January 30, 2015, 03:03:52 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 - jhpeterson

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
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.

Lenses / Re: 300 2.8 non-IS VS either of the IS versions...
« on: September 22, 2014, 08:36:59 AM »
The first EF glass I ever bought was a 300 2.8 non-IS more than 20 years ago. I used it for several years with great results. A decade ago, I replaced it with another one. If anything, it's even sharper than my first, and at least the equal of my newer lenses, including a 70-200/2.8 IS II. Over those ten years, mine has gotten a little worse for wear, but still delivers image quality that holds up to the test of 20+ MP cameras.

The only drawback with this older lens is that Canon stopped servicing this one some years back. Should you need parts and repairs, you're probably out of luck unless you can find some independent shop willing to take on the task. But, if that's a risk you're willing to take (in the past ten years, I had to replace the mount, as I had used the lens so much), if you can get one of these at a (relatively) bargain rate, don't hesitate.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Photography's Top Manufacturers for 2020
« on: September 19, 2014, 06:37:19 PM »
Still, I'd bet on a Chinese company emerging, or a offshoot of a existing one.  Some of them are ruthless, and have no qualms about playing dirty tricks to steamroller the competition.  One comes to mind, but Ill not name them.
Not only dirty tricks to contend with, but also shoddy workmanship, and questionable, likely toxic materials.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: CF Cards Vs SD Cards
« on: September 17, 2014, 04:33:50 PM »
I'm definitely one who favors the CF cards, even though I've broken pins on card readers. (Some are, to say the least, pretty flimsy!) Then again, I've snapped an SD card in half trying to install it while on a moving boat!

Lenses / Re: Your favorite older EF lens
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:28:40 PM »
The first EF lens I ever bought was a 300/2.8 L (the original non-IS version) more than 23 years ago. Over the succeeding years it's my been favorite and probably most-used lens. In fact, I'm still regularly using a second one I bought as a replacement a decade ago.
Canon seemed to hit it out of the park with this one, as it still is an equal to the late-model 70-200 and 500 lenses I own.

Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 12:51:56 PM »
Can't say I cheap out on many things photography-wise. I've done so in the past, and they almost always had a way of disappointing me.
I use 1D-series bodies and L glass for almost everything. Of course, not every piece of gear is the latest generation, as I expect that paying for quality it should last a long time.
One of my most-used lenses is 20 years old. I'm known to keep things until they're pretty well worn out. Maybe most people call that being cheap; I just look on it as getting good value.

I think that is over starting out quite a bit.  The 7d mkii has to be better than the 70d, worse than the 1dx/ 5d mkiii/6d in image quality, but better fps than the mkiii/6d.  To reach that sweet spot, aps-h is a nice fit, so I don't entirely discredit the presumption.

It is unlikely... but not impossible.
Whether it's an APS-H (not so likely) or an APS-C, the replacement for the 7D needs to be better suited for action photography than the 6D/5D III. Still, it likely won't have as good IQ or high ISO performance as these. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: June 29, 2014, 05:35:41 PM »
With larger pixel and less MP, 1DX is your next choice if you want to go higher than 6400ISO. 5D III will not be your answer.

@ 12800ISO, I'm very happy with my X.
I've used the 1DX and absolutely love it. When I replace my 1DS III bodies, I plan to go with these. That is, unless the next generation is out by then.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11