March 02, 2015, 02:43:32 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 - jhpeterson

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
Lenses / Re: 70-200mm Mk I vs Mk II
« on: February 21, 2015, 01:06:49 AM »
I had a Mk I for about three years and was never really impressed. It seemed to be a little less sharp than either of the  two non-IS models I'd owned previously. However, the biggest problem was light falloff throughout the zoom range, not just at the short end. I sent it back to Canon three times for a fix and and it never seemed to get better.
I can't say I had much luck with teleconverters either. I would occasionally use it with a 1.4x EF II when I didn't want to carry my 300 and I would almost always regret my choice. And, the one time I matched it with 2x EF (II), it was such a bad fit that I don't think I got a single sharp shot.
In the last 20+ years, I've had nine Canon zooms in this range of focal lengths, starting with the 80-200/2.8. The IS Mk I was definitely the worst. Maybe I just had a bad copy, but I'm not the only one, as I've talked with others who had similar issues.
The newer version seems better on all counts, greater sharpness, especially wide open, particularly at the long and short ends. There's still some light falloff in the corners, but it's noticeably less. And, it gives reasonably sharp results with my converters, especially the 2x EF III. The images are still no match for what I take with my 300, but they're usable for most everything my clients require. In my book, the Mk II is well worth the premium over the earlier model.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming Very Soon
« on: February 20, 2015, 10:03:33 PM »
I'm glad that they are not forcing the move to Windows 8, I looked at the Amazon UK page, and I only saw Win 8 listed. (I made the move to Win7 for Lightroom 5).
Really hoping that it doesn't require a monthly payment. That would be a deal breaker for me (as much as I want the upgrade) - not interested in either monthly payments or cloud storage.

- Trev
I just upgraded to LR5 eight months ago. I'd put it off because I was using Windows XP. Finally I pulled the trigger on a custom-built Windows 7 desktop with 16GB memory and SSD.
Monthly payments and cloud storage also would kill the deal for me.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS-1D X $4199 via ebay
« on: February 05, 2015, 08:02:57 PM »
Who wants to pay these sums for a camera that is made for sports? low resolution, inferior DR
when there are better cameras  at much lower prices for the average photographer? regarding DR , IQ
I guess I am one. And, while I use it primarily for sports (specifically yachting), I also use it for architecture, landscapes and just general picture-taking.
As far as better cameras go, for what I do, I'm not sure there are better ones. I'm more than a little disappointed in Canon even considering the 5DS and 5DS R to be their flagship models when their build is much inferior, not to mention they won't measure up in either high ISO situations or reliability of focus.
Sure, I suppose for the average photographer there are better models. But when, despite whatever the conditions, you depend on coming up with a picture, I've found I can't count on anything but a 1D model.

EOS Bodies / Re: The most important feature missing from the 5Ds/5DsR is...
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:13:40 AM »
A better build.
If this is to be Canon's flagship camera, it ought to be constructed to the level of the 1D series. For me, anything less would be a downgrade.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Backup body for extreme environment
« on: February 01, 2015, 12:51:00 AM »
Why so much good talk about the 7D?
I don't know if anyone else has had my experience, but I had a run of bad luck with mine. Thought I'd trade in an almost new 5D2 for one, because I thought it might be better sealed.
It may have been, but in the year I owned it I sent it back to Canon four times. Had it not been for my CPS Platinum membership, the repair costs would would have been more than the initial price.

To the OP, if you can afford it, get a 1DS Mark III. Or several. If not, get a 1D III.

EOS Bodies / Re: More About the EOS 5DS & EOS 5DS R
« on: February 01, 2015, 12:38:19 AM »
I, for one, am disappointed in the camera. I was still hoping for a flagship model, constructed along the lines of the 1D series. As one who works on the ocean for a significant part of the year, I need a camera that's pretty robust and able to ward off a lot of spray and salt. My experience has shown that, unless it's a 1D model, all the claims about it being weather sealed... well, they just don't hold water.

And I've never been impressed with that top dial either, going back to the days of the A2. (I broke at least two.) Nor do I wish for a model that needs a battery grip if I want to get off more than five or six hundred shots. Times being what they are, when even consumer cameras can shoot at ISOs of 25600 and beyond, it would be nice if the range went beyond 6400. And, I kind of like the way the controls on the 1Ds are layed out....

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Backup body for extreme environment
« on: January 31, 2015, 01:39:40 PM »
As one who regularly works in extreme environments (I'm typically on the ocean 100 days a year), I'd recommend you look into the 1D series of cameras. You mentioned you were already considering the 1DS III. It's a great choice. (I own three). Or, for the price of a 7d or used 5D2, you could get a 1D III. I know it's only 10 megapixels or so, but  it has 10 fps, autofocuses great, is good for up to ISO 3200 and works just about anywhere.
And, the batteries are good for a couple thousand pictures in most conditions and keep their charge as well an any out there. Of course, to be on the safe side, get a spare.

Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 27, 2015, 11:04:11 AM »
I'm very dominant in my left eye, so I always use that to see the image in the viewfinder. In the days when most all 35mm cameras had to be manually advanced, I'd have to momentarily pull the camera away from my face to wind to the next frame or I'd risk poking myself in the face.
Because the image is weaker and not in exact alignment with the left, I don't see things in 3D. On the other hand, my right eye has the advantage in that it seems to focus closer, perfect when I'm shooting for reading what's on the LCDs.

Lenses / Re: Advice - what to take to Europe
« on: January 22, 2015, 11:06:02 AM »
I agree with Neuro about definitely taking the 70-300. Just because somehwere is close-in and cramped doesn't rule out tight shots. There's beauty in the details. Besdies, there will always be the places you can't get near enough anyway.
There's no question about taking the 16-35 along, either. You'll find you likely use it for half your pictures, as the wide panoramics it gives are a nice counterpoint to the longer views.
I'd take along one of the other three. The 24-105 is the most versatile, but it's larger, heavier and an f:4. Your other lenses are more than two stops faster, great when working in low light or you want a background definitely out of focus.
My personal choice would be the 85. Yes, its focal length is covered by the 70-300, but it gives a different look, especially wide open and it focuses to under three feet, which makes it perfect for all those subjects right around you.

I have a smartphone, but NEVER use it to take pictures. (At least, not intentionally!  :-[ )
More than anything, it's because the quality could never come close to my DSLRs, as well as the fact that I can't set it. (I have a strong belief that input can improve results.)
Having been so used manually-adjusted cameras, I never liked the workings of point-and-shoot, with their reliance upon menus and their lack of good viewfinders, either.

Lenses / Re: In praise of the 40mm f/2.8 STM
« on: November 22, 2014, 12:15:37 AM »
I, too, have a 40mm f:2.8 STM. It's a great-performing little lens, but I don't use it nearly enough.  :(
Perhaps, that's because it looks ridiculous dangling from a 1D series body.
Maybe I need an enormous lens hood or some adapter ring for a super-sized filter.  ;)

Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 06:09:28 PM »
I'm not sure how anyone else sees, but the 4 x 5, 8 x 10  and even the 4:3 format works best for me as a vertical. If I want a horizontal, I much prefer the 3:2 ratio, or, even better, the 16:9.
I'm convinced there's a physiological component to this latter preference. It's pretty near to what our eyes see.
But, close one, and you have (almost) portrait format.

Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 02:04:23 PM »
Hopefully someone can provide a scientific answer.

Why must there be a scientific answer.  We are talking about human preception.  There may not be a scientific answer. 

Is there a scientific answer for what is considered art or beauty?  :D
There usually is. As we better understand the makeup of the human brain's, we discover that what we perceive as beauty is almost always based on certain rules of Nature. That shouldn't detract from our enjoying it, but rather help us to come back to that place more often.

Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 01:18:29 PM »
Guess there was a reason why I never went to art school. I've never liked trying to get my aesthetics to match some ideal.

Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 09:08:53 AM »
Film makes use of much wider formats which seem to be more compatible with the way we see. This seems to make sense, because 3:2 landscape often feels a bit narrow, while esp. 3:2 portrait feels very tall and often awkward to me.
I most definitely agree.
I've never liked the proportions of other formats; they're "ideal" for just who? Maybe why I like the 3:2 ratio is that it comes closest to the classical Golden Rectangle. (Although I have no formal art training, my studies in science and mathematics have taught me that some equations are more harmonious than others.)
Like the OP, I find 3:2 is, if anything, not wide enough in landscape, yet too tall in portrait. Perhaps this has to do with how we see, our physiology of vision and the connection between our two eyes and brain.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11