August 21, 2014, 06:52:03 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 - awinphoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133
1
I too would like this update lens to have internal zooming... I had an issue a few months back where the lens got knocked while zoomed out (walking around with the camera strap on my shoulder on a day out with the family and that lens is notorious for the zoom creeping like that) and after that it wouldn't retract... Had to send it to canon and $300 later it was fixed...  That was after the CPS discount. 

2
I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence...  One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material...  Well yes and no...  And here's the whole crux...  not all diffusion material is created equal...  You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer...  BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light.  Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more.  NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light.  As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject...  So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant.  For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention...  So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...

Don't agree, just like sensors size trumps all. Look at some of the pro modifiers now, they are 7' and bigger, why? Because size invariably trumps being closer.

A good rule of thumb with modifiers is to take their size as the optimal distance from the subject, 20" modifier 20" from the subject, 50" modifier 50" from the subject, scale that down to this useless snake oil and you need to be 3" or 4" from the subject, and if the subject is more than 3" or 4" wide you are going to get big falloff issues.

I think your confusion the quality of the light vs the softness/effect of the light...  I'm not arguing that a bigger modifier will give a better quality of light and better affect...  I am just saying it's possible with heavy diffusion to soften the light, although the quality and usefulness of the light will be in question.


Having heavy diffusion will only reduce the light intensity unless the effective lighting surface is also increased.
For example, try covering the speedlite with tightly wrapped layers of white cloth- you will only make it dimmer.

Now very low intensity light has an illusion of being soft, because there is little contrast between the well lit and poorly lit areas. This isn't truly soft light though. It's just poor lighting ;)

By definition, soft light avoids sharp shadows and harsh bright areas, with smooth transition between the two. The only way to do it is control the effective size of the light source. Reducing the illumination such that there are no bright areas and no shadows are created is hardly a step in the right direction.

As i said... possible but not very useful...  Let alone the fact that if it's killing that much light, it may be even easier to over heat and kill your flash altogether...  But if there's a will there's a way... but as i said... if they can improve upon it with future releases, then they have maybe a good basis to move from to develop something bigger and better. 

3
I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence...  One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material...  Well yes and no...  And here's the whole crux...  not all diffusion material is created equal...  You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer...  BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light.  Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more.  NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light.  As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject...  So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant.  For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention...  So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...

Don't agree, just like sensors size trumps all. Look at some of the pro modifiers now, they are 7' and bigger, why? Because size invariably trumps being closer.

A good rule of thumb with modifiers is to take their size as the optimal distance from the subject, 20" modifier 20" from the subject, 50" modifier 50" from the subject, scale that down to this useless snake oil and you need to be 3" or 4" from the subject, and if the subject is more than 3" or 4" wide you are going to get big falloff issues.

I think your confusion the quality of the light vs the softness/effect of the light...  I'm not arguing that a bigger modifier will give a better quality of light and better affect...  I am just saying it's possible with heavy diffusion to soften the light, although the quality and usefulness of the light will be in question. 

4
I think most everything that has needed to be said has been said... now there IS a way to diffuse the light more all things being equal, but it is also a sacrifice in essence...  One person said it wouldn't diffuse any more than shooting through diffusion material...  Well yes and no...  And here's the whole crux...  not all diffusion material is created equal...  You can utilize thicker diffusion material which will disperse the light even more making it appear softer, or double/triple/quadruple the diffusion to make it softer and softer...  BUT, as we all know it means we lose more light power and affect, meaning the light would have to be closer to the subject to get the same amount of light.  Now here's also another tactic, the closer the light, the softer the light... The farther the light, the harder the light... so this may very well have really thick diffusion on the "softbox" softening the light, requiring you to shoot closer, more power, and thus softening the light even more.  NOW, dont get me wrong, i'm not saying it will be an attractive light.  As professional and amateur photographers, we are conditioned that bigger the light source, in relation to the subject, the better, whereas this MAY be a small soft light-sourse close to the subject...  So it just wont have the same effect that a 16x20 or bigger softbox can produce... it physically cant.  For run and gun, grip and grins event style photographers, i can see how this MAY grab someones attention...  So i wont say this is a complete design fail... I wont even say that this is a flawed product... but if they can improve upon this in future releases (and hopefully bring down costs to a more palatable level, then maybe the inventor may be on to something)...

5
animoto.com... does it all for you

Do you use animoto?  It looks pretty interesting.  I'm wondering if it would be a good fit for our scout troop (non-profit) for the scouts to use to create videos.

Yes i do...  Here's a slideshow i've done with animoto, my daughter is in the hospital so this slideshow is still being added to as a tribute to her time there so it is not finalized...  you have hundreds of songs/genres... can add multiple songs, etc... vimeo.com/102168544

6
animoto.com... does it all for you

7
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:04:40 PM »
No reason to get the 85 1.8 unless you want more background blur. Difference between 100L and 85 1.8 is nominal. You need to go 85L or 135L to see a real difference over the 100L in terms of background blur. 100L destroys the 85 1.8 in sharpness and color. I would take the 100L over the 85 1.8 every day of the week. 85L isn't overpriced, simply expensive. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 85L, and it wouldn't even be that hard of a decision to make. My 2nd choice would be the 100L, as it so happens. Food for thought!

That's what i'm looking for... more near subject background blur... but slightly wider than 100L. 

8
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 06:03:45 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...


Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

You're absolutely right, so just saying "cost vs benefit for you doesn't favor the 85/1.2" should be enough. You brought it some highly dubious comparisons as 'unanimous reviews'.
In fact, if you're spending that kind of money a 70-200L will serve you far better, and in a studio environment, the non-IS f/2.8 might give you the versatility and wider FoV you are looking for, at a much lower price. Have you considered that?

I have considered that, but from most of my shooting, that lens lends itself more for an outdoor lens.  It could be a mental block, but when i'm indoors, it just isn't the lens i naturally grab... while that is a great lens, i fall in that category (for this lens groupings) on which is more beneficial for me...  the F4 and IS, or 2.8 and no IS and not quite as sharp at the f4 is... and once again, the 2.8 IS II is out of budget, while that one I will admit has lived up to all it's hype.  Also the 70-300 is another interesting lens but we also lose another stop but gain another 100mm.  But for most my clients, i shoot in studio 90% of the time, so an indoor lens (and preferably easy on the arms hand holding) is preferred.  Ideally i would like to get this lens within the next month or two... But as with the original premise of my thread, i have the 100mm 2.8L, i want something a tad wider and faster (or will give me softer backgrounds/bokeh) that i can shoot in a studio setting.  Most my research up to this point led to the 85 1.8, if anyone had any photos comparing the two's image quality and bokeh, i would love to see them so see the difference, if any. 

9
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 05:17:41 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent...


Given so many people are trying to help you here, why do you want to alienate them by dissing a lens that you have only read about, and many people here love?

Within one day and two pages of post your opinion changed from "while I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment" to "stupidly overpriced... not as sharp... missed shots". I have tried the 85L and while the AF is slow (not as slow as I was led to believe) it is very accurate. In any case, you are not considering it, why spend time criticizing it (and the 50L while you're at it)?

Since you are open to considering third party lenses I have heard good things about the Sigma. However, if I was in your shoes and prepared to wait, I would wait for the 85mm Art.

i'm not... i'm just giving my thought process and seeing what options are... he didn't recommend the 1.8 but said it would be better to save up for the 1.2...  i was just justifying why i didn't think the 1.2 would be a good choice as far as value and quality... thats all.  From what i've seen the 1.2, when it does get a great in focus shot, it is really hard to beat... but getting to that shot, for a working photographer on a budget, just doesn't seem worth it, dontcha think?

10
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:52:35 PM »
Thanks for all your feedback...  When i compared the 1.8 to it's big boy brother, the 85 1.2, while it is an impressive piece of glass, almost every review comparing the two came back unaminous...  the 1.2 is stupidly overpriced, it is slower AF than the 1.8, and not as sharp as the 1.8, especially as wide apertures.  They all loved the 1.2 WHEN it was able to get a sharp image at 1.2, but they typically had many missed shots getting to that 1 keeper.  To me as a working photographer, i cant wait and hope i nail focus when i fire, i need to know, as from what most reviews gave me, the 1.8 was that lens.  I tried all the 50's... the macro, the 1.4, the 1.2, and the 1.2 has the same mis-focus issues at 1.2 that i kept reading about in the 85 1.2.  The 50 1.4 was nice, and I owned that lens, but it was noisy, and really on the slow end...  When it was good, it was good, but it was nothing to write home about.  The macro was good 10 years ago but long in the tooth today.  The 70-200 i have is nice... i plan later in the year to upgrade it to it's IS counterpart...  While nice F4 to 1.8 is quite different and in my studio at least, i'm making due with every inch i got and so moving back extra feet for the 150-200 range really isn't appealing anymore unless i'm outdoors.  Then I would totally use that lens.  Lighting, i've already got studio strobes, backgrounds, stands (although i should upgrade to c-stands in the near future)...  I dont know... everything, within the current gear offerings out there seems to be pointing to the 85 1.8.  Then again, i am open to suggestions on tammy or sigma's if anyone else has any suggestions for what i'm looking at.  Within my studio, shooting a full body posed/standing shot requires me being at opposite corners of my studio so  a slightly wider MM would be welcome... fast aperture... reliable and consistent... 

11
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:45:05 PM »
Thanks for all your responses. The 100mm 2.8 is great, can use it for many things, but if I need to do a 3/4 or full length shot, I'm using every square inch of my studio which makes things a little challenge, so the looser feel, in that situation would be welcome. I don't intend to depart from my 100, but add to it. Does anyone off any bokeh comparisons? Thanks for all your insights

12
Lenses / Re: 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:03:17 PM »
2.8 L

13
Lenses / 100mm 2.8 vs 85mm 1.8
« on: August 07, 2014, 06:05:20 PM »
Okay guys... i'm about to pull the trigger on a new lens for my portrait work, the Canon 85 1.8.  Cheap, excellent sharpness, fast...  And then my boss (wife) asks me... what can this lens do that our 100 2.8 CANT do.  I've done a lot of self research and i'm sold.  While I would love to get the 85 1.2, that's just not in our cards and budget at this moment.  I often shoot in tight places and to be able to blur the background just a smidge more (less photoshop work for me) is very attractive as to reduce our downtime, plus it will give us more wiggle room with framing not being AS tight.  Now here is where I need your help guys... those who have both lenses, had both lenses, or similar lenses, what i'm looking for is kind of a side by side portrait showing the 85 at 1.8-2 and the 100 at 2.8...  a nearer background 2-3 feet is ideal for this purpose... help me sell this lens to my wife...  Yeah yeah i know the common answer will be to rent one and let her see, but to be honest, the nearest place i can rent a lens is a few hours away and to have one shipped out, well lets just say i'm hoping you guys can help first...  Ok... Ready... Go! 

14
Photography Technique / Re: Help: lightning photography?
« on: July 18, 2014, 09:09:19 AM »
Lastly, heed the advice from my photographer grandpa after i sent him pics of lightnings...  "lighting seeks out photographers in the middle of storms".... so be safe and be careful. 

15
I have this pelican and love it... The latches on this is slightly redesigned so they aren't as "knucklebusting" as in prior models, although still not as arthritis friendly as the storm cases...  Love it, used it in almost all conditions and it still takes a licking and keeps on ticking.  And bonus with this case it's just large enough that flight attendants kinda get nervous when the see it, so you may get some offers to put it in the captains closet (although doesn't help if you have intentions on taking pictures during the flight.) 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 133