1
May 22, 2013, 11:49:37 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.
2
Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear
« on: May 15, 2013, 12:32:53 PM »
Some lenses with leaf shutters. If I could only have one, make it a 100mm f/2.
4
Lenses / Re: ok so i did it and bought into FF... now i need a good standard zoom
« on: April 07, 2013, 03:28:36 PM »
The Samyang 24mm tilt shift is coming out soon for $999, so you might want to hold off till the reviews hit and see if it'd be worth it for you.
In the meantime, I find a nice 35mm or 50mm prime to be generally much more versatile than a 24-70. At 70mm you're really not into telephoto range yet, and 24mm is only 1-3 steps back from normal. So I would get a 50mm and a 70-200 f/4, and the samyang tilt shift, all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L
In the meantime, I find a nice 35mm or 50mm prime to be generally much more versatile than a 24-70. At 70mm you're really not into telephoto range yet, and 24mm is only 1-3 steps back from normal. So I would get a 50mm and a 70-200 f/4, and the samyang tilt shift, all for less than the 24-70 f/2.8L
5
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: First flash unit advice?
« on: March 09, 2013, 05:29:58 AM »
One huge thing no one has mentioned - the 600exrt isn't fully compatible with the 5D2. You lose wireless group mode functionality, and between 1/3 and a full stop of sync speed. The manual says max sync w/ 5D2 is 1/100, and while there are reports of people having no trouble with 1/200, there are also example images with banding at max sync speed. The 580ex ii is overpriced and outdated. It really doesn't make any sense for anyone with a 2011 or older Canon body to buy anything other than the 430ex ii at the moment.
6
Software & Accessories / Re: Anyone know any good Noise Reduction programs?
« on: March 09, 2013, 05:20:26 AM »
I've personally used Lightroom, PictureCode Noise Ninja, and Imagenomic Noiseware, with the latter striking me as being superior to the other two.
http://imagenomic.com/nw.aspx
Specifically, I found Noiseware did a much better job at retaining fine detail (hair for example) when using aggressive NR on high ISO files.
That being said, the differences between modern noise reduction software are so minimal you'd be fine just using eeny, meeny, miny, moe.
I like to reduce chroma (colored) noise aggressively, and I go easy on the luma noise since it's what gives the image detail and isn't all that objectionable if you've ever looked at push processed or "high ISO" (800-1600, lol) film.
http://imagenomic.com/nw.aspx
Specifically, I found Noiseware did a much better job at retaining fine detail (hair for example) when using aggressive NR on high ISO files.
That being said, the differences between modern noise reduction software are so minimal you'd be fine just using eeny, meeny, miny, moe.
I like to reduce chroma (colored) noise aggressively, and I go easy on the luma noise since it's what gives the image detail and isn't all that objectionable if you've ever looked at push processed or "high ISO" (800-1600, lol) film.
7
Lenses / Re: Advice on a telephoto lens for street photography
« on: March 06, 2013, 07:49:24 PM »
EDIT:
double post
double post
8
Lenses / Re: Advice on a telephoto lens for street photography
« on: March 06, 2013, 07:46:37 PM »
There's nothing inherently more voyeuristic about using telephoto lenses for street photography as opposed to normal lenses. It's all about intent. How the subject feels about your choice of gear is irrelevant. Being blatant or inconspicuous has nothing to do with gear. No photographic genre places a limit on "acceptable focal lengths." Unfortunately, street photography is riddled with elitist stigmas perpetuated by Leicaphiles and Cartier-Bresson worship.
Landscape photography can only really be taken with a view camera. Ansel Adams demands it.
See how ridiculous it is?
135L is the best telephoto for street, hands down. A case can be made for the 100 f/2 (cheaper, smaller) or 85L (effectively 2 stops faster than the 135). Not so much the 85 1.8.
Landscape photography can only really be taken with a view camera. Ansel Adams demands it.
See how ridiculous it is?
135L is the best telephoto for street, hands down. A case can be made for the 100 f/2 (cheaper, smaller) or 85L (effectively 2 stops faster than the 135). Not so much the 85 1.8.
9
Lenses / Re: Lens purchase strategy
« on: March 02, 2013, 02:04:32 AM »Completion-ism also drives us to collect or strive toward artificial groupings like Canon's "holy trinity"...if you choose 35L as a standard then there is perhaps a case to be made for getting the 85L and 135L.... There is enough spacing between them. But say if you truly loved your 50mm as your standard? Then the 35L is not that far, so most chose either it or the 50L. But here is the kicker...in this case, some recommend that you add the 24L instead to complete an alternate "trinity" along with the 85 or perhaps the 135L.
Onerous as the original holy trinity concept is, at least it losely encompassed the classic portrait lenses... yes, even the wider 35mm. But how applicable is 24L on a routine basis to people photography? You could argue that you take street shots with 24L, and surely 14L can take pictures of people...but that is not the most common use for these wide-angle lenses. This alternate grouping straddles disparate styles of photography unlike the original somewhat "cohesive", albeit still artificial grouping.
And why stop at a trinity? Why not a "penta-perfect?" or "super-six?". Or instead of the holy trinity...I'll make something up here...how about we stop at the "divine duality?" Say, 50L and 135L?
So "completionism" makes us invent artificial grouping; like a hapless magpie, it goads us to collect things we do not need, use frequently, or employ to their fullest ability.
The appeal of lens trinities stems from the classic photojournalism technique of shooting a scene "wide-mid-tele" to tell "the whole story." This mentality can be useful for different styles or generes. Portraits for example; an 85 or 135 for close ups and a 50 or 35 or body / environmental shots. If you're a journalist, maybe 28 / 50 / 85 would work. Three lenses tends to be the sweet spot between versatility and simplicity. With four or more lenses, there are too many possible combinations to decide. With two lenses, there will be such big gaps in coverage you might as well just use one.
A good place to start is to pick up a 50mm equivalent and just use that for awhile. Odds are you'll end up wanting something a little (or a LOT) longer, and something a little or a lot wider. After you have your personalized trinity in hand and you still feel limited by gear, then you may be suffering from "completionism." No one is a profesional wildlife landscape wedding fashion sports event macro architecture photographer.
10
Portrait / Re: Post your best portraits(street, studio, candid etc...).
« on: February 24, 2013, 03:29:33 AM »
11
Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?
« on: February 21, 2013, 01:42:22 PM »
Canon's sharpest lens:
300mm f/2.8 IS II
Canon's sharpest lens at f/2:
200mm f/2L IS
Canon's sharpest lens at f/1.4:
85L
300mm f/2.8 IS II
Canon's sharpest lens at f/2:
200mm f/2L IS
Canon's sharpest lens at f/1.4:
85L
12
PowerShot / Re: Comparable Camera to the Sony RX100
« on: February 17, 2013, 11:54:36 PM »
Like it's bigger brother the RX1, the RX100 stands alone and unrivaled. There's really no other compact that makes logical sense to buy; all others are either deficient or so large you might as well get a mirorless or bring your DSLR + pancake.
13
Lenses / Re: Help Me Build My Lens Stable!
« on: February 17, 2013, 10:50:39 PM »
My advice:
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
135L
Having both of these is redundant and HEAVY. I'd imagine 99% of the time you'd only be taking one or the other, so you might as well only invest in one or the other. You don't shoot sports so the zoom isn't necessary, so I wouldn't bother with it. The 135 is much better for portraits, though you may find it a hair long, or that f/2 nukes backgrounds too much. For landscapes the 70-200 f/4 you already have is perfect, so I suggest you keep that and get an 85mm instead. The 85 1.2 destroys the 85 1.8 in all areas and is the finest portrait and low light lens currently available anywhere. It's worth it to me to lug it around, and really it's not that heavy - about 50% lighter than the 70-200 IS II. It's also better than the 135 for street stuff and events/stage stuff.
16-35 II
24 1.4
Again, carrying both of these would be redundant and heavy. The 24L sucks for astrophotography, as it suffers from major coma. For this application, the Rokinon 14mm is the best value, and it's small / light. That being said, I think the 24 1.4 is the better choice, as it blows the 16-35 out of the water in terms of sharpness and of course can go to f/1.4. What can the 16-35 do? Take massive filters and turn the corners of the frame into mush? For landscape and weight / versatility considerations, I might also think about getting a 17-40 to complement your 70-200.
100 Macro
Get the L version, but not because of weather sealing unless you decide to get a 1DX. This is a great lens choice especially if you go with the 85 1.2 instead of the 135L, as the macro can do double duty as a portrait lens, rendering the 135L redundant.
50 1.4
No brainer on this one. Might as well scoop one up before it's replaced with a new $800 version.
5D3
I don't see any reason why you'd need a 5D3 except for spray-and-pray capability. Unless you need FPS or AI-Servo performance, the 6D is the better camera. A better plan than 5D3 > 1D4 would be 6D (or even 5D2) > 1DX. Also, if you plan on using lenses with fast apertures, the 5D3's viewfinder only shows depth of field down to what, f/3.5-4? Coming from crop you might not notice right away, since your fastest lens (the nifty fifty) has an equivalent DOF vs FF with the same framing as an f/4 lens on full frame. The only Canon cameras currently in production that take focusing screens are the 6D and 1DX (and the discontinued 5D2). This is also a consideration if you ever buy a tilt shift lens.
600-EX-RT is a huge boon for photographers and if I were you this would be at the top of my list, not the bottom. Being able to control an off camera flash directly from the camera's menu using radio without having to use proprietary transceivers is SICK. I'm finally no longer jealous of Nikon's flash system, and with the exception of sync speed, I'd say the Canon system is now superior.
So in the end:
Sell:
60D, 10-22
Keep:
70-200 f/4
Acquire:
24L
85L
100L
50 1.4
17-40L
70-200 f/2.8 IS II
135L
Having both of these is redundant and HEAVY. I'd imagine 99% of the time you'd only be taking one or the other, so you might as well only invest in one or the other. You don't shoot sports so the zoom isn't necessary, so I wouldn't bother with it. The 135 is much better for portraits, though you may find it a hair long, or that f/2 nukes backgrounds too much. For landscapes the 70-200 f/4 you already have is perfect, so I suggest you keep that and get an 85mm instead. The 85 1.2 destroys the 85 1.8 in all areas and is the finest portrait and low light lens currently available anywhere. It's worth it to me to lug it around, and really it's not that heavy - about 50% lighter than the 70-200 IS II. It's also better than the 135 for street stuff and events/stage stuff.
16-35 II
24 1.4
Again, carrying both of these would be redundant and heavy. The 24L sucks for astrophotography, as it suffers from major coma. For this application, the Rokinon 14mm is the best value, and it's small / light. That being said, I think the 24 1.4 is the better choice, as it blows the 16-35 out of the water in terms of sharpness and of course can go to f/1.4. What can the 16-35 do? Take massive filters and turn the corners of the frame into mush? For landscape and weight / versatility considerations, I might also think about getting a 17-40 to complement your 70-200.
100 Macro
Get the L version, but not because of weather sealing unless you decide to get a 1DX. This is a great lens choice especially if you go with the 85 1.2 instead of the 135L, as the macro can do double duty as a portrait lens, rendering the 135L redundant.
50 1.4
No brainer on this one. Might as well scoop one up before it's replaced with a new $800 version.
5D3
I don't see any reason why you'd need a 5D3 except for spray-and-pray capability. Unless you need FPS or AI-Servo performance, the 6D is the better camera. A better plan than 5D3 > 1D4 would be 6D (or even 5D2) > 1DX. Also, if you plan on using lenses with fast apertures, the 5D3's viewfinder only shows depth of field down to what, f/3.5-4? Coming from crop you might not notice right away, since your fastest lens (the nifty fifty) has an equivalent DOF vs FF with the same framing as an f/4 lens on full frame. The only Canon cameras currently in production that take focusing screens are the 6D and 1DX (and the discontinued 5D2). This is also a consideration if you ever buy a tilt shift lens.
600-EX-RT is a huge boon for photographers and if I were you this would be at the top of my list, not the bottom. Being able to control an off camera flash directly from the camera's menu using radio without having to use proprietary transceivers is SICK. I'm finally no longer jealous of Nikon's flash system, and with the exception of sync speed, I'd say the Canon system is now superior.
So in the end:
Sell:
60D, 10-22
Keep:
70-200 f/4
Acquire:
24L
85L
100L
50 1.4
17-40L
14
Lenses / Re: UV or clear protection filter?
« on: February 16, 2013, 02:42:49 PM »
Lots of messed up reasoning surrounding the UV filter "debate."
Here are some incontrovertible facts to help you decide if UV filters are right for you:
In favor of UV filters:
- Even with a lens hood, the front element is susceptible to damage from projectiles
- Even with a hood, dust and gunk (fingerprints etc) WILL accumulate on the front element
- Cleaning the front element improperly may result in micro-abrasions
- It is inconvenient or impossible to properly clean the front element in the field
- Quality UV filters do not degrade image quality or cause flare, they DO however exacerbate existing flare.
- While micro-abrasions won't affect image quality, ask yourself if you'd rather risk your front element or a UV filter
- Using UV filters means you don't have to worry about fiddling with lens caps if you don't want to. I never use lens caps.
Against UV filters:
- It's true UV filters don't protect from impact, and may actually exacerbate damage from impact
- Inconvenient having to switch UV filter for ND or CP (stacking filters is inadvisable)
- Exacerbates flare in certain situations
- Low quality filters may affect sharpness and contrast
- Cost
I use UV filters but I'm not averse to removing them if they're exacerbating flare. I never attached a filter to my 50 1.8 and after two years it still looks brand new. I know as soon as I take a filter off one of my L lenses, a projectile will chip the front element. YMMV
Here are some incontrovertible facts to help you decide if UV filters are right for you:
In favor of UV filters:
- Even with a lens hood, the front element is susceptible to damage from projectiles
- Even with a hood, dust and gunk (fingerprints etc) WILL accumulate on the front element
- Cleaning the front element improperly may result in micro-abrasions
- It is inconvenient or impossible to properly clean the front element in the field
- Quality UV filters do not degrade image quality or cause flare, they DO however exacerbate existing flare.
- While micro-abrasions won't affect image quality, ask yourself if you'd rather risk your front element or a UV filter
- Using UV filters means you don't have to worry about fiddling with lens caps if you don't want to. I never use lens caps.
Against UV filters:
- It's true UV filters don't protect from impact, and may actually exacerbate damage from impact
- Inconvenient having to switch UV filter for ND or CP (stacking filters is inadvisable)
- Exacerbates flare in certain situations
- Low quality filters may affect sharpness and contrast
- Cost
I use UV filters but I'm not averse to removing them if they're exacerbating flare. I never attached a filter to my 50 1.8 and after two years it still looks brand new. I know as soon as I take a filter off one of my L lenses, a projectile will chip the front element. YMMV
15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: EVF for Canon DSLR
« on: January 29, 2013, 12:44:52 AM »
Unfortunately, no.
Hopefully Canon will wise up and start including hybrid viewfinders on DSLRs.
Hopefully Canon will wise up and start including hybrid viewfinders on DSLRs.