1
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Preorder the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x TC
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:19:11 AM »
I can't afford the lens, but $649 for the case?! Sign me up!
May 21, 2013, 02:39:24 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.
2
Lenses / Re: Canon 85L II AF speed on 5D III???
« on: May 02, 2013, 09:03:20 PM »
It's slow, but it's never been so slow for me that I've missed a shot. You just have to be realistic about what you're using it for. I've even shot some indoor sports with it, but you have to remember that with such a shallow depth of field, you'll want to take a few more shots than you would if you're shooting at f2.8 or f4. I've shot 95%+ of my images with it at f1.2 though, so take that advice with a grain of salt. To my way of thinking, if you're using it much above f1.2, then you're not getting anything out of it you couldn't get with the faster focusing f.18 or a 70-200 2.8...
3
Canon General / Re: Camera Phone
« on: April 26, 2013, 11:51:51 AM »I think the lines between camera phone and dslr are already being blurred. I definitely see a time in the future that your phone will be capable of similar images as your mid to high end dslr. Heck it's already happening. There is a very accomplished local photog who speaks very highly of his iPhone as a work tool. He says its loosens up subjects and allows them to have fun allowing him to capture images the big camera won't. In fact he even went so far as to submit his iPhone images for a recent cover shoot and had the iPhone image the art director liked not had an ever so slight blur that would have been the cover shot for the mag.
While it's a good story, and i'm sure it's true... to me it's sad that a "pro" photographer is missing cover-worthy shots because he's shooting with a sub-standard tool. If the shots from the tool aren't good enough to be used for the job he's doing, to me, he's just wasting time and money.
4
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8 MkI & Mk II and Extenders
« on: April 26, 2013, 09:21:14 AM »
From having used them, I would say that using an extender with the 70-200 mk1 + 2.0x II wasn't very good. However, mk2 + 2.0x III 3 is phenomenal. I would highly recommend it, even over a 100-400.
5
Canon General / Re: Camera Phone
« on: April 26, 2013, 07:08:05 AM »
Nope, wouldn't care. I don't want a phone that's mainly for taking pictures, and has "some phone features thrown in too". I'm fine with the picture quality on my iphone 5 and 5d3, and am happy to keep them separate.
6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C
« on: April 18, 2013, 09:25:09 AM »
Wow, a fast, wide zoom. I may be interested in a 7d2 afterall...
7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Firmware Coming April 30, 2013
« on: April 18, 2013, 09:22:26 AM »This is all a "video" firmware update, right?
Just asking...I shoot stills and the first thing I did when I got the camera was disable the video button.
So...do anyone have the simple update translation?
Thanks.
Well, it's partly a "video" update... but another part of me is pretty darn excited to rent a 300 f/4 and slap my x2 extender on it
8
Lenses / Re: Just got the canon 16-35 ii and having a hard time seeing the value in this uwa
« on: April 18, 2013, 02:00:56 AM »
Because you said you were interested in pictures with people, I'll post some I took. Again, since I don't have a 16-35, you'll have to see one's I took with the 10-22. Since your question is about the UWA perspective related to people though, I think they're applicable.
9
Lenses / Re: Just got the canon 16-35 ii and having a hard time seeing the value in this uwa
« on: April 18, 2013, 01:39:47 AM »
When I bought my 60D, the first lens I purchased was the 10-22mm (similar to the 16-35 on a full frame). I used that as my only lens for nearly a year before buying a 24-105. During that year, I learned a lot of things:
*With an UWA lens, you need something close to your camera to be the 'anchor'. If everything is far away, it all looks flat. This is even more true on a fisheye lens.
*An UWA gives context to a subject. If you're taking a portrait, and you pull out your 70-200, and get a nice head and shoulders portrait, it will look great, but it will also look like every other portrait. By all means, get that shot, and then pull out the UWA and get a shot of the person doing something. In my opinion, the 70-200 captures the subject, the 35-50ish gets the subject and shows some background, and the sweet spot is the 16-24ish, where you're "telling a story". It's hard to tell a story with anything longer than 50mm. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's difficult.
*An UWA gives you a greater depth of field even at the wider apertures. Pop it up to f8 or so, and you almost can't miss focus. On my 60D with the 10-22, I really never worried about focus unless I had something within 2 ft. of the lens. That's a nice thing! If you take a shot, and you just slap the focus somewhere in the middle, and you're around f5.6, it's pretty guaranteed to be clear.
*With an UWA lens, you need something close to your camera to be the 'anchor'. If everything is far away, it all looks flat. This is even more true on a fisheye lens.
*An UWA gives context to a subject. If you're taking a portrait, and you pull out your 70-200, and get a nice head and shoulders portrait, it will look great, but it will also look like every other portrait. By all means, get that shot, and then pull out the UWA and get a shot of the person doing something. In my opinion, the 70-200 captures the subject, the 35-50ish gets the subject and shows some background, and the sweet spot is the 16-24ish, where you're "telling a story". It's hard to tell a story with anything longer than 50mm. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it's difficult.
*An UWA gives you a greater depth of field even at the wider apertures. Pop it up to f8 or so, and you almost can't miss focus. On my 60D with the 10-22, I really never worried about focus unless I had something within 2 ft. of the lens. That's a nice thing! If you take a shot, and you just slap the focus somewhere in the middle, and you're around f5.6, it's pretty guaranteed to be clear.
10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MK II Error - Pink Frame
« on: April 15, 2013, 01:44:51 AM »
Just to be clear, is it pink when you look at it on the LCD screen? If yes, then return it asap. If no, then it's likely a software problem on the computer.
This can be an occasional issue with Adobe Camera Raw (and usually manifests as a pink cast over everything).
Not sure if this helps, but it's worth looking into.
This can be an occasional issue with Adobe Camera Raw (and usually manifests as a pink cast over everything).
Not sure if this helps, but it's worth looking into.
11
Canon General / Re: Random Thoughts
« on: April 12, 2013, 03:28:41 AM »
As for the photo lab, time to find a new one.
As for the bride, it's all about how you make your agreement with the bride in the first place. If you let people know that you can also do minor edits (such as removing small things, or adjusting small things), there's a separate fee per photo that they'd like to adjust, that will surely cut down on the requests later. That's something that most people would agree to at the beginning (especially if you give examples, like removing exit signs, salt shakers, etc). Later, when they ask, you can remind them of the contract that they signed in the beginning, and let them know that you're more than happy to do it at a set price per photo.
As for the bride, it's all about how you make your agreement with the bride in the first place. If you let people know that you can also do minor edits (such as removing small things, or adjusting small things), there's a separate fee per photo that they'd like to adjust, that will surely cut down on the requests later. That's something that most people would agree to at the beginning (especially if you give examples, like removing exit signs, salt shakers, etc). Later, when they ask, you can remind them of the contract that they signed in the beginning, and let them know that you're more than happy to do it at a set price per photo.
12
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Speedring for alien bees help.
« on: April 06, 2013, 09:33:28 PM »I would just buy something like this, as it already comes with Alien Bee speedring and much cheaper to boot:
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-10SBXAB2436EZ-Solutions-24-Inchx36-Inch-Speedring/dp/B003EWKPEC/ref=pd_sim_p_10
It can even be used as a pseudo-beauty dish with white cover removed and center reflector. I have the 36" octagon version with same features, and it's been great.
The first comment on that Amazon one seems to say that the ring that came with the softbox didn't fit the softbox...
13
Lenses / Re: Addicted to dof
« on: March 06, 2013, 05:42:38 AM »
http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=49
There's another one that compares the 1.8 to the 1.2.
You're looking at roughly 1 stop of light difference between the two as well (The difference between f4 and f2.8 )
There's another one that compares the 1.8 to the 1.2.
You're looking at roughly 1 stop of light difference between the two as well (The difference between f4 and f2.8 )
14
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2 / 85mm 1.2 VS Zeiss 50mm1.4 / Zeiss 85mm 1.4? Which should I buy...
« on: February 28, 2013, 05:26:33 AM »
Since you're planning on upgrading to a 5d3, I want to mention something you might already know. The 5d3 doesn't allow you to change focusing screens. While I'm sure that some 3rd party people are more than willing to open up your camera and change it for you, I'm sure that's a "void the warranty" type of customization. I've used the 85 1.2 a lot with my 5d3, and I love it.
I played around with a Zeiss 35 1.4 the other day, and while I enjoyed the manual focus to some extent, and they looked good on the back of the screen, the number of "keepers" I was getting when I put them into my computer was less than I thought just from looking at the back of the camera. Maybe I was "doing it wrong", but I just held down back-button focus and slowly focused until I got the "focus confirmation" then shot. It was something I could probably get used to and focus relatively quickly, but definitely not near the focus speed of even the 85 1.2 (which is sloow). That, and the frustration of thinking that certain shots were 'dead-on' focus when they were slightly off was frustrating to me. My guess is that I was slightly passing the area of dead-on focus while I was turning it, and without a focusing screen, I was having trouble getting it dead-on.
I played around with a Zeiss 35 1.4 the other day, and while I enjoyed the manual focus to some extent, and they looked good on the back of the screen, the number of "keepers" I was getting when I put them into my computer was less than I thought just from looking at the back of the camera. Maybe I was "doing it wrong", but I just held down back-button focus and slowly focused until I got the "focus confirmation" then shot. It was something I could probably get used to and focus relatively quickly, but definitely not near the focus speed of even the 85 1.2 (which is sloow). That, and the frustration of thinking that certain shots were 'dead-on' focus when they were slightly off was frustrating to me. My guess is that I was slightly passing the area of dead-on focus while I was turning it, and without a focusing screen, I was having trouble getting it dead-on.
15
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon Center Pinch Lens Caps Now Shipping
« on: February 25, 2013, 09:26:25 PM »
Interesting... here in Japan, I've had a full set for all my lenses for almost a month. Didn't realize they weren't shipping everywhere yet.
(they cost about $7 shipped from Amazon here)
(they cost about $7 shipped from Amazon here)