December 22, 2014, 03:12:47 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 - zlatko

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 12:24:32 AM »
At the end of the day its an opinion, but remember he is a blogger and wants to drive traffic to his site as he can then get some $$$ for click trough's, controversial blogs do this - after would we have bothered reading it if it had been broadly neutral?

Yep, he's entitled to express his questionable opinions — a combination of unrealistic expectations and unfair comparisons (gosh, the D750 and D4S are better?).  Noise comparison examples on show what can realistically be expected.

Lenses / Re: What would you choose to complement a 50mm prime?
« on: December 18, 2014, 02:00:58 AM »
If you're tired of lugging a big lens, don't replace it with other big lenses.  16-35mm f4 IS and a Canon 70-200mm f4 IS are still pretty big and have lighter/smaller alternatives, like the 24 f/2.8 IS and the 100 f2.8L IS — depending on what you shoot.  As with every "which lens?" question, the answer depends on what you shoot.  Just broadening your available focal length range is like buying more clothing or shoes — sometimes it makes perfect sense and other times it just creates more clutter.

Wedding Photography / Re: Tough LARGE group photo
« on: December 17, 2014, 05:17:56 PM »
Well done!

Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:16:55 PM »
Excellent all-around responses! Thanks all! It looks like one of my main concerns wasn't made clear the first time, so allow me to add this wrinkle to my question: is the focus fast enough at for me to shoot reliably at f1.2 during a wedding event? Not at the altar where everybody is basically stationary, but when the bride is coming down the aisle or when she's tossing the bouquet or everyone is dancing at the reception... you know the drill. I'm all for big aperture and sweet bokeh, but is my subject going to be in focus? An all-bokeh pic of the bride's face (exaggerated) isn't going to sell money.

Thanks again!

While they are good at giving us a laugh, this gives a decent comparison... Fast forward to about the 7 min point.  they conclude that when the 1.2 does give sharp images, they are amazing, but the big word is WHEN.  If your shooting a wedding and you absolutely had to nail the first kiss, this ISN'T the lens i would rely on... the 1.8 is quite good on focusing and so far, so good...

I love good bokeh, but sometimes it's too much of a good thing.  With an 85mm, f/2.8 and f/4 can look great too.

Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 16, 2014, 04:12:58 PM »
I wouldn't dream of trying to nail a critical shot of a moving subject with this lens unless they were moving parallel to the image plane, or they were reasonably far away that the DOF is not quite so thin.

I agree.  Depth of field is so shallow that it's not going to work well, i.e., not reliably.  For walking down the aisle, bouquet toss, people dancing, etc. ... you'll get some shots but you'll also get a lot of misses (assuming 1.2 aperture is used).

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EOS Rebel SL1 w/18-55 IS STM $323
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:59:56 PM »
It's a good fun camera.  I've made some really nice photos with it.  I love the small size and super light weight.  The only thing I wish were bigger is the viewfinder — but it is necessarily a bit small.

Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:55:45 PM »
I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550.

Don't feel too bad.  I paid $789 for the 35/2 IS in June, 2013.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica: Trouble in paradise?
« on: December 11, 2014, 08:08:51 PM »
The issue is not with the sensor, but with the glass cover.  If it is scratched thru its coating, them corrosion will form on the glass, not the sensor.  Leica does not yet have a solution that will solve the issue.  In the meantime, they are fixing cameras with a identical part.  Eventually, a permanent solution with a different glass cover will be found.  Owners should refraining from scratching that glass cover if that's even possible.

I am confused. The glass is simply a Schott glass bandpass filter ( How can glass corrode? It's tough enough to survive strong solvents

Apparently it's the glue that causes the problem.  That's what some people are saying, anyway.  It may not meet the true definition of "corrosion".

Leica cameras are great fun to use.  I wish them good luck in solving this problem.  One of the reasons I use Canon for most of my work is that I don't have to fear months of camera "downtime" while the camera is in for repair.  Canon has been extremely quick with every repair I've ever sent them.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Co-worker dumps $5k on Nikon
« on: December 08, 2014, 11:30:49 AM »
People here talk about not knowing anyone that buys Nikon and how Nikon is always making a loss and how Nikon cameras don't rate as well as Canon on Amazon, etc ...

Nikon wouldn't be in business if they didn't sell a lot of cameras.  So of course they do.  So of course a lot of people buy Nikon cameras.  It would be foolish to claim that they don't.  The D810 is an *excellent* camera.  Lots of people own it and love it, so it's no surprise that someone would buy it.  It's somewhat large for a tourist camera, but not everyone prioritizes portability.


The dark parts of the horsies should have been raised several stops by maxing out the shadows slider.  That is the one true test of a worthy sensor.  There is no pure black in the real world.  All shadows must be brightened!  ;)

Just kidding.  Lovely photo!  :)

He underexposed, knowing the abilities of the sensor in advance.  Nothing wrong with that.  But the final image is a result of *stacking different exposures* anyway — see his description of the Magic Finger technique.  More DR is certainly beneficial for an image like this, but his actual workflow disproves the notion that it is "critical".  Here the stacking is done to deal with the problem of flare rather than the problem of DR.  Nevertheless, it's a good illustration of how good photographers deal with real world situations.  Rather than blaming the manufacturer for bad results (e.g. "Canon ruined my image with flare — better flare control is critical!"), they know the abilities of the equipment and find ways to achieve their desired results.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tony wanted to switch to Nikon but Couldn't
« on: December 06, 2014, 11:02:22 PM »
I agree with the point your making. He' used a poor choice of words by saying they cheat you. I didn't watch the video where he said that so I'm not sure what context he was saying it in. Your right It's up to the photographer or who ever is buying the camera/lenses to do the research and know the difference in the apperture on different camera systems and sensor sizes. I've seen a couple videos from the guy but I don't follow everything he does so I don't really get why so many people take shots at him. The times I've heard him he's given his opion and sometimes I've agreed and other times I havent. I've heard him say both good and bad things about both canon and nikon. Im just not going to take a shot at the guy for saying they cheat you, I got what he meant.

Apparently you understand the actual point of communication, where the larger part of the internet merely bickers over the words used.

Why bicker over words?  Would you mind if someone unfairly accused you of cheating? 

The actual video is titled:  "How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".  Cheating is acting dishonesty or unfairly, in order to gain an advantage.  Cheating is deceiving or tricking someone. 

In the video, he quotes user reviews on and makes fun of people who were "misled" into buying the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 lens.  "They paid $1,000 and they didn't get what they thought they were getting," he says; "Shame on Panasonic for marketing the lens like this."

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tony wanted to switch to Nikon but Couldn't
« on: December 06, 2014, 06:03:31 PM »
This is the guy who made a video to claim that Panasonic and Olympus "cheat you" by labeling their f/2.8 lenses as f/2.8 lenses.

I didn't see that but is he trying to say 2.8 lenses are a little different on that sensor size  compared to what it's like on ff or crop sensors? My iPhone is a f2.2 but I'm not going to get bokeh with it since the sensor is so small. Do you think that's kinda what he's trying to say?

Yes, that's what he was trying to say.  But to say that manufacturers "cheat you" about this is wrong in a number of ways.  No, it's preposterous and quite unfair to the manufacturers.  Aperture is not a measure of depth of field or bokeh.  If you input f/2.8 or any aperture on a light meter or flash, it doesn't ask how big the sensor/film is or which lens or camera you're using, or how much depth of field you want.  An exposure of, say, f/2.8, 1/250, ISO 400, is the same, regardless of the capture format.  Manufacturers absolutely have to label their f/2.8 lenses as f/2.8 lenses (or use T-stops).  To label an f/2.8 micro Four Thirds lens as "f/5.6" or "f/5.6 equivalent", because that's the effective depth of field in full-frame, would just be wrong.  It's like stating distance based on how fast you want to go:  a soccer field is 100 meters long if you're running, but "200 meters" long if you're walking.  No, it's still 100 meters even if you're walking.  So manufacturers don't cheat anyone with correct aperture labels.  It's up to the photographer to know what depth/blur their lens & sensor will give — that's not the purpose of the aperture label on a lens.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tony wanted to switch to Nikon but Couldn't
« on: December 06, 2014, 12:15:08 AM »
This is the guy who made a video to claim that Panasonic and Olympus "cheat you" by labeling their f/2.8 lenses as f/2.8 lenses.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: December 03, 2014, 12:46:25 PM »
It seems hard to get a bad shot with this lens...

Great photo!  This lens delivers superb bokeh too.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27