January 27, 2015, 08:48:31 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 107
Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: Today at 03:18:03 PM »
Do you use your dominant eye when composing through the viewfinder or do you force yourself to use your non-dominant eye in order to try to stimulate the other half of your brain?

Sorry, but that's not how it works.  The left side of visual space is represented on the right side of the brain (and vice versa), so each eye projects to both hemispheres of the brain.

Ok, it feels weird explaining this to you, but there is something as eyed-ness or ocular dominance (not to be confused with Ocular dominance columns, for others reading this post) (see Porac and Coren, 1976). You can easily test it out by holding a pencil vertically in front of you and having something on the background matching its position. When you close one eye, you see the background shift in reference to the pencil but not so for the other eye. The latter is said to be your dominant eye. Some people don't have this preference.

Site Information / Re: Underneath my name
« on: Today at 03:03:57 PM »
This thread made my day!  ;D ;D ;D
(ok, so I am easily satisfied)


Have you ever thought about playing a piano? How about making a left handed piano for you, Mr. YAMAHA please? Even if Steinway make one for you, will that make you a better piano player?

Have you ever requested TOYOTA to make a left handed Corolla for you, since you can't change gear with right hand?

People always say left-handed person is smarter than those right-handed. What do you think?

I am right handed, with tennis elbow for many years. Since then I have to use left hand to brush my teeth as suggested by Doctor. How much difficulty is it to use a regular camera for a left-handed person, compare to use left hand to brush teeth?

Are you suggesting that it is possible, with some practice, for a person with complete paralysis of the right arm to use a regular dSLR camera quite easily (as I suppose it was for you to brush with your left hand)?
If so, I'd love to hear how you think she might do that.
Oh, and you might have missed the introduction of automatic transmission in cars, including the Toyota Corolla...

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 25, 2015, 08:18:56 PM »
Well, yes of course -- there is that difference.   The problem becomes whether I want to trade or not, and what I can trade for is limited.   It began as a trade for the 24-70 f4 IS, but then decided the 24-105 will stay in the bag instead because I don't gain enough with the 24-70 f4.   So, now the options fall at 16-35 f4 IS, but I have to put some cash with it for that lens, which I didn't want to do if possible. 

Now, as I work thru it all and look at the options (duplicate FL, and other factors) it seems the only option that remains realistic = 16-35 f4 IS ... sometimes it takes writing it down, listening to others, and then making the obvious choice that should have popped out in my brain  immediately.   So, looks like I'll be testing that new 16-35 soon enough if I can 'taper down the cash part" a bit ... thanks for the responses -

Too soon to start congratulating you? :P

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:11:03 PM »
Interesting comments -- 

My gut reaction is, stay with the 24-105 as it likes that extra range, and it's shooting very clean images.   I guess 24-70 was tugging at my brain after hearing all the good reviews, and hearing some not so good reviews about the 24-105 (which I happen not to agree with as much) ...   so, will probably continue the 24-105 and maybe put a few more bucks into this trade and pick up the 16-35 f4 IS lens instead -- (that 'might' be an option).  I do have a tendency to shoot at the long end of whatever lens is on the camera for some reason.

I shoot very little real wide work tho, and limited indoors work as well, but maybe that will change if the 16-35 f4 hits my bag.  I do have a 20-35 lens, so it would benefit me 16-20, altho the 20-35 is not an "L" lens, it is quite sharp and give great color performance -- an old lens, not available anymore.  Great lens tho ... I'd never sell it.

Guess I'll lean toward the 16-35 f4 and see what happens ... at least it's not a duplicate range.  Any comments on that lens - it compares to the 17-40 f4, but reviews on the 16-35 f4 seem better. <still puzzled>  But have probably answered my own Q here.  Always helps to listen tho, makes one think in a positive direction.

There's going to be only one type of comment in response to the 16-35, and you can guess what that is.
Mediocre zoom with overlapping FL vs tack sharp ultrawide with IS? It's a no-brainer, in other words.

Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:23:14 AM »
Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.

You don't need to, you can work out the tilt you want before you lift the camera to your eye, the 'J distance' is the key and tilt tables give you the values you need, the shift is easy to do through the viewfinder and focus will follow on from your tilt angle and desired plane of focus angle. It sounds much worse than it is but once you start playing with the TS-E's it becomes second nature.

You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
Thanks a bunch!

Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:56:33 PM »
Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 ---> 16-35 f4
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:50:17 PM »
I use the $2,000+ 17TS-E almost every day, it is lauded as the best ultra wide lens made by Canon, I recently got a new 16-35 f4 IS for $999. At 17mm the zoom has every bit as much resolution as my TS-E and the contrast is much better.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a very very good lens with sharpness and contrast that rivals the very best available, throw in IS, the 77mm filter thread, and the keen price, I am more than happy with the purchase.

i will be getting the 17TSE I know its a super good glass but since you own it is the 16-35 f4 a better buy. I will not be switching a prime for a zoom thou.

They are very different lenses that do different jobs, but as a 17mm 'prime' the 16-35 f4 IS beats the pants off the 17TS-E. Of course if you need tilts and/or shifts then the 16-35 is useless!

After selling my 16-35 f2.8 MkI and using the 17TS-E as happily as I was I wasn't actually planning on replacing my ultrawide zoom, but after seeing it on CPW for $999 I thought I'd give it a go and I am very happy that I did, the IQ from it is staggeringly good and the functionality with the zoom, weatherproofing, AF, IS etc just makes it a supremely good package. I know it is really the 17-40 replacement, and as such it is a large cost increase, but to my mind it is worth every penny and some.

The 17TS-E does stuff the 16-35 never will, but unless you really need that functionality then the zoom is a vastly better buy. And unless you must have the 17 fov I'd recommend the 24TS-E over the 17 any day.

What do you use your TS-E for?
I have generally don't use wider FoVs than 24mm for landscape and the 17TS-E is great for buildings (outside and inside) and the Rokinon 14 is great for getting really close or small spaces. For that reason, amazing as it is, I haven't been able to justify the 16-35. Since I hope to get into real estate photography, I think the 17mm is one I need to hang on to even for non-entertainment purposes :)

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:41:08 PM »
IMO, the 24-70 is nothing special.
I had it for a while, and it's just ok. The macro is pretty unusable for the close subject distance you will have to use.
The wider end is probably a lot better than the 24-105, though.
However, in your case it doesn't seem like you have anything to lose by getting the 24-70, and actually a bit to gain. So why not try it out? If you don't like it then you can always sell it...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Ice sculptures - any tips?
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:36:06 PM »
Very nice results candyman.

Wished I had more time in a less crowded environment.

Very nice shots (the light on the motorcyclist is superbly captured), but I will restate what I said in my (deleted) post. If you had a wider angle lens, you could get closer and not have to wait for people to move.
Also, the effect of getting up close can often be dramatic.
For stationary subjects, the 4-stop IS of the 16-35 is more relevant than that f/4.

Lenses / Re: Where are the new Canon 50mm and 85mm lenses?
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:03:01 PM »
The Canon 50mm primes are the most disappointing set of lenses in Canon's portfolio. I've owned and used professionally every one of them except the 50mm f1.0 L and all of them have been disappointing when compared to the results from other Canon prime lenses. The build of a 50mm f1.2 L is impressive and it's a great lens, but it's just not as sharp as it's price tag would indicate (even stopped down). Shortly after it was released it's new value plummeted and stayed quite low for a long time. Then one day Canon raised it's prices and bumped it's price point because it was erm...f1.2 and therefore worth more. The saddest thing is that it's really tricky lens to use and one which most people go for if they are dabbling with a pro prime lens itch. The 35L and 85IIL are far better performing lenses. 

I'm sure that Canon have a new set of 50's in development, but when is anyone's guess. 

As to 85mm lenses....Canon already have those covered and they are both awesome.

Interesting take.

I feel like the 50 1.4 has a MUCH better rendering profile than most other non L canon primes. The 85 especially suffers from fringing wide open, and has a veeeeery flat profile. Its a great lens and af is blazing, but i sold it because it was too long for crop and all that purple fringing drove me nuts.

A 50 1.4 with IS would simply kill. I think we would all buy one. But i would want it to keep the beautiful rendering of the current version, not so much the still good 35IS.

I am curious- would you mind expanding on that? I have tried to love the 50/1.4, but failed on three separate occasions. It just seemed to lack contrast and color and it wasn't very sharp below f/2.8 or so. Due to the lack of contrast and sharpness, the out of focus effect looked extremely bland.
It seems to me like a lens that might work with sufficient post-production, unlike the 35L or the 135L which just pop without much help from Lightroom.

Lenses / Re: Where are the new Canon 50mm and 85mm lenses?
« on: January 24, 2015, 02:59:24 PM »
As long as Canon keeps selling the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 like they have been, I think we'll be in for a long wait.  Those lens productions must be almost pure profit at this point and while they aren't the world's best lenses, they are good enough for a great many people.  The 24, 28, and 35 lenses were rather poor in comparison and not good sellers from what I understand, so the economics to replace them made sense.  Sigma certainly hears the voices of discontent, however...

This is pretty much what I think as well.  The 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are great as they are so the improvement will be harder to sell at a higher price point.  Canon knows that the ROI for a prime lens factors heavily into pro shooters' decisions and many already own the existing 50 and 85.  Canon must find or somehow create a demand for the replacement versions and that was a lot easier with lackluster 24, 28 and 35 version 1 lenses.  And while they're at it, Canon doesn't want to create an EF lens that is so good that the L versions become less of an upgrade at their even higher price point!

I assume zooms probably sell much better at a higher price point so they get all the love first.

Incidentally, I don't agree that Canon doesn't foresee a market with newer versions of the non-L 50 and 85.
Regarding the 50, there is certainly a large number of videographers who will like a 50 IS, and if Canon can bring out even a 50/1.8 IS sharp wide open and prices it at $ 600/700 then they clearly leave room for the 50L (a full stop faster for the bokeh people and dedicated portrait users), while they still allow the cheaper 50/1.4 and much cheaper 50/1.8 to sell.
Regarding the 85, there is a large amount of people who can use a faster focusing medium telephoto, and will prefer better color and contrast that what the 85/1.8 provides. Now, an 85/1.4 priced at just about 1K will affect both 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L sales (although breaking up the segment might increase net sales as a lot of 85/1.8 users will upgrade to the 85/1.4 and at that point it becomes a numbers game). What I think more likely is Canon upgrading the 85 to a 85/1.8 II and pricing it at ~ $ 800. That will let them make more profit on the f/1.8 bracket and not affect the 85/1.2L too much.
We will see I suppose.

Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 24, 2015, 02:25:04 PM »
Just for fun,
ASSUMING the rumored 11-24mm f/4L arrives, performs well, has a bulbous element, and costs around $2499-$2999: which would option would you pick below if you could only have one since they would cost around the same?

OPTION 1: 16-35mm f/4L IS + 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye
PROs: Offers both rectilinear and fisheye UWA depending on focal length, 16-35mm accepts filters
CONs: No rectilinear option wider than 16mm

OPTION 2: 11-24mm f/4L
PRO: This one goes to 11. :)  Unusually wide for a FF rectilinear lens.
CONs: Expensive for a single lens, no filters, no fisheye option available, lacks 25-35mm coverage.

Just curious about what the opinions and use case scenarios for people would be  8)

Why not include the Tamron 15-30/f2.8 VC as an option?

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera Bag
« on: January 24, 2015, 02:21:58 PM »
I know it is hard to find a perfect bag.
But I really want to avoid having many different bags. I hate owning stuff that I rarely use.
The Loka could fit my needs. I would like to actually see one before buying it. I live in Europe, I can't see on their website where it is on sale.
Looking at the picture I can see that the Tammy fits in. Not sure if a 70-200 would fit on top of that.
Anyone has tried one of these?:


You should write to f stop gear and ask. They are extremely accommodating at customer support. I wanted to know if the Loka fits someone of my height and they sent me a photo of one of their employees (of my height) wearing it. Plus, they have a 30-day return policy I think. And yes, they ship to Europe AFAIK.
The problem is, you can always go bigger (for example, buy the Satori and the XL ICU) but that might exceed the size restrictions of some careers. It seems to me, that the 70-200 plus camera will take up the two upper left compartments, and the 24-105 and the flash can sit vertical next to each other in the bottom left one. The large ICU is deep enough for each camera to carry their grips.
The other question is, whether it is even portable with all this gear. But I am assuming you are strong enough to be up to that task :)

Software & Accessories / Re: Camera Bag
« on: January 24, 2015, 09:15:37 AM »
I check the Lowepro Tactic. I don't like the design. The Loka is very nice. Looks like a serious competitor!


I added the link to the picture showing how the Tammy fits within the large ICU. Missed it last time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 107