April 19, 2014, 05:33:28 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 - anthonyd

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 26, 2014, 12:00:41 AM »
I use the 22/2 but that's the only one I have for the M.  I (and by "I" I mean my wife) primarily use the M for short videos of my son and snapshots inside the house, so I would appreciate a 11-500mm/1.8 pancake :-)  No for real, something slightly more tele than 22 is what I would like, but without compromising the small package.  A native M version of the 40/2.8 pancake would be excellent.

Pricewatch Deals / B&H is awesome
« on: March 19, 2014, 01:32:17 PM »
I bought the Canon 24-70 f/2.8II last Monday from B&H for $2199.  After seeing in CR that they dropped the price by $200 this Monday I called them asking if I can get the discount as well, postmortem (my reasoning was that I could always return the lens and order it again at the new price).  The guy offered me the discount immediately without me even have to mention that I would return it otherwise!
They sure made me want to go back for my next big purchase.

Photography Technique / Re: What could I do better?
« on: March 17, 2014, 02:49:26 PM »
This site is primarily about gear, so I'm going to commit heresy: it's not the gear.  It's not your technique either.  It's everything else (which depending on the point of view could be charged on your technique).

Go to 500px.com and type "deer".  All the pictures you'll get in the first page are nice because of one or more of the following reasons:
a) They have great subject separation.  That's because they are shot with a narrow enough aperture and have a great distance to the background.  In your case the bushes are right behind them.  There is very little you could do about this, even if you had a much better lens.
b) They are shot at a time of the day that the light conditions are great.  Again, you don't get to choose when deer show up in your back yard.
c) They are shot in a "magical" place.  Sorry, your backyard is not magical. Maybe you front yard? :-)
d) The deer are doing something interesting, which means that they are not afraid of the photographer because they are probably not aware of the photographer's presence.

So here is my advice for better deer pictures: Burn down the bushes in your back yard, preferably while the deer are in front of them!  :-)  Ok, for real, a picture like yours is a snapshot that captures a nice memory, but it won't get much better by throwing more expensive equipment at it.  More accurate focus wouldn't have changed things much either.  If you don't believe me, download one of your favorite deer pictures from 500px and blur the deer a little bit.  It will still be a very nice picture.  The way to take better wildlife pictures (and the reason I said it can be charged on your technique) is to go to a national park, spend enough time to identify nice locations and stalk the animals for long enough until you get them to be in a nice location under nice light conditions.  Planning and perseverance will get you much farther than better equipment.

Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 14, 2014, 01:42:21 AM »
Thanks everybody for the nice comments and advice.  I surely do want the 35A as well, as I do portraits a lot, but I have a 50/1.4 for that, a good general purpose zoom was missing from my arsenal more than a prime that can do subject separation well.
The lens arrived by the way and Ι have to say, I'm happy with it already.

Lenses / just hit the purchase button
« on: March 11, 2014, 12:00:34 AM »
I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!


Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: March 07, 2014, 09:10:49 AM »

Sure, the top half is a bit busy, but for just 1 million you can clone it out yourself.

This is an unmistakable masterpiece. Please post your bank account, I would like to wire you a million dollars. :-)

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:43:15 PM »
Caveat: Art is in the eye of the beholder, it's all subjective.

Actually, I have a personal anecdotal story on this.
When I was in high school I attended drawing classes at a private evening school.  In my opinion I suck at drawing and everything I drew was awful.  However, my parents kept everything, for some reason.
Years later, my sister married an architect who draws (and designs) amazing things.  One day he went through my "paintings" and decided that he liked one of them so much, he put it on his living room wall.  At first I thought he's messing with me, but after years and years of the painting remaining on his wall I have come to terms with the fact that we have very different ways of viewing the world.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 04:35:54 PM »
... ironic since few of your can shoot 8x10 ...

Hell, I didn't even know what "8x10" was before your post, but I still don't see how that helped him.  This photograph is still awful (in my opinion of course).

Canon General / Big zoom, small size
« on: February 12, 2014, 01:52:22 AM »
Hello, I was wondering if anybody has real life experience (and photos to back it up) with a superzoom compact camera.  I was looking at the latest announcements by Sony at dpreview and could help wonder if a 24.5 - 1550mm equivalent lens that is smaller (and cheaper) than a full frame 50mm could possibly produce anything decent.

Put another way, if I were to go on a trip to Alaska, or Yellowstone tomorrow and couldn't afford a canon 600mm or bigger (let alone the trash-can size and weight) would it be worth it to grab a superzoom that has a reach of 1000+ equivalent? (not necessarily the Sony ones mentioned).

Please don't start a discussion on image stabilization, or the small sensor size and its effects on IQ. I'm well aware of all that.  I'm asking about the lens, so assume we are taking a picture of a grizzly bear, or a bird, who's standing still, on a very bright day, with the camera on a tripod.

Video & Movie / Re: Just WOW
« on: January 28, 2014, 12:48:46 AM »
... This software does not exist , and when there , will cost much more expensive than all plastic surgery and aesthetic treatments that money can buy...

The first year.  Then for a few years it will be just expensive and then it will cost less than all these L lenses you took to that wedding.  Not to mention the open source alternative that will do 75% of the work at no cost at all, but all the menus will be different so you will hate it and consider it useless :-p

 That's assuming this format gets adopted. I doubt it.

I'm not sure that there is a way to _not_ adopt this.  It's not a new format. It's the latest version of the standard libjpeg.  Now, software that works with jpg might choose to ignore the new features, even if they use the latest version of the library, which would be equivalent to not adopting it, but that sounds a little lame from a marketing perspective.

If say lightroom does not allow you to save 12bit jpeg two years from now, wouldn't that be a great selling point for all the competitors? Look, we can do something that lightroom can't and we are even standard compliant!

Lighting / Fastest DIY light modifier (post yours)
« on: January 18, 2014, 11:30:52 PM »
My son was drawing tonight and I wanted to take a few pictures of him, but didn't want to bother setting up lights, so I made a ... "soft box" out of printer paper leaning against cereal boxes and put in my flashgun with a remote trigger.
Any feedback is welcome (including negative) and I hope to see other people's crazy quick and cheap solutions posted.

Lenses / Re: Baby on the way - lens help
« on: January 06, 2014, 06:44:42 PM »
When my son was about to pop out, I bough a 50 f/1.4 (for him, not for me :-)).  It hasn't let me down, although on my crop body, it is sometimes too long when doing indoors work (which you will be doing a lot with a newborn). For example, it worked nice for the first shot bellow, but for the second I had to switch to a wider lens, although I brought the ladder inside and climbed all the way until my back was pressed against the ceiling!
Based on my experience, I would recommend against the 85 on a FF, but certainly for a 50.  Your f/1.8 might work well, but the f/1.4 is not going to break the bank and will improve your depth of field and bokeh.

More importantly though, I would strongly encourage you to invest in some lights, if you don't already have some.  I would argue that the difference between nice light and random light is bigger than the difference between the canon 50/1.4 and the otus. At the very least, buy a cheap diffuser/reflector (or a not so expensive and practical one like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/283648-REG/Impact_CRK_42K_42_5_in_1_Reflector_with.html)
If you don't even want to invest $100 in lights, build yourself a large DIY softbox.  The internet is full of advice on how to do that for next to nothing.

Lenses / Re: New lenses ($6800 budget)
« on: January 04, 2014, 01:36:05 AM »
Are you serious?  $6800 in lenses for a 70D?  You need to balance the quality of the body with the type of lenses.  I'd not spend $6800 on lenses for a consumer grade crop body.

Yes, he's serious and he's making sense too.  Good lenses are going to last him ten years, or more, if he's careful with them.  The body - any body - will be old news in three. Even the latest 5D won't look good three-four years down the line. Not in the hands of someone that can burn $7K on lenses just like that anyway.

Do get some good lighting and software.  Light is the essence of photography.

+1 on this, I couldn't agree more.

You should be able to do very well buying reasonable lenses for a 70D for considerably less.
A 10-22mm ef-s, a 17-55mm ef-s would be a good start.  If you want telephoto, consider a 70-300mm L.

Again, I don't agree with this. He is not buying the lenses _for_ the 70D.  He is buying lenses.  The 70D is the body he'll be using until he feels that it's not adequate any more.
While the 17-55 is a good lens, I would recommend the 24-70 f/2.8 II since you offer the 10-22 to cover the wide end (and there is room in the budget).  Not only does the 24-70 offer better IQ, but if (when) the OP switches to full frame, he will not have to buy new lenses.

Lenses / Sigma 35/1.4 or ...
« on: December 26, 2013, 10:39:59 AM »
I have some money burning a hole in my pocket (under $1K) and I want to buy a new lens.
I do a lot of portrait work and landscapes and I currently have a canon 50/1.4 and 70-200 (both of which I'm very happy with) and a tamron 17-50/2.8 (which I'm ok with).  My body is APS-C so the 50 is a little too long for indoors work, or full body shots, so I'm considering of adding the Sigma 35/1.4 into the mix.  Every single review I've read praises the lens beyond reason, so I'm not concerned about the quality, I'm only wondering what other lenses people would consider in my situation.

I did consider the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for a second, but it's not FF and I might be upgrading my body next, so I don't want more crop lenses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4