February 27, 2015, 09:13:07 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 - jordanbstead

Pages: [1]
Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....
« on: October 01, 2012, 03:07:52 PM »
Both are outstanding, but very different.  The perspective of the 135 is considerably tighter. 

The 85 is the best bang-for-your-buck lens that Canon mades, IMHO.

Lenses / Re: Did I get a bad lens...or user error?
« on: June 17, 2012, 06:27:56 PM »
Yes, it's user error.  All the photos are tack, save for the last one, shot at a slower shutter speed and at 55mm.  You were probably just moving around too much as you shot it. 

Know that as a base rule, whatever shutter speed you're shooting at should be a 1/x of whatever lens length you're at. This helps to combat camera shake. 

Example: If you're shooting with a 50mm lens, you'll need AT LEAST a shutter speed of 1/50th to get a sharp image with average camera shake.

EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:34:21 AM »
i have been under the impression that the primes are not fast auto focusing lenses. i dont have any yet but i have worked with plenty of people who have. i have especially heard the 85mm L is a bit of a dog with AF. i'm on the fence right now about incorporating them into my work but even if i do i cant see myself not continuing to rely on the 24-70 and the 70-200.

i wonder if a more accurate test of the new AF system might be performed using the 70-200mm F2.8L? anyone have more experience that could enlighten us on this matter?

The 85L has a different focusing system than any other Canon lens, and is notoriously slow.  No one buys one for fast AF.  And primes are known for the fastest AF.  Take the 135L, for example. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 01, 2012, 04:31:45 AM »
When are people going to realize that IS doesn't matter above 1/125 if shooting with a lens 135mm or longer?  If you're shooting at 1/800th, how would you even manage to blur a photo with camera shake?  It's practically physically impossible.

DR should almost always take the cake. To be honest, IMO, 12 MP is perfect as far as resolution goes. The original 5D, D3, D3s... they all had it right. Hell, I shoot my Mk II on sRAW (10 MP) constantly. I've never once had a lust for more resolution and my images run in print every day.

Thank God the Mk III didn't up the resolution - at least for the work I do.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MK3 vs. D800 - fredmiranda
« on: April 30, 2012, 11:29:21 PM »
If you're accurately exposing - i.e. for the highlights in an image - why in the world would you need to push your shadows five stops?  When would you ever push shadows five stops?  Even if it did look "good" in terms of noise performance, you're essentially talking about an HDR image at that point.

...And then the conversation is over, because we're talking about HDR.

Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: April 06, 2012, 01:35:38 PM »
It's far less about the technical result of primes vs. zooms and more about the way my work "looks" after shooting with a 35/135 combo for years. Every bit of the frame is exactly where it should be; there's no shooting-to-crop or cranking it to 16mm to get in the whole scene. 

Over the years, the way I approach photographs has improved drastically since relying on a solely prime-based kit. I just know that 35 so well that by the time I bring it up to my eye, the picture has already been made in my mind and I've "seen" it. By then, it's only the shutter that's left to trip.

There's a whole lot to be said about knowing and understanding the limits and power of your kit.  Everyone goes through a period of intense gear swapping - hunting to find the "right" focal lengths that suit their shooting style - but it settles down at one point when something just plain works for you. 

My belief is if you force yourself to shoot with a "normal" prime or primes (a 35 or 50) for six months, you'll see a massive improvement in your composition, your use of depth of field and a move toward improving your photographic skill rather than a reliance on visual gimmicks.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.  I think someone would be insane NOT to be blown away by this piece of equipment.  It improves on the Mark II in every single way (save for the one thing I don't need or want: more MP). 

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 12, 2012, 02:05:57 PM »
It's a back (bad) focus. The focus is not on the flower in the middle (it's behind it).
Strange for a sample, though.

here it's a full size sample:
EOS 5D Mark Ⅱ, 70 mm, 1/12 sec, F/5.7, ISO 100

full size:

I don't know u guys but i think it's pretty soft for stopped down aperture!

Note the image was shot at 1/12th of a sec. Hardly a good test if not shot on a tripod with a shutter release and mirror lockup engaged...

United States / Re: Student Internships
« on: December 24, 2011, 04:52:37 AM »
NPPA Job Bank or JournalismJobs.com are good places to start.  Check out the "Visual Student" blog, as well. 

Good luck and good hunting. 


Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 02:19:30 PM »
Sounds like an interesting addition to the lens options...

Contests / Re: Blue Crane Digital Giveaway!
« on: May 26, 2011, 08:18:14 PM »
For consideration to win "Shoot Great Video with your Canon DSLR."  Thank you!

Image © Jordan Stead.

Pages: [1]