February 28, 2015, 12:22:54 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 - jdramirez

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 183
EOS Bodies / Re: Any way 5d3 goes UP when 5d4 announced?
« on: February 27, 2015, 08:19:36 AM »
I think there will be enough people selling their mkiii to upgrade, so the price will go down.

Even if the mkiv is $5000, and the mkiii is the best price Canon body on the market, it will merely stay where it is now.  Go... buy... enjoy.

Lenses / Re: Affected with GAS, Gear Acquisition Syndrome
« on: February 24, 2015, 08:19:39 AM »
I am still fine, no symptoms at all

The last thing I bought was a 135L... for the 2nd time.  I think my biggest temptation moving forward will be the 5d mkiv.  I've resolved not to buy it... but I have to admit... I'm a little tempted.

Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 24, 2015, 08:17:12 AM »
My keeper rate increased drastically after I found my AFMA was set to -8 for all lenses. I was begining to think my 24-70 was a piece of poo, as it turns out it's the user who is infact the piece of poo

That would be one reason why Canon doesn't allow changing the afma on cheap (i.e. sub $1000) camera bodies - they probably have too many service hassle, same probably goes for too many menu options. Of course the other reason is upselling people to more expensive gear, but we'll never know what reason has what weight in their internal decision making.

I thought that it also might be that most people don't ever get a really good wide aperture prime... like f/1.4 or wider... so if you are shooting at f/3.5 to f/5.6... you probably will never miss having your target in focus... due to afma... not user error...

Photography Technique / Re: Perspective Distortion and How to Use it
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:31:38 AM »
The good news is that I understood this concept... the bad news is I still don't like using perspective in my own efforts... I may understand it... but I don't like it.  :/

Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 23, 2015, 12:28:30 AM »
I delete about 1% of my images... I should delete more... but it is exhausting to look back and say... this needs to go.  Eventually when I migrate my data to a new set of disks... I'll only migrate the really good images... and I'll leave the whole to sit on the storage unattended.  Kinda sad. 

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:56:15 AM »
...all intents and purposes...  ;)

I like to say, all intents and purpoises. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Lens Next? [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2015, 09:38:29 PM »
I don't own a Canon 135mm L for one reason - no IS. The Sigma 135mm Art will certainly have IS, as will their 85mm.

Please can we stop the 24-70mm f/2 nonsense. It was based on a photoshopped image.

I use my 135L for indoor sports... around 1/400 of a second give or take.  Usually around that speed... you don't need IS... or at least is becomes less important.  This is versus shooting at f/2.8 and the same iso speed, where I would shoot at 1/200 of a second... so that extra stop can make all the difference. 

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 19, 2015, 02:09:30 PM »
But in fairness, with the distance the same, a 24mm lens will create a vastly different image than a 200mm.  Just crop it... same perspective, different image... But I'm coming in on tail end of this conversation so I may have missed something.

That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.
Now you get me curious. I have never done the test and never paid attention to it (I admit) but thanks for bringing that out.
I will do my testing to see.
I am curious if, say the compression, being the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the eye remains the same.

Anyway, I stick to using longer focal length, not below 85mm for corporate portrait and similar on a full frame (environmental and lifestyle are different matter). I don't want to crop anything if I don't have to (this is one of the very few instances when I respect the get it right in camera stuff (which I really hate)). Besides, I prefer respecting those important people personal space.
Usually, I shoot at 85mm for horizontal head and shoulder , for longer (say knee - up - vertical) I prefer 200mm, everything in between: 135mm. But that is personal preference.
The way I see it, 70-200 allows you to have all these in one gear, besides at f4-5.6 70-200 II vs 85 1.2 you won't see much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, I use primes, but you would have to buy all 3 instead of just one.
I have primes because I shoot mainly events and there I really need wide aperture, 2.8 won't cut it for me.

It does.

Lenses do not create 'compression' your position, your perspective, does.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy for Portraits
« on: February 18, 2015, 11:28:51 PM »
I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.

I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
1. Canon 85 F1.8
2. Canon 100 F2
3. Tokina 100 F2.8 Macro
4. Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II

I'm mainly shooting and making money with business portraits. I'm not into macro photography. I'm mainly considering the first 3 because of the cots and I guess that the image quality of primes is a lot better. I'm going to upgrade to FF within a year or two. So I'm only considering FF lenses.

What lens would you recommend. How is the image quality of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II compared to the Canon 100 F2? What lens could you recommend? What are they reasons why you would choose one over the other?

I like portraiture... I presume you have all the lighting you can ask for... so based on that...

none of the above.  Maybe the 85 f/1.8 since I have owned it... and I have owned a 100L macro, both of which I used for portraiture... but in comparison to the 135L and the 85L mkii, both leave something to be desired.  I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii... but that stays in the bag for portraiture... though it can do the job. 

I liked the 85 f/1.8... it was plenty sharp wide open... a little bit of color abberation that is fixable in post...

I've had this discussion before... but if you are shooting a stationary object/person, isn't it safer to shoot at f/8 with peripheral lighting, rather than risk shooting wide open and having the left eye out of focus (but the right being in focus). 

100/135... on a crop... you just might have to be too far from your subject... I'd lean towards the 85 as a stop gap measure... then maybe re-evaluate after you make the jump to full frame.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Classic Good Enough for Pros?
« on: February 18, 2015, 11:21:47 PM »
My first few shots with my 5D mkiii after upgrading from my 60D were... huh... I just paid $2000+ dollars (after selling the 60D and I don't see THAT much of a difference...

I was comparing good light to good light though... and the crop 18mp options were surprisingly good... but overtime I learned to love my mkiii for the AF and for the 1 fps more, and the low light performance...

I buy some older equipment here and there... and I have been able to take really nice images with an xti... so it realy depends on the job @ hand... but you can get away with using a 7D in the right situation...

And the mkiii isn't perfect... (or I'm not) because I miss my fair share of shots... and I curse and I grumble... and I have zero intention of upgrading to a mkiv or a 1dx... so I'm content.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Lens Next? [CR2]
« on: February 17, 2015, 06:21:23 PM »
It's all about the AF, Sigma.

I have a 85mm f/1.2 L mkii... and the dof is so thin it often misses the eye.  So I manually focus.  Because the lens is special, I'm willing to do that... if it were mediocre... no thank  you.  That raises the question as to whether the 35, 50, and their 85 art will be special to the point to where I don't mind manually focusing.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Lens Next? [CR2]
« on: February 17, 2015, 06:17:09 PM »
Too bad they've abandoned the 24-70 f2.0 for the 2.8.  I personally think it would sell *better* due to unique value. Sigma's selling factor isn't only price, but also making lenses that simply don't exist anywhere else, like the 120-300 2.8, the 18-35 1.8, the 50-150 2.8, the 50-500, 200-500 2.8 :P, et cetera. Sigma already discovered with the 24-105 that the midrange zoom market is flooded, why keep trying to make something everyone else already makes?

I have a 24-105 L... and I've been waiting for the rumored 24-70 f/2 art... I don't use the 24-105 that much, and I can't justify sinking $2000 into a canon 24-70 f/2.8 mkii considering the amount I go to that focal length. 

But I would happily sell the 24-105 and get the f/2... a full 2 stops more than what I have now plus something different on the market.  The Tamron, the Canon, and others just set a pecking order for that type of lens.  But an f/2 would create it's own little pool for itself. 

Oh well. 

Pricewatch Deals / Re: In Stock: Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 at B&H Photo
« on: February 16, 2015, 02:48:39 PM »
I had an 8mm rokinon lens and I was pretty impressed with image quality... But I'm not sure why I would pay $400 for a manual 50mm. 

Is the image quality better than the Canon 50mm f1.4?  If not, then is the build quality better?  If not, why would I consider paying this much for much less lens?

Sports / Re: Winter Baseball
« on: February 14, 2015, 09:16:33 AM »
Do they allow you @ field level?  I like the angle you are allowed to stand.  For our minor league team, there are seats @ field level (not field seats, but seats that literally walk out onto the field), and they cost around $40 give or take... which isn't too awful... until I have to get a seat for the wife, and my eldest daughter, and her friend... then a day at the park is breaking the bank.

Having said that, it looks like you might be in the dugout... or near it... where as I would be seated to the left of the third base side... so I could get a really good shot of someone sliding into 3rd, or maybe a left handed batter...

Photography Technique / Re: How to frame a good bird/animal shot
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:46:38 PM »
What if we change the angle a little bit... have it flying down... makes it a bit more dramatic... still have to get rid of the tree... but I hate the tree... so I'm ok with that.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 183