September 19, 2014, 08:13:37 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 51
526
In the olden days, when film ruled the roost, there was still the great disparity in price between consumer cameras and professional equipment.  But photos from the cheapest camera looked identical to the photos from the most expensive (assuming the same lens, film etc).  The only reason to pay more was for a tougher body, more fps, faster AF, and better viewfinder.  If you were simply seeking "best 35mm image quality", it made little difference how expensive the camera body was.

That's no longer the case.  Now, people have to spend a lot more if they are seeking "best image quality from a non medium format camera".  And if this is what they are seeking, they will be looking at a 5Diii or D800.  And I don't see any problem with people thinking that way.  But the 5Diii and D800 are expensive.  And that's because they do have some many capabilities, functions and features.  It is actually surprising that they are as cheap as they are.

They are regular rumours of a bare bones Canon Full Frame camera.  I'd be very curious to see what price such a camera could sell for.  I think there is a market for a very simple camera that had superior image quality.  If Canon could sell such a camera for around the $1,500 - $1,800 mark then they will rule the camera world for many years to come.  Everyone who's a crop camera user and has had a nagging doubt that their pictures would be better if they only had a full frame camera would buy one.  I'm hoping this is the mirrorless camera that's coming.

527
Canon General / Re: I have a question about wedding photography
« on: May 13, 2012, 12:47:25 AM »
I agree with the above three posts. 

Anyway....

Some photographers retain the negatives / computer files so that they can earn future income from print sales.  Often the prices charged are over the top.  Your clients might just be concerned about this.  Plus, who thinks they'll be able to track down their wedding photographer in ten years' time?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with requesting the RAW files.  When I chose a wedding photographer, I specifically chose one that would give me all of the negatives after printing off the photos that we selected.  If I was searching for a wedding photographer today, I'd be very suspicious of a photographer that didn't include the RAW files in their package. 

528
If you can live with a smaller sensor size, have a look at the Olympus OM-D.

529
Lenses / Re: BATTLE OF THE PRIMES: F1.8 Vs F1.4
« on: May 10, 2012, 01:46:59 AM »
If you like pentagon shapes, you've got to get the 1.8!  The 1.4 tends to turn out of focus highlights into dull circular shapes that merge neatly into the background. Only the 1.8 will give you the clearly defined pentagons that serious photographers seek.

Ok - jokes aside, I've got a 1.8 and like it a lot.  But it does have flaws, most of which are mentioned above - lack of sharpness wide open, noisy autofocus, ordinary bokeh.  For all intensive purposes, the 1.4 is "better".  But...the 1.8 weighs next to nothing and is reasonably small.  If you're heading out, its very easy to slip into a pocket and I rarely go anywhere without it.  And from f4 onwards it is sharp, and I doubt you'd be able to easily tell the difference between photos from either lens.   The clear giveaway is the pentagon shaped highlights, which tend to be prominent with the 1.8.  Doesn't necessarily make the photos bad, but you sometimes wish they weren't there.

530
EOS Bodies / Re: Is this heresy?
« on: May 09, 2012, 04:05:04 AM »
Personally, I'd love an X-Pro1 and I can appreciate why you are considering it.  But the 7D is a more capable performer - especially if you're taking photo's of fast moving babies.  Hmmm. Coolness and comparative simplicity vs features/capabilities that you might or might not need.  It's a tough call.  While she wouldn't be using your lenses if you went with the X-Pro1, I think the 7D is the long-term practical decision if you've already got some quality gear to share.

I had a similar discussion with my dad yesterday, who's thinking of retiring his trustee Canon film SLR and joining the digital age.  If you're not heavily invested in lenses, do you stick with Canon or do you look at the competition?  Our anti-Nikon tendencies ruled that option out immediately (yes, its hereditary!).  We're not 100% convinved about EVF's, so ruled out Sony, and we don't think the mirrorless cameras are quite there yet.  After narrowing the field down quickly, we were just left with Pentax and Canon.  I think we decided that the 600D or 60D would be a safe bet.

531
I'm thinking of picking up a 580EX ii.  But being a careful purchaser, I thought I'd look around and see what else is out there.  The closest competitor seems to be the Metz Mecablitz 58 AF-2.  The price difference isn't that big.  Just wondering if there is any compelling reason not to choose the Canon flash?

Is there anything else out there to consider? The 600EX-RT is probably a little too pricey for my occasional level of use.  I'll also use the flash on a variety of different cameras so an "auto" mode (External Automatic Flash Exposure in CanonSpeak) is desirable, which rules out the 430EX II.

532
Lenses / Re: Worth Getting 24L & 35L both?
« on: May 02, 2012, 04:04:49 AM »
Why not get both?  They're both good lenses. If you are unsure which is for you, maybe do a search of your current photos to see if you're favouring one focal length over another.  Personally, I find 24mm a very versatile focal length.  Good for group shots.  Plus, you can take a full body photo of someone in which they take up a reasonably large part of the frame and you can still get some good background detail (or bridesmaids/family) in.  But if you're getting in very close, the 35mm, might give you slightly more pleasing results.

533
Lenses / Re: Are primes really more sharp?
« on: April 26, 2012, 04:13:33 AM »
I think the days of categorically saying primes are sharper than (quality) zooms are over.  Its more a question of the versatility of a zoom vs wider aperture and lower weight of a prime.  Primes are usually cheaper, too.

There are some shots that you can only get with a wide aperture prime.  Yet there would rarely be a shot that you could only get with a zoom.  (Unless you are doing some ultra tricky zoom-while-you-take-the-shot thingy - in which case you obviously need a zoom!).

534
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is getting owned in sensor technology
« on: April 20, 2012, 03:56:48 AM »
But I must say the d800 score really shocked me since they even beat some of the medium format cameras.

Well, the Sony Alpha 900 has scores that beat the Leica M9, and Hasselblad H3DII 50 and so on.

And the Pentax K5 (with crop sensor) beats the 5D3.

I've no problem acknowledging that the Nikon might have a "better" sensor as tested with the DXO methodology.  But it doesn't mean it produces better pictures.  Canon have rarely been competitive with DXO rankings, but I still prefer the look of the photos taken with their cameras.   

535
Lenses / Re: Active Sports - 135 or 70-200 2.8 II?
« on: April 11, 2012, 05:27:22 AM »
I find the 135mm a little short for field sports and prefer a 70-200 and/or 400mm.  But my lenses choices aren't perfect.  My problem is that I'm using  f4 and f5.6 lenses and to keep the shutter speed up, I need good sunlight, or high ISOs.  From your options, the 70-200 f2.8 lens would be my recommendation for outdoor sports. 

I've never seriously tried to shoot indoor sports, but I'd feel the 135mm would be perfectly for this.  Its sharp wide open, so you can shoot at f2.  At f2, you still need good lighting / high ISO's to keep the shutter speed up.  But it is a stop faster than the 2.8.

The 135mm should also be good for outdoors basketball.  At f2, you'll have plenty of background blur with good bokeh.  But the 70-200 also covers this range.

Which one to choose?  If you're mostly shooting indoors or evenings and can get close to the action, I'd be tempted by the 135mm.  For outdoor sports or if you'll be a reasonable distance from the action, the extra versatility of the 70-200 would sway me.

536
Black & White / Re: So..what sucks about this shot?
« on: April 10, 2012, 03:18:29 AM »
I think its a good shot and I like it.  But, it is a photo of people I don't know. If it was my wife and child, I'd be delighted.  I'd frame it and putting it on wall.  But would I put your photo on my wall?  No.

With close up photos of people, it is difficult to gain widespread acceptance unless it is a photo of someone famous (or unless you are famous).  While people can appreciate it is a good photo, it only has relevance to those pictured and close family members.

I wouldn't take the rejection too personally.  The fact that the judges didn't accept it doesn't detract from it being a good photo.

537
Site Information / Re: Disappointed and goodbye
« on: April 10, 2012, 02:38:01 AM »
Wickidwombat, are your feelings hurt because people don't get the video?  Go eat a bowl of cement and ......  :)

I've noticed that there are a lot of people on this site that use their real name and their comments are rarely inflamatory.  It would be interesting to do a study one day on the level of civility from those who are easily identifiable vs those with a random username. 

In my opinion, it's the internet.  Its a levelling field.  Everyone is just as entitiled to put forward their views as anyone else.  And if somebody disagrees strongly with a comment, they have no hesitation in "correcting" you.  But anonymity gives people the feeling of invincibility and sometimes, people take things too far.  But I doubt there is malicious intent on anyone's part.

538
Quick, bring back the negative karma....I'm about to support Ken Rockwell.

His site is entertaining.  If he can manage to support himself from it, good on him.  I don't think he's ever tried to portray himself as a professional photographer.  He has his biases, likes and dislikes and he doesn't try to hide them.  Sometimes its interesting to read his personal opinion, rather than a (supposedly) objective review.

He's been at it so long, that his site is very comprehensive.   There are some interesting, funny, and perceptive pages.  He might get some of the finer details wrong (such as his regular assertion that Nikon DSLRs are better than Canon's), but its rare for him to be totally off track.

RealRaw!  I love how he's coined the term and claiming that he's trademarked it.  You've got to admit - it's funny. 

Sadly, I don't know if he's lost interest in his site.  A couple of years ago, he was belting out some good content.  Now it seems solely like a money making exercise.  It's as though he's sold the site and someone new is just capitalising from the page visits.

Why do I like Ken Rockwell?  It's because I'm a bogan.  And I briefly lived in Logan, Queensland (the bogan capital of Australia).  I was a proud "Logan Bogan".

539
The 60D is a good camera.  While you would be able to see a diferrence in side by side shot comparisons with a 5Diii, for real life use, the differences are largely immaterial unless you are shooting at high ISOs, printing BIG or seeking more background blur.

540
... then do what the military does with their guns.

You mean "rifles".  ;)

I've got a cheapy carbon fibre tripod (triopo).  Apart from the occassional part falling off, it works well and I don't have any concerns using it in water or mud.  I just give a quick rinse in clean water when it looks dirty.  As mentioned above - they're designed to be used.

I'm also a ball head user.  I find it a good option for general use. 

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 51