals ever.And, not only is it sharp as hell, but it's IQ and bokeh have serious character.

Like I said to Mustafa, I did exaggerate a bit, but I don't think the top-selling lenses on Amazon is really indicative of quality.

For example, I even mentioned I own 2 50mm 1.8's myself. While a great value, it's poor build quality, focus, and bokeh quality aren't awesome. Sure, it's awesome for $99, but I'm looking from a professional perspective here.

Same goes for the 1.4. I think that is the best value out of Canon's lineup, but like you said, I feel it's build quality, auto focus, and corner sharpness could be improved quite a bit.

Canon's 1.2 is soft in the corners and extremely expensive. If you need this lens, you need it. But for me, I don't need weather sealing. It is nice, but not necessary, and I just don't feel like that justifies the cost over the 1.4.

As for Sigma's 50mm being #65? Good. I've used that lens, and I liked it better than all of Canon's... when it worked. Consistency was shoddy at best, they definitely have some quality control issues there. Basically, I'm not happy with the 50mm landscape across the board, which is why either Sigma releasing a 50mm Art on par with the 35mm Art, or Canon releasing a new 1.4 would make me very happy.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm delay because IS (OS)?
« on: August 18, 2013, 03:32:40 AM »
$700 for a 50mm f/1.4 IS with optical performance like the 35?  Could be interesting...


I just don't see that happening. Why would Sigma release an even more popular focal length, with image stabilization, and the same (or better) optical performance as their 35mm, but price is $200 cheaper? If anything, I see this lens launching at $899, just like the 35mm, if not $999. In my personal opinion, Sigma's 50mm Art would not be competing with Canon's 50mm f1.4, it would be competing with Canon's f1.2L. Unless of course Canon launches a higher end 50mm f1.4 as well.

At any rate, I'm ready for a new Siggy 50mm after seeing their 35mm, for sure.

I think Sigma should have always been taken seriously. Don't get me wrong, I've never wanted a sigma lens prior to the art 35mm (Which I now own) as I would prefer Canon, but that doesn't mean I didn't take Sigma seriously. I seriously considered a couple of their lenses. Mainly the 50mm f1.4 and the 150mm 2.8 OS Macro lens.

In the end, I didn't want to struggle with the QC issues of the Sigma 50mm (Though, by most accounts, it is the better lens on paper when compared to Canon's offerings) and I wanted the weather sealing, smaller, lighter 100mm Macro L. So I have always seriously considered Sigma, I just never actually chose them until the current 35mm. I am definitely looking forward to an art version of their 50mm though.

While I love the idea of a 24mm, I wish they would put out an updated 50/85mm art series lens first. I absolutely love my Sigma 35mm, a lens I was predisposed to hate (I don't like owning non-canon lenses, mainly due loss of value), but I was so blown away by the 35mm I would jump on a new 50mm the instant it was available. The currnent Canon lineup at 50mm is abysmal at best, so I am sure a Sigma 50mm would be every bit as popular as the 35mm. While I would like to buy an art series 85mm, I'm happy enough with my Canon 85mm 1.8 that I would not likely upgrade to it.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 17, 2013, 02:46:49 AM »
I downloaded the image edited it in LR to reduce red saturation, and uploaded to Smugmug.  I don't see the saturation changing after my upload.
I realize that the image is not the same as your correct rendering, I merely wanted to see if uploading to my web site and linking to it changes the saturation.
Something is happening either due to your jpg conversion settings, or the software that renders the image.  If you want to send a copy of the original, I'll upload it and see what it does, something is happening when you convert to jpeg and upload.

Thanks for the help. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I think I basically figured it out. Lightroom/Photoshop's interpretation is correct, my browsers just seem to freak out with sRGB. I guess that's just the nature of the beast when working on a calibrated wide-gamut display?

In any case, I am at work now, and I viewed my website on a couple work computers (uncalibrated), and the images look basically how I intended. I'm not seeing the drastic saturation changes that I was at home. As for the image you posted, it looks very desaturated on this PC, which would make sense if you desaturated it and it looked normal. More or less, I don't think the files are actually changing, now that I had a chance to view it on multiple PCs. The desaturate and saturated photos are exactly the same, even though my monitor/system for some reason interprets them differently once they are on the internet. I won't even begin to understand why.

Anyways, though we never figured out a specific reason, hopefully this thread will help someone. At least I know I can trust PS/LR. Thanks again all.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 16, 2013, 10:31:14 PM »
I got the chance to view my website and photos from a couple different (Uncalibrated) computers, and everything seems to look fine. It would appear I've been banging my head against the wall for nothing.

For everyone else that is having the same issues with a wide-gamut monitor: Using ICCv2 profiles rather than ICCv4 for your monitor profile will make Windows Photo Viewer display your photos correctly. Furthermore, it would seem that Lightroom and Photoshop's interpretation of color is the correct one, if you have color management set up correctly.

For whatever reason, wide-gamut displays seem to display sRGB all crazy (Which I've read before), and I still don't fully understand why sometimes it was displaying correctly and other times it wasn't, but at least now I've discovered that LR/PS is correct and I should ignore whatever my browser is showing me. To recap, I had issues in Chrome, Firefox, and IE9/10. At least I can put my mind at ease knowing that I didn't give my last client screwed up images.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 16, 2013, 06:10:12 AM »
Thanks AmbientLight. Of course, now that I've uploaded the image, it appears over saturated again -_- Even in Firefox and IE10, which are supposedly setup for color management.

Since I don't seem to be getting anywhere, I guess my final question should be: Should I just trust Photoshop/Lightroom's interpretation, and trust that my photo's online look fine? Does that blog post look overly red to you?

At the end of the day, I guess I don't care if my wide gamut display is making my sRGB photos look wonky, as long as I know they actually look correct, and I'm not giving my customers screwed up stuff. Oddly enough, the print I just received from WHCC falls smack in the middle of the saturation levels I am seeing online and in LR/PS, so that's not much help either =) Thanks again for your help.

Technical Support / Re: Color Management Woes
« on: August 16, 2013, 05:59:50 AM »
AmbientLight, Thanks for the reply. I've heard IE bumps up the saturation a bit, so that would be understandable.

I just went through the steps of configuring Firefox for color management. When I open a photo locally, it looks the same in LR, PS, Windows Photo Viewer, and Firefox... when I go to my blog post though, the pictures still look too red, even in firefox.

Could someone do me a simple favor... does the photo attached to this post match the first photo on my blog?
Or is the blog post more red? Just trying to narrow down where the colors are screwing up.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5