December 20, 2014, 09:44:34 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 - e17paul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: ENELOOP ????
« on: December 18, 2014, 02:55:15 PM »
Incidentally, the same lithium ion cells are available from 2 other brands. One is Apple (for their keyboard/mouse/trackpad), and the other is Roberts (for their solar radio). I believe that they are supplied by Sanyo/Panasonic under contract to Apple/Roberts.

Lenses / Re: Buying Advice: What First Lens for a Full Frame?
« on: December 17, 2014, 08:05:08 AM »
.....I should also note that I'm on a very tight budget. ....
Then there's only one right answer, EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
It's built like a toy, seriously, like Hasbro quality. Canon should create a marketing arm for these that sounds like a Western Pacific mainland cheap rip off, Canhoon maybe?
Cheap feel aside, it's got great IQ, fast focus, f/1.8 is pretty fast for low light, a more or less natural perspective, you can't go wrong with it. It just works and works very well.
50's were the "Standard" lens way back when, they've been made so long they've been rather refined for quite a while.
Working with a prime's limitations sure sharpens one's compositional skill set, zoom with your feet and all that that statement implies.
The 40mm Pancake is a little more money, has a very solid, professional build quality feel.
At f/2.8 it's not as low light fast as the 50mm, doesn't focus anywhere near as snappy as the 50 though the 50 is sometimes too fast and overshoots then hunts back.
The 40mm has an STM (stepping motor) for focusing that is both a curse and a feature.
The STM makes a groan/whine noise when running, non-mechanical and fully electronic focus goes to sleep rather quickly and then you cannot manual focus until you wake it again.

I started with only a 50/.8 II for my 6D, just as decades earlier I started with only a 50/1.4 for my OM-10. A 50 is surprisingly versatile, despite being a prime and not a zoom.

If a zoom is essential, the street price of the 24-105 STM is beginning to drop after its recent release, making it a more attractive alternative to the 24-105L. The 6D gives good results at higher ISO, so you can afford to lose a couple of stops of lens speed, providing you can achieve sufficient selective focus, if that is important to you.

Lenses / Re: What would you choose to compliment a 50mm prime?
« on: December 17, 2014, 02:38:07 AM »
I find that for most days out where photography is not the main motive, my 24 IS and 50 serve most purposes. That's a total lens weight of around half a kilo. Your option of the 16-35/4 IS would give more flexibility, and I sometimes wonder if I should consider trading up. It wasn't yet announced when I bought my 24.

If I'm taking more kit with me then I take the 70-300L. The 70-200/4L is lighter than the 70-300L, but longer when in the bag, and feels no better balanced on my 6D. Either are options, with the choice being extra reach vs. a few hundred extra grams. Both are much lighter than the 70-200/2.8

I will wait until the technology trickles down to a more reasonable price.  For me the 5D III is over priced.  It looked like the price was going to get to a more reasonable then ML came out with the RAW video and the price skyrocket back up to list. 

No I will buy a used 5D III or more likely a 6D II or III with most of the features of the 5D III.

I'm just waiting for the cheap lightweight plastic bodied full frame Rebel FF, which could logically happen after the 6D II takes the technology trickle down from the 5D3, in the wake of whatever the 5D4 brings.

Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:59:18 PM »
I first read the downloaded manual before buying and major purchase. That's part of my decision making. By the time I have the item, I have already remembered the key instructions.

My Olympus OM-10 meters better than my 6D. That's fortunate because there are no second chances with film.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Reviewing Olympus 40-150/2.8
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:58:22 AM »

Yup, I know, it isn't a Canon review or a lens that will fit on Canon but the review is worth reading as both the reviewer and site owner are willing to experiment with new equipment, even if it means not getting the shot, e.g. from the review:

Last year Michael used the Olympus E-M1 in Antarctica and missed some crucial images because he was using 4/3 lenses that did not use the Dual Phase-Contrast auto focus.  By the time the lens focused, the shot was gone.  This was most noticeable when shooting a whale breaching against a dark ocean background.  I am convinced with the 40-150mm and 12-40mm Olympus Pro Lenses that this kind of shot won’t be missed this year when I take this gear to Antarctica.

... it is reviews like this where you find people talking about the bleeding edge of photography - included what blood was drawn!

It's great to see the potential allowed by not only a smaller sensor, and mirrorless. That will keep improving rapidly, as happens with electronics.

But you've got to wonder, what would a EF 80-300/2.8 look like?
and how big would it be, etc?

The 40-150/2.8 lens on M43 would give a broadly similar depth of field to an 80-300 lens on full frame. The light needed to get the shot at f/2.8 on M43 would be vaguely similar to that needed for f/5.6 on full frame, given the extra high ISO performance of a full frame sensor compared to M43. So to achieve broadly similar goals, the equivalent lens would be an 80-300/5.6 - that is not far from the spec of the 70-300L.

That exists already, is just over 1kg in weight, much fatter than the Olympus, but not hugely different in length. Canon have done an amazing job of giving that amount of reach for full frame in a reasonably short package. I love mine, but sometimes wish it wasn't so conspicuous.

Perhaps there is a market for an EF-M (or EF-S) f/2.8 telephoto zoom to compete with the Olympus?

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 08:31:46 AM »
Please tell me they aren't developing this lens...I thought 6.3 on the long end was bad enough but 7.2 is not good.

This will be a great lens for a sunny day in the countryside. Yes, I know it will need good light, but we can still have our f/4, f/2.8 and faster for when the occasion demands it.

Let's have both options, providing that it has IS and IQ is up to the standard of recent Canon STM lenses.

Portrait / Re: Post your best portraits(street, studio, candid etc...).
« on: December 09, 2014, 12:54:13 PM »
Not a conventional portrait.
Canon 6D with 50/2.5 compact macro, handheld @ f/2.8, 1/30, ISO 6400. Out of camera JPEG downsampled.

Photography Technique / Re: What can old-school photogs do better (or not)?
« on: December 09, 2014, 03:54:34 AM »
Any previous activity is going to inform what you do now in both subtle and obvious ways. My time at art school studying painting has without doubt given me a different approach to shooting. Thankfully I realized in my final year that I was not going to be the next Monet or Jackson Pollock, so I switched to a photography major in final year. Good move!

Shooting with film did inform the way I shoot now to some extent. The very real consideration that it was going to cost $1.00 every time I pressed the shutter made careful composition and timing the "moment" a necessary skill. Darkroom work making black & white prints while shooting daily news and sports provided a skill to view things tonally as well as in color.

But all said and done, I wouldn't go back to the old ways for all the tea in China. I haven't even owned a film camera of any kind since 2001.

Marsu42, I wouldn't take the output created by your friend as typical of photographers with 20+ years experience. To coin a phrase, he provides just a "snapshot" of skills from a different era.


I am informed by the perspective drawing classes from School of Architecture. My first instinct is always to hold the camera level so that the verticals of the building. That sometimes results in dramatically poor composition. Sometimes I break that self imposed rule to improve the composition, but it is always a wrench. The alternatives are to crop the photo later, or to invest in a tilt shift lens.

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm Macro lens is a better buy?
« on: December 09, 2014, 02:53:16 AM »
I have the Canon 50/2.5. I Have also read many great reviews of the Zeiss 50/2 makro planar, and would love to own that too.

It's strengths are the large travel on the focus ring, low distortion, compact size and of course the ability to focus very close for a 50. It's weaknesses are autofocus which can miss and hunt on my 6D, and a slightly cheap feeling. However, it has much better build than my previous 50/1.8 ii.

It will be a great complement to your 100L, which is another lens on my hit list. Unlike some here, I can see the point of a close focus 50. I just wish that Canon would release a 50 or 60 macro with both USM and IS. Meanwhile, the Zeiss is probably your best option. The misgivings I have about it are the lack of AF, which I sometimes want for non macro use, and the larger physical size which may block out light for close up photos. However, the Canon extends greatly when focussed close up.

If you have a crop sensor, there are two other options. Canon's 60 USM macro, and the 35 IS which focuses very close. If you have a full frame camera, then the 60 is eliminated and the 35 is probably too wide. 

Photography Technique / Re: What can old-school photogs do better (or not)?
« on: December 08, 2014, 06:11:35 PM »
Today I was out shooting horsies with a friend of mine, a cameraman with 20 years experience in the studio and film biz. Nowadays, he's doing mostly landscape stills. So I asked him to do some portaits of me with the animals for my website.

He used a 5d2, a light meter, a good 50mm mf/m lens and shot in full M mode apparently mostly f2.8 (there's no exif on that). And a mf film camera, claiming that a good scan of the negative beats any 135 digital out there in resolution. So far, so impressive. Except for the 5d2, I was shocked by its pattern noise after raising shadows +2ev. So if I ever said anything negative about my 6d except for its still crappy af system I take it back :-o

The bad: after looking at his digital shots I have to say I'm kind of surprised: only 1/10th are barely in focus, maybe 1/20th are just ok-ish for websize, and even less rally nailed. And he screwed up the horizon level and framing even worse than I usually do, and I feel I'm pretty bad at it.

The good: He has a very good eye for composition and lighting, he didn't pray & spray but waited for the right light to show up and got nice rim lighting. For using full M, the exposure was also mostly ok +-1ev from nailing it.

The Question: Are we too focused on pixel peeping these days and forget about the good traditional values of the great photogs of the olden days? Or do some long-time legacy photogs simply need a kick in the proverbial to use af like the rest of us?

I'm asking because this is not the first time I feel very ambivalent about working with or talking to old-school photogs. It's like there's a curious mixture of very solid knowledge, but coupled with a seemingly lack of understanding of modern camera's capabilities or usage. Or is it they simply have completely other priorities than us digital kids, and wildlife shooting isn't really what the legacy is back from the days?

Thanks for sharing any insights about the film photog generation in the digital age!

Yes definitely. As a teenager my camera was the excellent Olympus XA/2, 35mm full frame with 35mm full frame. There was nothing to do but compose the shot and press the shutter. As a result I soon learned to do those things well, even though there was no instant feedback as there is with digital. Focus was either 'landscape', 'group' or 'head and shoulders'. The closest experience today is using my iPhone.

That proved a great foundation for moving onto my OM-10 as an Architecture student. Focus only needed to be good enough for a 6" x 4" print. No pixel peeping possible, just lots of satisfaction. Maybe we spoil our enjoyment by studying photos with the electronic equivalent of a microscope.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hyperfocal Distance
« on: December 08, 2014, 08:54:42 AM »
It could be were spoiled with our phone apps. And really were pretty spoiled with our cameras and lenses imo. I think if our phones can take a picture then press a button to send it to fb or email or whatever our expensive dslr should be able too. I think eventually all that will be in the cameras. I also think theres lots of money to be made there once it happens if it's all done right. I love my gear but for people and young people in particular  just getting into photography it just looks dated and complex. The new Fujis, samsungs, Sonys mirroless System seem more exciting and seem to be inovating. Would I trade my gear and switch? No!!! But I want canon to stay on top and I think modernizing there interface, adding touch screen, gps, wifi, the ability to get a great shot you take online immeadility like you can with a phone will help do that. Point and shoots were killed with phones I don't won't these new systems to surpass dslr's the future.

Canikon optics are generally great, but they otherwise need to be in fear of the electronics manufacturers. Why can't the camera show indicate depth of field base upon focal length, aperture and focus distance? All of that information is known to the camera's electronics when in use.

The pinch and zoom interface on Canon touch screen displays is a step in the right direction, and a hopeful sign. The Canon menu system feels archaic compared to my phone, but is ahead of Pentax. I'm writing this because I'm hoping it is read by Canon.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 7D mark II
« on: December 08, 2014, 07:58:11 AM »
I think that if your main lens is the 10-22, then you will love the 6D for its IQ, but as you say, it does mean also investing in the 16-35L. If it's as good as the As others have said, the limitation of the 6D is that it misses the sophisticated auto-focus of the 7D/7D2/5D3. However, I managed fine at Top Gear Live in Sydney earlier this year.

If your action photography tends to be in good light, then keeping the 7D alongside the 6D would give you the choice, and give you an extended reach option for any telephoto lenses that you have. I'm contemplating a crop sensor camera to use with my current lenses.

There are plenty of places in Sydney that will hire equipment if you want an extended test. I hired my 70-300L from Georges on condition that the hire money would be refunded if I bought the lens. I did.

Incidentally, did I meet you around Sydney Harbour last Feb/March, when I was carrying my OM-10, or was that another photographer called David in Sydney?

Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: December 08, 2014, 12:31:52 AM »
My work set up is two monitors, one is in conventional landscape orientation, the other is in portrait orientation. It looks odd, but works brilliant for reviewing documents of either shape. Mainly drawings in my case, but sometimes

Many monitors can be used this way. Mine are plain old HP 20" displays. I will  post a photo when I get to work.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16