November 23, 2014, 07:24:19 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 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 53
If I only had around $2k to spend, I think I'd move to Olympus.  Maybe an OM-D with a 12mm and a 45mm.

If I received an insurance payout, and was starting afresh, I'd go with a 5Diii with and a 24mm, 50mm (or 85mm), 135mm, and 400mm and a Mamiya 6 with a 50mm, 75mm and 150mm.

EOS Bodies / Re: This should be more than a rumour
« on: May 27, 2012, 09:58:44 PM »
How about every camera having a unique code.  When you take a photo, the code is embeded into it.  If your camera is stolen, you can search the internet for your code to see who's uploading photos from your camera.  Maybe this can already be done?

Lenses / Re: Lens of toddler stills and video
« on: May 22, 2012, 04:50:57 AM »
Any particular reason for wanting to avoid flash? If it's a normal sized room there should be plenty of choices for bounce flash.

Has anyone used the 320EX with the built in LED light for similar indoor videos?  Is that an option worth considering?

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 21, 2012, 11:18:25 PM »
Historically, 40mm is a popular size for a pancake lens.  And its actually a handy focal length.  Although, f/2.8 throws me - f/2 would be more appealing.   

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 20, 2012, 06:04:39 AM »
I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?

Is that what they're going for?  I've got a 7e (aka eos 30), and the 3 is definite step up in features.   Time to go shopping me thinks.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 19, 2012, 10:54:34 PM »
Hi Dirtcastle, after Policar's explanation, I don't really have anything to add.  But I'll just mention one thing.  The problem with providing a direct comparison to decide which is technically better is that people often compare scanned negatives with DSLR files.  This is a problem because the scanning process produces a lower quality file compared with the original negative.   You'll hear a lot of people say that a negative has a similar amount of data to a 20 - 25mp camera.  But I'd say that a "scanned" negative file might be lucky to have one third of that claimed resolution.  Therefore, given that good scanning is hard to do anyway, if you enjoy digital workflow, then a DSLR is going to better.  Realistically, way better.  But the answer changes if you are comparing medium format and large format film where the film negative area is many multiples larger.

So why bother with film?  Policar mentions one of my favourite films - velvia. Velvia is a high saturation / high contrast film and can produce spectacular reds and oranges (ie sunsets) - something that many DSLRs struggle with.  Greens and blues also looks awesome and it is a really good medium if you are taking nature or landscape photos (assuming you don't care about realistic colour).  It can take a bit of PP to make a digital file look as good.  And a really good medium format or large format negative, when viewed on a lightbox through a loupe, has a 3D effect that is captivating and difficult to achieve with a DSLR.  These days, film also gives your photos a different look.  There is no way you'd mistake a velvia photo for a HDR enhanced digital file.

The other reason why I personally shoot film is because I'm not a professional photographer.  Instead, I have a job where I'm in front of a computer all day.  I equate computers with work and the last thing I want to do at home is more work on a computer.  But that's just me.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 19, 2012, 12:07:54 AM »
Film and digital do compete with each other.  Every time someone decides to take a photo, they've made a conscious decision to use a digital or film camera....and digital has won (mainly for the reasons listed above - easier workflow, quality files and image manipulation opportunities).

But it is interesting that the people still using film (even if it is only for a small percentage of their photos) include a high number of very good / acclaimed photographers.  And while they would be succesful with either medium, they still choose to use film for some critical work.  Why would this be the case?  Surely not just for nostalgic reasons? Personally, I like the "look" of film and I think a lot of others do too.  Plus, I've got a darkroom set up in my garage, and its fun to make prints.  And it really doesn't cost much if you're developing your own film.  (Although, local E6 processing costs have shot through the roof and I'll probably just stick with B & W at some point in the near future).

To say that digital has beaten film is probably just comparing 35mm film?

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Vs Regular DSLR -- Your thoughts???
« on: May 18, 2012, 05:37:01 AM »
I only get about 300 - 330 shots from my EPL-1 when using an EVF.  But the battery is comparatively small.  My 40D battery is almost double the size and I can get 500 - 600 shots.  While the logical side of me believes a mirrorless camera must need more battery power, I'd suspect that battery life is probably more a product of battery size and battery technology than mirrorless vs DSLR.

Lenses / Re: Your dream 50mm f/14
« on: May 17, 2012, 11:59:18 PM »
It would be part of the 24 / 50 / 100mm f/1.4 range for the new FF mirrorless camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless Vs Regular DSLR -- Your thoughts???
« on: May 17, 2012, 10:57:51 PM »
Its not that I "want" a mirrorless camera over a DSLR.  But sometimes I want to take photos with a camera that is less obtrusive or intimidating.  A camera that's a bit lighter and more ergonmical to carry around would also be a bonus. 

About 12 months ago, I purchased an Olympus EPL-1 to fill this role.  Overall I am happy with it.  Although images are a bit noisy in low light, in good light it is great and the EVF works well (and has some benefits over an OVF).  This camera has made me a mirrorless convert and if Canon introduces something better (especially if it had a FF or APS-H sensor), I'll be all over it.

But like most things, there are trade-offs.  A mirrorless camera won't be your first choice for action photos and if you were only going to own one camera, a DSLR would be a more sensible choice.   But a DSLR is what everyone's mum owns.  I agree that a mirrorless camera would be way cooler....

Lately, I've been trying to take wildlife photos in the dark using a radio trigger to power some non-ex flashes.  I'm generally shooting subjects about 20m away.  It's too dark for my camera to auto focus so I'm manual focusing or pre-focusing on a particular spot.  But I'm not getting many keepers.  My eye sight isn't the best and I just can't focus accurately or fast enough.

What can I do?

My first thought is to pick up some Canon flashes.  I understand that the AF Assist of the ST-E2 isn't very powerful and the 580EXii is better and has more features as a master controller anyway.  Therefore, I'm thinking I should pick up a 580EXii (or maybe a Metz 58 AF-2) to use the AF assist, and use this to control a couple of slaves.  Does this sound sensible?  I've heard that the AF assist on a 580EXii might extend to about 20m.  Does that sound right?

Realistically, I'm not going to pick up two or three 600EX RTs.  But given that the price difference between the 580EX and the 600EX isnt that big, should I just go for one 600EX and use this as the master controller now and future proof my system?  I assume 430EX-RTs aren't that far away?

The ST-E3 lacks AF assist.  Am I right in thinking that it won't trigger the AF assist on a 600EX (and even if it could, the lines / grid wouldn't necessarily match my AF points anyway)?

Am I missing something?  Is there a simpler or better way to obtain improved night time AF performance?

But video does hinder a camera's ability.  Canon has $X to put towards new product development.  Without video, all of it would be put towards photography and useability features.  We'd have variable ISO across the sensor, inbuilt ND grads, GPS, Bluetooth, WIFI connectivity, inbuilt ST-E3 functionality, inbuilt IR autofocus assist, improved weathersealing and durability, carbon fibre camera bodies, increased processing power, buffers, longer lasting batteries etc etc.  They'd also have the money to develop an adapter for EX speedlites that provides wireless connectivity with the ST-E3 and 600EX.  They'd even have money to develop a longer camera strap.  But instead Canon has chosen to develop DSLR video features.

I'm not saying that Canon (or any other manufacturer) is wrong with this.  Clearly, the market has spoken and we've said that we value video more.  last year, I even went out and bought a camera specifically because I wanted to take videos with a DSLR.  But to answer the initial question, cameras could be improved from a pure photographic perspective if video development resources were allocated to other areas.  But I think Canon has their priorities right in developing video.  My only concern is how much people have to pay to get top image quality (especially if they decide to discontinue the 5Dii).

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.

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. 


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. 

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

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 53