March 02, 2015, 10:27:42 AM

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 - expo01

Pages: [1] 2
Lighting / Re: Speedlite 550ex for DSLR's?
« on: December 05, 2012, 05:25:06 AM »
I got 3 550's in use for the past 5 years. They have worked well together and with the following cameras: 20D, 1D Mark 3, 1D Mark 4 and 1Ds Mark 3.

I've also (this year) bought a 5D3 but I have not used the 550s on it yet. For the majority of on camera flash work I've used the 580 II, just because it will seal the connection (weathersealing) with 1D bodies.

If the weathersealing is no issue for you (since you're using a 5D it may not be) then I can recommend the 550s with no hesitation.

Concerning recycle time: I'm sorry, I don't rapid fire flashes. Cannot help you out there. External battery packs will decrease recycle time though.

TS-E 17
TS-E 24
24-70 II
200 F2
200-400 or 400 2.8 IS II (had the 400 2.8 IS but sold it this year)

Lighting / Re: Elinchrom Ranger Quadra
« on: November 07, 2012, 06:51:26 AM »
What softboxes would you recommend for it? I plan on buying one octa, one square.
Would you go with Elichrom softboxes or there are some 3rd party that are good enough and cheaper?

Hi there.

You didn't mention what your subjects are. What are you going to shoot with the strobes? If you want to freeze things with the flashes, then the A heads are definitely the way to go. For things like freezing water/flour etc in mid air, or even fast action sequences.

The S-Heads do have the advantage that you can use them at a higher sync speed together with some pocket wizards models.

Concerning light modifiers. I haven't bought any off-brand boxes so far and I don't plan to. Only exception would be (if I find myself using the beauty dish alot at some point) getting a Mola. But for softboxes, I really like the way the rotalux work.

On a quadra head (+adapter) I wouldn't recommend going bigger than ~100cm deep octa or 100cm square. Might work okay with the 135cm octa but you would have to check google or other photographers for that.

I, myself am using a Ranger RX Speed AS with A-Heads and some other studio-strobes from Elinchrom.

Greetings from Switzerland, expo01

The 5D Mark III will have MUCH better detail than the 1Ds Mark III hands down. It has more megapixels, less low iso noise and a much more advanced anti-aliasing filter which will add about 10% more resolution to any lens you put on the 5D Mark III compared to the 1Ds Mark III. I've done very extensive in depth comparisons on all aspects of the 5D Mark III comparing it to the 1D Mark IV, 1Ds Mark IV, 5D Mark II, D800 and a few other cameras and have spoken directly to a few Canon technicians to gain knowledge on the cameras.

There is a clear winner here.

I will just go ahead and call BS here. That in no way corresponds with my experience or that of about most other users. Not to mention that there has never been a 1Ds Mark IV.

Your so called MUCH better details must be hiding behind that awkward Body of the 5D3.

How would you describe the differences in IQ between the 1ds3 and the 5d3?

I will need to get back to you on that. Maybe I can find an image comparison at home.

Btw: If you're shooting tethered in the Studio, the 1series is the better option. The locking mechanism for the usb cord alone is it worth to me.

for your needs, 1Ds3

I have both the 1ds3 and the 5d3. Using the 1Ds3 for 5 years now. When I do studio work or tethered things..the 1Ds3 is the way to go.

PS: not sure what lenses you use or have...but maybe think about getting a d800e? or even just a 1DX (giga-lan sure would be nice. especially when the alternative is USB 2.0...)

Lenses / Re: DXO - lens reviews - 300mm f/2.8 IS II - that bad ???
« on: October 15, 2012, 05:23:04 AM »
I never had a 300 2.8 from canon, but until about a month ago I had (used it for about 3-4 years) a 400 2.8 IS. I was also shooting with is successor the 400 2.8 IS II and I found it to be equally sharp. They were both giving superb results.

From my experience, shooting alot of those tested lenses (including the 135 2.0), I wouldn't give a second thought about DxO...

I am sure the new 300 2.8 is as good (at least) as the old one and I haven't met a single sports photographer that was unhappy about the performence of the version 1 (IS).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DS3 or 5D3 or 5D2 or 6D?
« on: October 15, 2012, 05:13:43 AM »
I currently own both the 1Ds3 and the 5D3. To be perfectly blunt, I am having a hard time adjusting to the 5D3. For me (I'm using the 1Ds3 for 5 years now) there are a few drawbacks when using the 5D3.

For instance:

- weather sealing (this is something I am uncertain about. how sealed is it really? with the 1 Series I am certain that they outseal me.  ;D I haven't had a single Error Message or anything of the sort since i got the 1Ds)
- exposure indicator (in viewfinder). on the 1's it makes perfect sense, it's on your right side, going up and down. with the 5D on the other hand you'll get it at the bottom going left and right...why canon? seriously!
- on the 1s you are getting a little lever that closes the viewfinder so no light will enter from the back (landscape, long exposure etc) which i find quite handy.
- for me, the 5D doesn't feel comfortable in my hands. I'm used to bigger cameras and I find it too small.
- black af tracking points on the 5D...meh
- zoom button on the 5D
- mode unnecessary! give me buttons like on a 1D.
- power on. can't reach when you're 1hand holding the camera...needs 2nd hand.
- battery life; yeah you just cannot beat a 1Ds3

I could go on and on. But there are also some good things about the 5D.

- AF speed and accuracy is pretty nice.
- back screen is lovely.
- the silent mode is silent...really!
- it's lighter than the 1Ds (can be a plus or a drawback depends on you)

All in all those are two entirely different cameras. I wasn't aware that the difference would be this major. But hey, maybe it's just me. If you do alot of landscape things and need to travel light, going with the 5D might be a wise idea. If you want to be sure that the camera will do repeated work whatever environment or weather (also taking alot of bumps and knocks) the 1D series is more what you want to go for. maybe the 5D will be pretty tough...who's not out long enough to draw real conclusions (for me).

my 2 cents

ps: drawbacks of the 1Ds3 are: not as good an AF system as the 5D3, screen you cannot use for focus checking, silent mode is not silent, no iso steps between 1600 and 3200.

A company like Canon is doing alot of R&D. The magic phrase for prototypes like the 120MP sensor is "proof of concept". You are testing certain aspects. The 120MP sensor has shown that you can do multiple line read outs at a time and produce stunning speeds, which is now famously featured in the 1DX. There you go, a 2010 prototype lead the way for 12 FPS. Another issue they observed with the sensor was, that you are getting diffraction blur at such a wide open aperture that it is currently (2010) not managable to deal with in a finished product.

There is not a shred of doubt that we will someday have 120MP FF or even MFT sensors. When Canon is launching their new 1Dsomething with 120MP you can be assured that it will feature an all newly developed sensor. They won't just take the 2010 prototype and mass produce it.

Another prototype they did is actually now boing used. The ~20cm by ~20cm CMOS is used to map space in an observatory located in Japan. Like most astronomy telescopes and imagers they are one of a kind. Produced to specific uses.

A camera featuring a 20cm by 20cm CMOS and a fixed 43mm (35mm equivalent) lens would be a truely awesome piece of photography gear I would crave for!

Imagine this scenario. You are out at night on the streets with a model. The moon is shining. You found a good spot for some nice fashion portraits. You take your camera out and start doing your "photographer thing", then you say to your assistant "hey dave, go kick out that street light over there, I don't want to use ND filters tonight". :P

Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 02, 2012, 12:05:41 PM »
I had both the 85 1.8 and the 135L.

The 135L was the first lens that immediately wow'd me. Fully open it's very sharp and has very little CA. I bought it together with the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 85 1.8.

I have sold 3 of the lenses again, which only leaves me with the 85 1.2.

Here why I sold them:

- 35 1.4: It's the only lens I've had trouble with. Sent it in a couple times, even 2 times with 2 bodies. Back-/Frontfocus was an issue. I could correct it via micro-adjustment on the fullframe, sent it in, came back, had to adjust even more which had the effect that it wouldn't be adjustable anymore on APS-H (out of range). Ultimately I decided to sell it off.

- 85 1.8: It's a good bang-for-your-buck lens with pretty good AF speed. But I mostly wanted to use the 85mm range for portraits, so it almost never made its way out of the bag, because the big brother 85 1.2 was there. I initially bought the 85 1.8 for concert/sport...for both of which I've used the 70-200 2.8 II alot more. That extra stop of light is not that big of an issue anylonger.

- 135L: Use of the lens got killed by the 70-200 2.8 II, yes I think it's just that good. 135L has a much slower AF speed aswell. With a bit of distance you can get (at 200mm, 2.8) a pretty pleasing bokeh for portraits with the 70-200. If you however like the 135mm range alot and want to do portrait more than sports/concert/catwalk shows etc, then the 135L might just be the lens for you.

Canon General / Re: Dream Package for Soccer???
« on: October 02, 2012, 05:08:40 AM »
You want the dream setup for football (soccer), here you go:

4*1DX (2 on you, 2 behind the goals)

1*400 2.8 IS II (because you f'ing save 1.5kg compared to the old one) 300 is too short on FF (my opinion as a football photographer)
1*70-200 2.8 IS II (it's just way better than the version 1)
1*24-70 L II

Gitzo 5540 or equivalent monopod
pocket wizards
1-2 flashes (always take flashes, just in case)
big ass peli-case
walkstool (camping seat, extremely important! must have)

some words of advice:

  - football/soccer is not american football. you can remain stationary for a full halftime (minus the few runs you do in case of penalty kicks, goal emotions, corners etc.).
  - with a 400, position yourself about 2/3 between the goal and the cornerflag (direction corner flag)
  - use the 400 as your main lens, switch to 70-200 if the players pass the 16 meter mark (2 bodies on you, else you miss it)
  - maybe lay down your 400 and 70-200, switch to a 8-15 and 16-35 move around to get a filled stadium short from one of the corners (maybe even a bit up, like half the rows or more) you want to show a massive, filled stadium. you can't go wrong with 1 or 2 fisheye shots, just don't overdo.
  - when your up there doing wide shots, be sure to keep an eye on the field...if a goal happens, just use the pocket wizard to capture it  ;D
  - take a few images of the fans
  - take a shot of the coaches (can also do before the kickoff when you're at the sideline to get the groupshot of the team)
  - take a groupshot of the team after they walk in before the kickoff (they normally stand in a line or pose in 2-3 rows)
  - all action sequences need the ball in the frame, emotion pics should be close-ups, keep the 4-eye rule in as many action shots as you can, position yourself to where the background is not filled with empty seats, try to keep an eye on ads in the background (sometimes you can get awesome shots with them, i.e: 1 player gets fouled and you catch him falling down, the ad behind him is for painkillers, that's just an outright awesome shot there!)

for any more questions, just reply here.

regards from europe

PS: I myself have almost completly switched from football/soccer to other photography areas, hence my trusty 1D4, 24-70 and 400 2.8 have been sold. I still do the occasional football/soccer match (just international games) but I can still get enough shots with the 5D3 and the 70-200. You can tell my new preference and area if you go past my bodies and lenses in the signature.

Lenses / Re: what filter for my first "L" Lens
« on: September 28, 2012, 04:21:16 PM »
ND grad, polarizer or none.

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???
« on: September 20, 2012, 04:52:36 AM »
First off, it is a really hard choice to make. But considering the various types of things I do, I might come up with following answer.

17 TS-E (close call between the 17 and 24, choosing the 17 because of the density in switzerland (architectural) and the good usage in landscape work)
50 1.2 (got to have a standard lens, the 1.2 is just better than all the alternatives, even though it's not the best lens ever created. to be fair, there is a lack of good 50's)
70-200 2.8 IS II (i just have to have this one. this lens gets the most use any day. perfect for portraiture, sporting events, speeches etc.)

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 II vs. 85mm 1.2 II - general opinion
« on: July 27, 2012, 05:23:06 AM »
If I want great shots, I'll shoot with the 70-200L for versatility.  If I want magical shots, I'll put on the 85L.
Perfect answer.

Yes, as long as you put the 85L on a FF Body I agree with you.

But back to the topic. When you say the 100 is too long for you, I do not see any benefit of buying the 70-200. On a 7D the 85 looks almost like a 135 on FF, which is a pretty sweet portrait focal length. The main advantage of the 85 of course is versatility (I know you're looking funny now). I'm talking about the ability to shoot in low-light and more importantly at small DoF. F 2.8 only takes you that far (especially if you don't like the longer focal lengths). So why use a 2.8 at 70-85mm instead of a 1.2?

In my opinion, this should answer your question.

I like you. You get me  ;) I'm doing the same. It's logical isn't it?  ;D

I tend to forgo saying "F" most of the time and "Point" almost all the time. Some examples...

If I was asking for my 35L - "Can you hand me the 35?"

If someone asked me what I was shooting at - "I'm at one four, one one sixtieth, ISO 100 (so I'm shooting at f/1.4 at 1/160 sec at ISO 100)"

I'm saying it like this: (on the 35 1.4) "35 one four". I don't say the "F" or the "point". To me, it's a suggested "F" and "point". There is also no confusion whether it's f1.4 or f14, simply because i would say "fourteen". That is if there actually were a f14 lens in my bag, which clearly isn't. If it regards not to the lens but to the actual (used) f-stop i might say the "f" sometimes.

Pages: [1] 2