October 20, 2014, 06:15:57 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 - theqspeaks

Pages: [1] 2
1
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS for $770 Shipped
« on: April 17, 2013, 07:19:18 PM »

2
Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!
« on: December 09, 2012, 04:38:04 PM »
I want to win! Gura is the bomb!

3
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: November 29, 2012, 03:30:21 PM »
Quote
I also tend to agree with Random's remarks about a 35 mm.  As much as I'd love to get into FF, I'll be using the 7D for a good while yet.
Sorry to continue the hijacking of this thread..., but if you're going crop for a while, why look at the super expensive Canon 35L or even the new Sigma 35mm when there's the crop sensor Sigma 30mm 1.4?  Not a perfect lens, but the Sigma 30mm is about half the price of the Sigma 35mm and a third the price of the Canon 35L.  The bokeh is often nice, it's pretty sharp, and it's much smaller than the Canon 35L. 

Here are some pics I've taken with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6748719075/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6665006571/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6714226133/#lightbox/ (hand held at 1/10s)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6714217545/#
And some more: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+30mm&w=83261600%40N00&ss=2&s=int

5
Lenses / Re: Thinking about a 17-40 f4L USM. Thoughts?
« on: November 14, 2012, 04:52:38 PM »
Setting aside the 17-40L, if the OP is a landscape photographer who usually shoots around f/8, I recommend forgetting about the 70-200mm f/2.8L and instead look at the 70-200mm f/4L IS.  The f/4 IS is super light, super sharp at all focal lengths and wide open, and super easy to use.  If you're not going to use that extra stop of aperture on the f/2.8L, you'll definitely appreciate the smaller size and the lighter weight (1.25 lbs less) of the f/4L IS.  That'll help when you're carrying your gear on your back as you hike in to get a shot.  Plus, the f/4L IS is a hundred bucks cheaper than the f/2.8L, and it adds a fantastic IS that gives it a huge advantage for when you don't have a tripod handy. 

6
Software & Accessories / Re: Hoya ND 400X vs B+W ND 1000X
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:03:51 PM »
I bought the Haida ND 3.0 10-stop filter on eBay for a great price (less than $100) and so far I love the results.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/8166679824/#

When processing I didn't notice any color casting problems with the Haida, definitely no localized color casting problems.  That said, I shoot RAW, so I don't really worry all that much about color casts. 

The June 2012 issue of Advanced Photographer magazine did a review of a bunch of 10-stop NDs and the Haida got good marks and was by-far the cheapest acceptable filter.  You can find some additional discussion about it here.  I definitely recommend the Haida.

7
Lenses / Re: Which to get: 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2?
« on: September 19, 2012, 11:17:27 PM »
I'll voice a vote for the Sigma 30mm 1.4.  Lovely lens that handles well.  The shallow DOF is great, and the 30mm is the closest you can get on the 60D (which I also have) to the classic 50mm perspective.

I also have the Canon 50mm 1.8.  Good to have for portraits, but otherwise I never use it.  The AF is pretty poor and the perspective is far too tight for everyday use. 

What do you want to use the prime for?  If it is for an everyday, walk-around lens, I'd aim for a lens between 28mm and 40mm.  If you're looking for shallow DOF or low light performance, get a f/1.8 lens or faster.  If you want something that'll force you to be creative, grab the Canon nifty fifty and play around with portraits and a tighter perspective. 

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D!
« on: September 18, 2012, 04:30:25 PM »
A 7D2 would be awesome, but does anyone think that Canon may forgo the 7D2 and instead just do a beefed up 70D?  The 7D has always been a bit of an outlier in the Canon family.  With the new 6D inhabiting the mid-range, a 70D that is more the successor to the 7D than the 60D would make a lot of sense.  (Also, allows Canon to have the xD's all be FF and the xxD's all be crop.) 

Of course, whether the update to the 7D is called the 7D mark II or the 70D, I don't care, I just want it!

9
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sync speed only 1/180s?
« on: September 18, 2012, 04:24:52 PM »
But for us, whose entire income comes from photography, we need to nit pick the options our manufacturer offers us as it can influence our work...  So yes some of us may be "Armchair Spec Readers" but that is because our lively hood depends on the tools we use everyday.

If you're a pro, why would you even be looking at the 6D?  Don't get me wrong, I think the 1/180th kinda sucks for amateur strobists.  But, someone who makes their livelihood from photography probably shouldn't be looking at "entry-level" FF cameras, right?  Canon's not marketing this camera to or making it for pros, they're doing it for enthusiasts with lots of spare cash.  The 1D's, the 5D's, and the 7D are the pro tools.  If I made my living off photography, I wouldn't trust any other Canon DSLRs to be my main tool.

Thats exactly the problem.  This camera is a Pro model, but it sounds like canon is dumbing and watering down the Pro bloodline.  And being that our entire living comes from these tools it is imperative that we keep tabs on the new technology even if it isn't the tool for us.  It is also good for those of us who use these tools full time as well as all of the part-timers and hobbyists to discuss these tools for our own understanding as well as for the advancement of the products.

We all know that this sync speed and max shutter are not physical limitations but rather Canon introduced limits to separate the 6D from the 5d3.  All while making FF affordable to the world minus the AF limits and other assorted suck with this camera.  It worries me that cheapening the FF cameras will only make the Professional Photogs life much harder as anyone can now afford a pro camera.  The hard part for us will be distinguishing ourselves from the people who have the tools but don't have the foggiest idea how they can really be used to capture so many great moments in time.

I disagree that Canon considers this a true "pro" camera.  In the press release for the 6D, they call it a "mid-range" camera "designed for advanced amateurs."  Yes, the release talks about pro-quality features, but that's likely mostly just marketing--trying to encourage enthusiasts and semi-pros to step up to a more expensive camera.  And, considering how much disdain pros have for the 6D already, it's kinda contradictory to claim that the 6D is a "pro model" while at the same time saying that it is totally insufficient for pros.

Regardless, your argument about the 6D making life harder for pros is absurd on its face.  If some newb can make better photos on a 6D than you, the Professional Photog, can make on a 5D3, then you're doing something wrong, not Canon.  If you can't distinguish your work from people with a 6D who "don't have the foggiest idea" how to use it, what does that say about your skills as a pro? 

Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war or put you down in any way.  Obviously, pros needs to keep up on the newest gear to know what tools are available to them for their profession.  And, the 6D probably isn't an ideal tool for many pros.  But that doesn't mean the 6D is a bad camera.  For Canon users, it has significantly lowered the cost of moving into the FF world.  And Canon has created the smallest and lightest FF ever (which might appeal to some landscape photogs), and that ain't nothing. 

Just like how for some folks the 7D is/was a better choice than the 5D2, the 6D is gonna be good for some and not for others.  If you do strobist, the 6D (and Canons generally) isn't your best bet because of the flash sync.  And, going back to the OP's original question, if I was a big strobist enthusiast hoping to upgrade from my Canon crop sensor to a Canon FF, yeah, I'd probably be pissed. 

10
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sync speed only 1/180s?
« on: September 18, 2012, 01:37:41 PM »
But for us, whose entire income comes from photography, we need to nit pick the options our manufacturer offers us as it can influence our work...  So yes some of us may be "Armchair Spec Readers" but that is because our lively hood depends on the tools we use everyday.

If you're a pro, why would you even be looking at the 6D?  Don't get me wrong, I think the 1/180th kinda sucks for amateur strobists.  But, someone who makes their livelihood from photography probably shouldn't be looking at "entry-level" FF cameras, right?  Canon's not marketing this camera to or making it for pros, they're doing it for enthusiasts with lots of spare cash.  The 1D's, the 5D's, and the 7D are the pro tools.  If I made my living off photography, I wouldn't trust any other Canon DSLRs to be my main tool. 

11
The OP's options are:

5dc + 70-200mm 2.8 IS II
5d3 + 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS

He currently has the 5dc and the non-IS lens.  What does the "glass first" approach buy him?  IS and a bit more sharpness?  For sports, the IS won't help that much (since he'll need a higher shutter speed to freeze the action and is likely shooting from a stable position.)  For weddings, the IS is helpful, but not nearly as much compared to the extra 2 to 4 stops in usable ISO.  (After all, IS doesn't freeze subjects that are in motion.)

The "body first" approach gets him dramatically better AF (good for sports) and dramatically better low light IQ (great for weddings.)  Also, as said before, the additional resolution mitigates the crop value of his 50D for sports.  The 5d3 will also be superior for video than the T1i (plus providing him a nicer DOF due to the FF). 

"Glass first" is just a rule of thumb, and it certainly doesn't mean "body never".  In this case, the OP already has a very good L telephoto.  His body, however, is outdated and his causing him to miss far more shots than the lack of IS on his zoom.

This is a no brainer--get the 5d3.

12
I, personally, will give Canon about a year to release a budget FF because am invested in the system. I don't need an FF that can track a fly flying towards me, a frame rate fast enough to capture a balloon exploding, or weather sealing tight enough I can take the camera diving. I do want better AF than a Rebel/60D (the 7D AF would do), AFMA, 5 FPS would be plenty, and a significant improvement in IQ over what any of those cameras can deliver. Better noise control at higher ISO levels (at least clean images @ 3200... please?) would be greatly appreciated. I will gladly pay two grand for such camera and promise to eventually buy a 24-70 MKII and whatever will replace the 430EXII.
Deal Canon?

Ditto!
Diane

Ditto ditto!
Q

13
+1 Bel-Air Camera in Westwood
+1 the "Grand Circle"
+1 Cali_PH

I've been to a lot of the places mentioned on this thread, and while they're all awesome, Yosemite really is a step above in terms of natural beauty.  That said, given the time of year, the number of days you have, and your photographic interest, I'd skip Yosemite on this trip and would do the "Grand Circle" instead.  Cali_PH is right about the water levels.  Plus, from a photographic stand point, Yosemite is totally overphotographed.  If you want to  make some compelling and unique photos, you REALLY have to work for them (i.e., hiking to unique perspectives.) 

Here's a google map from Lancaster, through the Grand Circle, back to LAX. 
http://goo.gl/maps/Mk4vb

This would take you to Flagstaff for the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, the Petrified Forest, Canyon de Chelly, Moab for Arches and Canyonlands, Natural Bridges, Capitol Reef, Grand Staircase-Escalante, Bryce, and Zion.  It's about 1750 miles, but you should add at least another 250 for driving into and around the parks.  Definitely doable during your time frame, as I basically did the same route (minus the Grand Canyon and Zion) in a little over a week. 

You could shave a couple hundreds miles off by doing the North Rim instead.  Missing out on Moab, Arches, and Canyonlands, though, would be a bummer. 
http://goo.gl/maps/plh12

Either way, you'll see a stunning amount of the American West, and MUCH more than a trip to Yosemite.  Furthermore, you'll see places (like Capitol Reef and Grand Staircase) that few Americans ever see. 

BTW, if you do find yourself in Torrey, do yourself a favor and eat at Cafe Diablo.  That restaurant is amazing, and if it was in LA or NYC, it'd be a critically acclaimed restaurant charging a king's ransom for haute Southwestern cuisine.  Call ahead, though, as they do close for the winter. 

14
Lenses / Re: Need sharp wide-open
« on: June 29, 2012, 10:06:50 AM »
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is definitely a bit soft wide open, but by f/2.8, it's pretty good.  Not nearly as sharp as my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC (which is Tamron's version of IS).  That sucker is damn sharp at f/2.8.  And I hear the non-VC version is even sharper.  Either Tamron is a lot cheaper than some of these L and TS lenses people are talking about.

15
Agree about the halo'ing. 

Composition is pretty good.  Lighting's a bit generic, though.  Dawn, dusk, and storms...that's where the interesting light is.  Or, use the harsh light from direct sun as a compositional element in the photo--either finding the high contrast between light and dark areas or using the hard shadows as a graphical element.

Pages: [1] 2