July 26, 2014, 09:32:16 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 - JonAustin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Lenses / Re: What do you do with lens cases?
« on: July 25, 2014, 06:01:15 PM »
They stay in the box so when resale time comes.. people who want a bag to keep in the box can have them.

This. Plus what longtallkarl said.

Everything except the lens, lens caps and hood stays in the original box, which goes into a storage tote in the attic. I have a dedicated photo equipment shelf in one of the hall closets. I leave whatever lens was last used on the body, and store it on that shelf with the battery (-ies) removed; the other lenses, speedlites, accessories, etc. are all within ready reach. One shelf up are my seven camera bags (I almost have as many bags as bodies and lenses), providing a variety of sizes and well-padded configurations, so no additional lens protection is needed.

2
I'd err on the side of "too sharp," rather than risk an OOF subject. It's relatively easy to smooth wrinkles, clone out blemishes, etc., in post. It's impossible to bring OOF areas into sharpness.

I keep the backdrop out of focus by positioning it at least 6' behind the subject. I usually shoot at f/5.6 - f/8, 1/90 and ISO 400, which is quite clean on the 5D3 (and extends speedlite battery life).

3
Hi Gerry,

I do a lot of print and slide scanning, and own both a Canon LiDE 110 and a CanoScan 8800F.

I think you'll find that, in most cases, the resolution of your scanner will be more than high enough for the effective resolution of those old prints.

Before you spend any money on new hardware, try scanning a few representative prints on your current scanner, and experiment to find the best settings.

I typically scan prints at 300 dpi (my lowly LiDE 110 will scan up to 1200 dpi), with Unsharp Mask turned on. (If it's a newspaper or magazine clipping, I will turn off Unsharp Mask and turn Descreen on.) I save the results in TIFF/ZIP format, and then do the rest of the processing in Photoshop (noise reduction, color correction, touch-ups, etc.).

Since the scanning process is relatively slow, I'll place as many prints on the glass to scan in one pass as possible, then use the Crop tool and Save to split them into individual files. (Then Undo back to the scan import step, to crop the next image, etc.).

Hope this helps,

Jon

4
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 19, 2014, 10:00:27 PM »
Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Good point.  :(

5
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 19, 2014, 09:18:07 AM »
Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).

Sure, they'd be larger and more expensive than the current models, but the technology is now proven, at least with the 1.4x.

When I replaced my 70-200/2.8 L IS with the II version recently, I also sold my 1.4x II, which I'm not replacing. It's just too much hassle to insert and remove. For the extra reach, I'm hopeful for a 100-400 II this year, with reviews as glowing as the new 16-35/4.

6
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:18:33 AM »
Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

There is a full stop between f4 and f2.8 too.

I know, but I presumed that noting the two stops between f/5.6 and f/2.8 would make the one-stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8 obvious, and I didn't see any need to pile on.

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:44:32 PM »
There is no reason why the 400F5.6, in an updated version, can't have the same IQ as the 400F2.8. It's that full stop faster that you pay so much for.

For example, the 24-70 F4 and the F2.8 are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop.....
The 70-200 F4IS and F2.8IS are similar in IQ, but twice as much for a half stop....

Not to sound too pedantic, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/2.8 is two stops, not one. (Which only further reinforces your point.)

8
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 06:52:13 PM »
I have one or two good-quality UV filters for each size lens I own, and a couple of 77mm CPLs. I don't mount a filter unless I need it (UV in wet / dusty conditions; CPL for its designated purpose), but always use the hood for protection.

No doubt there are many who hazard more dangerous environments than I have, but there's no place I won't take my gear, should the occasion / opportunity arise. In the 12 years since I've gotten back into SLR photography, none of my lenses has ever suffered damage.

I once dropped a camera bag about 3 feet onto the garage floor; inside was my previous Canon 70-200/2.8 IS (I) mounted to a body, and it landed front element first. The lens cap absorbed the brunt of the impact, and suffered damage, but everything else was intact. I continued to use that lens for the next couple of years with no issues whatsoever. Had a filter been attached, I wouldn't have been surprised had it shattered, and the fragments possibly scratching the front element. (I sold that lens just last month, only to upgrade to the vII model.)

9
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 14, 2014, 09:15:50 AM »
All the specs reported in this rumor are good news to me, and I will likely buy one within 6 months of release, presuming all the specs are accurate and the reviews are good, as well. (Think repeat of the new 16-35/4IS.)

Since I own a 70-200 II, I had thought I would prefer a 200-400/4(.5)-5.6, in order to avoid paying for unnecessary FL overlap. But lately I'm of the mindset that this plus the 24-105 would make a great two-lens hiking kit.

10
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 07, 2014, 03:45:18 PM »
These reviews, observations and sample images are all very positive, and recommend the lens quite well.

I just sold my 11-year-old 17-40, which was very good quality, but little used since I moved to full frame in 2007. That sale, along with the sale of my 8-year-old 70-200/2.8 IS I, funded my purchase of a 70-200/2.8 II.

I don't have any immediate plans to buy the new 16-35/4 IS, but won't hesitate to do so, should I find a need in the future. Thanks for all the feedback!

11
I'm thinking a slightly different recipe for the telephoto...200-400 f/5.6 sans the built in converter obviously.

Make that a 200-400 f/4.0-5.6L IS, and I'd like one of those even more than a 100-400 II!

12
Well, the Year of the Lens is officially 1/2 over now. If Canon still plans to live up to that claim, they'd better freaking get busy ...

P.S. 100-400 II, please.

13
Canon General / Re: Should we tell them?
« on: June 26, 2014, 01:52:18 PM »
I have a friend (a Nikon shooter) whose equipment far exceeds his knowledge and shooting ability. He dreams about buying a 36mp body, but mounts crap telephoto zooms to his current camera, and wonders why his photos aren't sharp. His mode dial has never been moved from P (or whatever the Nikon equivalent is to Canon's Full Auto / Green Square / A+ mode).

He was taking photos of a group to which I was a party recently, seated at a table in a restaurant next to large windows with strong backlighting (bright sunlight). After he muttered that we were all in silhouette (and changing the exposure dial didn't help), I suggested he engage his pop-up flash (and then showed him how to do it).

He was grateful for the advice and appreciative of the fact that we were no longer in silhouette, but I'm convinced that he promptly forgot the lesson as soon as the meal was over.

I never volunteer help to strangers, but when they ask for advice -- as often as not -- their eyes begin to glaze over if the solution to their problem is more than a single setting change. Some just hand me their cameras, and ask me to take the shot for them!

14
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Shipping This Week
« on: June 22, 2014, 10:51:23 PM »
I live in Montana and yesterday went in to a local camera store to check if they had the Tamron 150-600mm.  Saw the box for the 16-35mm f/4 and asked if I could see it.  Got a hands on feel of it, it had a much stiffer zoom ring than on my 17-40mm, but my lens is kind of old.  Can't believe in a small town I could have bought the lens before people could get it from B&H!  I'm going to go check how much 17-40s are going on ebay now...

I just sold my 11-year-old, mint condition 17-40 locally through Craigslist for $600. (I paid $770 for it new in July 2003.) I could've gotten more for it ($650 - $675, easily), but I liked the kid who was buying it, so I gave him the lowest price I wouldn't regret selling it for.

I'll be watching for in-depth reviews of the 16-35/4L IS from trusted sources in the next few weeks, but I fully expect that this will be my next lens purchase, within the next month or so.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 22, 2014, 10:44:54 PM »
First of all, I'm very happy about the specs, price and early performance reports on the new 16-35/4L IS. I just sold my 17-40 over the weekend, in anticipation of this new lens. I'm just waiting for more in-depth reviews, before pulling the trigger.

2. I really, really hope that Canon will announce and ship a 100-400 II this year.

3. I would like to see a 50mm /1.x IS.

4. 24-70/2.8L IS

5. 5D mark IV, just so the price of the 5D mark III will drop; I'd like to pick up a 2nd new 5D3 for $2K or less.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12