April 17, 2014, 05:44:50 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 106
1
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: Today at 10:41:13 AM »

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2


To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.


That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent ;): http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm


You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: Today at 10:02:57 AM »

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2


To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

3
I use the 1900mAh, it isn't a case of "getting away" with them, they are superb batteries that in my opinion offer the best results re longevity, recharge cycles, output and cost.

Been using them for years and have never looked back or wished I had gone for the higher capacity.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:55:21 PM »
It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
What's the buffer depth in RAW?

I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.


You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,152
http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,312


As has been mentioned look at the overhead view, a massive difference in terms of depth between the cameras.

The reason the 645D is so much deeper than FF dispite the sensor not being THAT much larger is I'd say because its having to deal with the legacy flange distance of the old "full frame" 645 system than a whoping 70mm.

Compare the 645D's depth to the Leica S2...

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,391

The formers sensor might be a little taller but that's a pretty massive difference which I'd guess is down to Leica having a purpose made mount with a much smaller flange distance.


I take your point, a bit, but the cost of re-engineering everything would have moved this well out if the $8,500 realm. The Canon 1Ds back in 2002 cost $8,000, a new 1DX is over $6,000.

Anyway here are few numbers for the number crunchers.

Pentax 645Z - 6.1 x 4.6 x 4.8" / 15.5 x 11.7 x 12.2 cm  $8,500
Hasselblad H5D - 6.02 x 5.16 x 8.07" (15.3 x 13.1 x 20.5 cm) $13-44,000
Leica S - 6.3 x 3.1 x 4.7" / (16.0 x 8.0 x 12.0 cm) $22,000
Mamiya RZ22/33 - 6.5 x 6.1 x 5.2" (16.5 x 15.5 x 13.2 cm) $11-18,000

5
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:51:08 PM »
The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

"...super bokeh and shallow DoF..."

Let's consider the latter.  If you frame the subject the same, e.g. a full-body portrait at 2 m with the 50/1.2 or 12 m with the 300/2.8, the subject magnification is the same.  So, the f/1.2 aperture of the 50L will give a thinner DoF.  If the subject-to-background distance is less than ~9 m, the 50L will deliver a stronger background blur.

Obviously, that's OOF blur amount, which is distinct from bokeh.

I wondered how long it would be before somebody pointed that out. It would be interesting to know what the actual true focal length and aperture is with a 12mm tube on the 300mm f2.8.

But I digress, I, personally, prefer the combination of destroyed background, slightly deeper dof, and perspective you get from the 300, rather than the far busier background slightly shallower dof, and perspective from the short 1.2's. Though I fully understand it is all personal preference and in many cases limited by practicalities, I only ever used the 300 at one wedding but used the 50 f1.2 at lots!

P.S. The OOF blur might be more with the wider aperture, but we both know the elements of the background will be vastly bigger, and hence to the eye appear more blurred, with the 300.

6
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:30:50 PM »

I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?


Sure it will, and obviously perspective is a taste issue. Personally I like the look of 300mm portraits, I like the bokeh from 300 f2.8's even better, they really do embarrass the short 1.2's. For years Canon's sample image for the 300 f2.8 was a head and 3/4 portrait, I just checked and it still is, just a different one.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

7
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:42:02 PM »
The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 07:32:48 PM »
I neither love nor hate it, and yes I have used it, indeed I owned an FD 50 1.2L for a long time.

Having said that my vote went for the nifty 50 as you didn't have a Canon 1.4 option. My copy of the Canon 1.4 gives very little away to either, I am not interested in super sharp corners and I don't find the 50, or indeed the 85 f1.2, very good focal lengths to give the background separation I like for that "dreamy bokeh" style portrait. The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

9
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:34:01 AM »
i never understood the comments some people make about not wanting to be a professional and ruin what they love doing. i always thought the best thing you could hope for is to get to do what you love everyday....AND have someone pay you to do it!

I understand the earlier sentiment exactly. There is a huge difference between doing something you love for the fun of it and doing it to feed your wife and kids, ask any fisherman.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:20:06 AM »
NO, not unless you have a very compelling reason to NEED a 1 series body the 5D MkIII is a much better camera. Better AF, better ergonomics, vastly better iso capacity, better flash compatibility, the list just goes on and on.

I have had 1Ds MkIII's for years, and even I am tempted to sell them to move up to the 5D MkIII's, the very few 1 series features that are unique, whilst nice, are not very convincing when compared to the major features the 5D MkIII has over the abandoned 1Ds series.

Having said all that, the 1Ds MkIII is a very major upgrade from your 1Ds MkII, it was a huge upgrade, battery, screen, self cleaning sensor etc etc.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Back Button Focussing and AF Points
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:07:39 AM »
It took me quite a while to be convinced to try BBF, I was very skeptical! Well now I am happily eating my words, it is much more flexible - once you get used to it!

Agreed.  I've tried the AF-OFF approach, but I don't find it as useful.

I think its usefulness depends on your general subject matter, if you regularly shoot sports, BIF and other dynamic subjects it makes much more sense and once you are used to a way of doing it it makes sense to just use that approach for everything. If you shoot less dynamic subjects and have a camera with good off center AF points then it becomes less important, indeed it is the focus recompose scenario where I want to place the focus point out to the edge of the frame that I use BBOFF most. (I just registered BBOFF as a trademark  :) )

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Back Button Focussing and AF Points
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:41:19 AM »
I tried it several times and never got the point, what I do find very useful though is AF button for AF OFF, this does the same thing in that it disconnects the AF from metering when you want, but I found I want them linked much more often than I don't want them linked.

Give both methods a try, most people I have demonstrated the idea to have found it makes more sense than the normal BBF.

13
"The Canon Direct Store does not sell parts.  If you wish to purchase parts, please contact our Jamesburg Parts Order Center.  They can provide you with the price and availability of the part or Ed-C Adapter you're requesting.  You may call them at (866) 481-2569 between 9 am and 7 pm ET, Monday through Friday (excluding holidays)."

So if you are in the US, call that number.  The part number is YG2-0430-000 ADAPTOR ED-C (MECH) and it is $12.16 plus $6 postage (and sales tax).

Thanks for doing the legwork on that one, I'll order mine tomorrow  :)

14
Canon General / Re: "MAP" pricing....How long will it last????
« on: April 15, 2014, 06:29:07 PM »
I think I understand why they try to enforce MAP pricing. They are trying to protect their dealer network; not necessarily the large retailers, but the smaller shops that can't compete on volume and can't stay in business on the small margins that internet dealers accept.

Intellectually, I am sympathetic because I see the downside to massive internet retailers like Amazon, that have little to no investment in the community. They don't pay the taxes that support schools, roads, police, etc. etc.

On the other hand, like most consumers, I am interested in maximizing my purchasing power.

So, I am conflicted.

Two points though to keep in mind.

First, MAP pricing does not affect the manufacturer's price to the retailer. When Canon or Nikon or Sony enforce MAP pricing, they aren't earning any additional profit, the higher margin goes to the retailer. They continue to sell the product to the retailer at the price they've always sold it.

Second, MAP enforcement never works. Ultimately, the market sets the price regardless of  MAP.

You are being generous.

Canon are only after protecting themselves, how does MAP do that? Well B&H, Amazon and Adorama pay less for the product than your local camera shop because of the bulk they buy it in, so the big boys can sell it all cheaper (even before we factor in the sales tax equation) which puts the small local camera retailers and outlets at a big disadvantage. This means the purchasing power migrates up the system, the small retailers can't compete so they buy even less, the big boys buy even more and demand bigger discounts, Canon sells the same amount of product but gets less money for it as it is all going to big retailers for the biggest discounts.

If Canon can maintain a viable network of retailers then the big three (or so) won't be able to become a retail cartel and start dictating prices to them.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 15, 2014, 02:14:08 PM »
It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
What's the buffer depth in RAW?

I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.


You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,152
http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,312

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 106