April 17, 2014, 02:49:07 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 - mdmphoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: March 28, 2014, 06:37:59 PM »
EOS 6D, EF 24-105mm 105mm ISO 400 f/10 @ 1/50

2
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: March 28, 2014, 06:34:16 PM »
EOS 6D, Sigma 150-500, Tokina 1.4x 700mm ISO 800, f/11 @ 1/1000

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 12, 2013, 08:54:27 PM »
I moved up to a 6D this past Spring for improved IQ, low noise, and high iso.  I love it, but I sorely miss the af and fps of my 7D; though I still use it, I find the 6D comes in more handy for my night shooting and indoor event shots.  Barring some unanticipated bad thing, I will absolutely be adding the 7D II as soon as it's available.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D: Should I wait or not?
« on: November 05, 2013, 08:31:27 PM »
I don't know what you shoot with now, but I have a 7D, 50D (for sale), and purchased the 6D on sale in the Spring after borrowing it from Canon.  It is a fantastic camera: dynamic range, iso noise, and so on as you've probably seen or heard here and elsewhere.  The 7D outperforms it in many ways EXCEPT image quality.  Portraits, landscapes, low-light, and other non-mobile subjects are perfect for 6D use.  While the 7D, or 5- or 1-D focus systems would be a delight in this body, it would then not be a 6D.  As it is the focus system is more than adequate for the types of shots I mentioned before.  By all means, check out BF, CM, other sales and refurbs, but the 6D is still in its' relatively new or mid-life span and won't be significantly upgraded too soon....

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Highest Usable Iso?
« on: August 29, 2013, 06:08:50 AM »
I have no hesitation using my 6D up to ISO 25,600,  If you have a properly exposed photo, noise is perfectly acceptable at high ISO.

These shots are just fantastic, Justin! While I am still adjusting to the far greater latitude my 6D affords me over my 7D, I've mostly been puttering about at 3200 or so - and apparently I've been forgoing a great many shots unnecessarily.  Thanks for the enlightenment!

6
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 27, 2013, 01:53:50 AM »
6D, 24-105 @ 105:

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 3 (D) Features??
« on: August 27, 2013, 01:43:39 AM »

Third party "digital" lenses are not the same thing as EF-S lenses, if you want to butcher the safety stops then some EF-S lenses can be used to take crap heavily vignetted images on a ff camera with the risk of severe damage to that camera, hardly seems worth the effort.

I do remember back in the day people did experiment with the practicality of various EF-S lenses on EF mounts, mainly so they could use EF-S lenses on the 10D as that predated EF-S and was EF only.

The Tokina (Third-party "digital") 11-16mm f/2.8 lens is in fact designed for crop lenses, and is so marketed; yet its construction does allow it to be used, without vignetting, at 16mm, on FF cameras.  I like it because I can use it on both my 6- and 7D bodies, with very satisfactory results.  I tried this after learning about it on this and many other forums...

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 3 (D) Features??
« on: August 26, 2013, 10:39:42 PM »
Actually, SOME ef-s format lenses CAN be used on FF, with limitations, i.e. the Tokina 11-16 crop lens work at 16mm on FF. I'm sure there are others, aren't there?...

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 3 (D) Features??
« on: August 26, 2013, 10:21:43 AM »
My 6D has wi-fi and I use it all the time for my night shots, and on occasion to impress my wife by showing her the shots without downloading from the camera.  The eos remote software on my android phone is phenomenal - previewing the shot, changing settings (aperture, shutter, and iso) - I'd definitely want the wi-fi...

10
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 26, 2013, 07:29:13 AM »
...at the beach behind Burns School of Medicine, Honolulu, Hi...
(6D, Sigma 150-500 @ 500)

11
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 19, 2013, 03:25:58 PM »
...Dusk off Oahu...

12
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 17, 2013, 11:24:52 PM »
...along the trail from Kaena Point, on Oahu...

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5 versus Photoshop Elements 11
« on: August 12, 2013, 01:00:22 PM »
Lightroom 5 is not dramatically superior to Photoshop Elements 11 for editing pictures.... To say so is nonsence!!

Thought I would insert a random image like the previous post.....this one used no LR or PSE editing...

Nonsence?
      Let's try not to fail civility and maintain a focus on addressing the op's concerns.  Good that you are emotionally candid, but LR5 is in fact too DRAMATICALLY superior in its algorithms, organizational capacities, and simple accessibility of the tools it offers.  LR5 can also be expected to retain its utility longer into the future.  Why bother with pse if one will simply end up moving up to LR5 anyway?  Disclaimer: I've not used pse for several years as I found its features either not robust enough, or too inconvenient to use as a standalone. The OP can also download LR5 and use t free for 30 days to get a feel for it.  I'm not so sure if the same is true for pse.  Might you offer an image that you've edited with either LR or PSE?

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5 versus Photoshop Elements 11
« on: August 12, 2013, 01:19:47 AM »
LR5 is dramatically superior to PSE for editing photos. While I do have CS5, I fiind that over 90% of my work is in LR; I rarely, rarely bother with ps nowadays, for near- 2 years. I also use onOne Perfect Photo Suite 7, and am toying with the idea of adding Nik complete to my workflow, but the overwhelming majority of my work is completed in LR5.  It's also easy to synchronize global edits, i.e. WB, color, and tonal changes, across large numbers of photos in LR .
Additionally, the image-management tools in LR are unparalleled for organizing and keeping track of large numbers of files.

15
I've used every version since LR1.  LR1-3 were fairly incremental changes, (I teach a LR editing class so I needed to work with each version as it arrived)  LR4 a bit more because of the process version and more robust tonal editing tools; 5 is even moreso, but the biggest feature is the new functionality of the cloning/healing brush tool which is very much content-aware, and no longer confined to a circular area.  Whatever you draw over is cloned/healed.  Also, each iteration has been noise-free than its predecessor.  LR3 to LR4 was maybe not so necessary- especially if your camera bodies did not change.  LR 5 is a substantially-enough upgrade to be easily justifiable - and you can go to 5 from as far back as LR3 for sure.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4