November 27, 2014, 11:35:27 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 - Hillsilly

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 53
In three / four years time, the 5Div won't be a DSLR in the conventional sense but will instead be an EF mount mirrorless camera with a hybrid electronic and optical viewfinder.  It will be billed as Canon's flagship advanced technology model.  The 1 series will stay as a DSLR for a bit longer for those requiring a more rugged, time tested design.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Gig photography tips.
« on: June 02, 2012, 04:15:20 AM »
I'm always in two minds about what to take to a concert.  I've been to some recent concerts where the band and security make it very clear they don't allow photos or videos etc even from mobile phones, which would make you feel a bit awkward if you came all kitted out.  (And yet, these same bands often try to get everyone to hold up their phones to simulate cigarette lighters....).

Of course, some bands don't care and are a lot more photographer friendly.  I went to a Def FX concert on Thursday.  The first thing announced was "take as many pictures and videos as you like, post them on youtube to show everyone else what they're missing!".  (And if you're curious, Fiona Horne still rocks!).

I've got no real tips.  I've never taken a flash to a concert and that hasn't really hindered me. The only advice I have is to take a real a camera and don't rely on your phone.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Considering an EOS 35mm (film) body
« on: May 30, 2012, 11:34:22 PM »
All Canon eos film SLR camera's take the same lenses as the 5D. is a good site for comparing different models. As mentioned, they all use the same sensor, so its just a question of choosing the right feature set - frames per second, eye control, number of focus points, weather sealing etc.

Very few people have problems buying on ebay.  KEH, Adoama, B & H etc also sell used gear and often at good prices.

I'm a 7e (AKA eso 30) user.  No complaints - Its a good little camera.  But if someone offered to swap an eos 3 for it, I'd take the 3 in an instant.  I think the 3 will be the long term collectors item and is the one to get.   

What body and lens combo are you using to take these shots?

Hi, Thanks everyone for your responses.  Generally, I'm using a 1Ds Mkii and a 135 f/2.  I suspect that I'll eventually end up upgrading to the newer Canon radio controlled flashes.  Therefore, I've just ordered a cheap Yong Nuo ST-E2  (its only $100) to see if that helps with autofocusing and have started researching motion detectors and infrared camera traps.  I've decided that framing and lighting the scene as I want it, and pre-focusing might be the best solution.

Canon General / Re: Beliefs and myths.
« on: May 29, 2012, 05:27:50 AM »
OK, I'll take the challenge.  Tell me if I pass.

* With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO. True.

* Raw files opened in Adobe or in DPP will have identical IQ. Essentially True.  They might have a slightly different look, but I wouldn't say one would be better.

* In real life situations the result from Zeiss lenses will be mostly indistinguishable from Canon lenses, all other factors being equal. True.  There are minor differences, but mosty indistinguishable.

* The 5d3 is the camera to grab when getting the photo is of utmost importance rather than D800. True

* Nikon makes better wide-angle lenses including wide-angle zooms than Canon. Difficult one.  Possibly True, but the 10-22 EF-S is probably better than the Nikon alternatives.  Our WA tilt shifts are ok.  Same with the 14mm and 24mm.  It would be difficult to say Nikon is "Better".

* If the user understands Photoshop properly then Nik softwares are redundant. Probably True

* Film has lost the battle and digital rules and even looks better. False.  Film is very niche but has its proponents and benefits.

* Chromatic aberrations and lens vignette characteristics of a lens do not matter as these things can be fixed easily in Photoshop. Possibly False.  I suspect that it would be better to just get it right in camera rather than relying on software corrections.

* The IQ of 1dx and 5d3 at ISO 100 will be same. Probably True.  Maybe not the same but not much difference.

* Cropping in camera (1.6 factor) is not the same as cropping equal amount in post on a full frame camera. Not sure, but I think this is False

* Mac computers have no real advantage over PC when it comes to processing photos. Very contentious.  I'll say True

* 99.9 percent of equipment complaints are user errors including the 5d3 criticisms. False - Its 99.6%

* Canon will announce a high megapixel camera within six months. False

* 1Dx will ship in reasonable quantities and will fill in the initial demand mostly. False

* 5d3 will not eat into the sales of 1Dx.False

* New equipment may not make better pictures but certainly do help in making better pictures and people should stop criticizing people who want to buy new gear. True.  Buying new stuff is fun

* People who regularly visit photo forums or for that matter ‘pixel peep’ can also be wonderful photographers. True

* Manuel focusing can be learned with practice and once second nature, it is almost as fast as shooting with auto focus for subjects not moving so fast. True.  Faster in some situations

* It is ok to use auto exposure modes available in camera and that does not make anyone a lesser photographer. True

* The partial blur effect created by lens baby or tilt/shift lenses looks better than what is possible in photoshop.Maybe, but you have more post production possibilities in Photoshop.

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....

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