April 17, 2014, 02:56:05 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 - koolman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor ( somewhat adrift)
« on: February 27, 2014, 04:50:09 AM »

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents

Hi Koolman,

"totally" disagree?

 You have broadened the subject from the definition of a photographer  to what his subject should be, i.e., what he chooses to present, and how he chooses to present it, to the viewer. Now we are in subjectivity-land.

I'll go back to my carpenter analogy - the carpenter may be a good or poor craftsman. He may choose to make a fine home (by YOUR standards), or some piece of woodworking "art" to take to the Burning Man Festival. Or the very same carpenter may do both on different occasions. What he chooses to "carpent", makes him no less a carpenter. ;-)

In any case, he will likely make use of the best tools available to him to do his type of creating.

I made no mention of "digital art", and my comments about what defines a photographer, I believe, hold while discussing your preferred "realism" style.

I  personally think that your preference that the photograph represent "something that the photographer saw" is reasonable, considering that digital art may readily be created on a computer alone, with no camera involved at all..

I believe that the usual expectation is that a photographer would use a camera. With that understood, I would then expect him to point the lens at something of his choosing, operate the camera as he chooses or as his ability allows, and then, using the image presented to his recording medium by the lens, complete the photograph per his personal "vision", using his "completing" tools, …the same as A. Adams and the host of  acknowledged-to-be-great-photographers have (usually) done. "Usually", because there is always, among any numerous group of creators, some few "purists" who have decided that less is more. These same few might declare that the artistic fine woodworker is not a carpenter, because he decided to add some particular finish or stain, to, in his opinion' "enhance" the piece.

I hardly think this would disqualify him as a carpenter. But the purist might be left wondering what the natural wood would look like, if the so-called carpenter hadn't "messed it up", with his post-processing.

When the definition of photographer is a person who "realistically " presents all his subject material, …if this could be perfectly done, and if numerous persons attained this level of expertise, there would be no such thing as a recognizable "style" by which to differentiate among them.

If we add the requirement that the composition be perfect ( by some arbitrary standard), that the lighting be perfect also, by the same arbitrarily decided standard, then when all was done, there would be ONE style. Any one's work would be perceptually the same as that of any other.

"Vision" would be limited by decree, and any expression of personal style, a digression, …disqualifying the offender, one would expect, as "a photographer".  :-[

If the intent is more than the "accuracy" expected in photographic recording in the fields of science, medicine, archeology, etc., … if the objective is to create something pleasing to look at or display,then some degree of artistic license has to be permitted, if all work is not to be the same in presenting "Just the facts, Ma'am" ;-)

I wonder if you would consider A. A. less than a photographer, because the lighting he presents in a print of "Moonrise" (or some other work of his) wasn't REALLY as dramatic in the flesh? ( For a before-and-after example of Ansel's "post-processing" see this link:


There is discussion on the above linked-page that will be of great interest, I'm sure, to anyone participating in or enjoying this part of this thread! Accuracy vs. Interpretation(or "Vision")

(Is a bell pepper really seen as in Weston's print without some contrivance as to lighting , and without a few darkroom touches? Set one on your table, and see if it looks the same :


It would cause somewhat of stir to declare either of these two men "not a photographer!".

Do we think they would have used Photoshop?  ;)

Dear Larry,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

The web is loaded with very skilled photographers pictures - in which we can easily identify that the "picture" we are viewing - is NOT a photograph of something real - but a photograph that was taken "to the next level" and changed into something I would call "digital art".

I am not discussing the what label I would use for the person who created this picture. He or She may well be a world class photographer. I am saying, that to my mind, the result is not a photograph but a picture, and reflects PP skills more then VISION.

Look any pro photographer selling his work, is coerced to doctor up his photos- so the client will be impressed.

PP is so advanced, easily obtained, and easy to use - that we are all tempted to use it!

The results are stunning. The client does not care about how we did it.

However in my opinion - this is becoming less and less about photography - and more and more about PP and graphic design. 

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 25, 2014, 07:37:35 AM »
What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?

Alas this is the world we live in. Its all about the packaging and the posture. The essence is long gone.

What attracts people to this photo has nothing to do with photography. It has to do with other peripherals.


EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 25, 2014, 07:31:38 AM »
If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree...

Nope. Don't have to agree.

A photograph is a thing. The person who makes the thing is a photograph-er. The thing is not made until the image captured by the camera is made visible on the paper or other viewing surface. This "making" consists of the entire process from choosing/arranging/lighting the subject, adjusting/aiming/operating the camera and doing what one will to get it onto the paper. Ansel has already been mentioned as an example of a "back in the day" photograph-er who certainly made use of his dark room, his enlarger, and whatever other tools he chose, to create his "art". The photographs thusly made have  been greatly admired by many, and few of the admirers fail to call him a "photographer", rather than an "editor". (Ansel the dodger/burner?)

Adams and the numerous other "photographers" one could mention as widely recognized and acclaimed, used the tools available to them in their time, just as we do today. I don't doubt that they would envy us our new tools.

It hardly seems appropriate to try to differentiate a carpenter from a measurer, a sawer or a hammerer. Perhaps we should further distinguish him as a laser level technician, an adhesives  applier, or a plumb(vs. apple)-bobber.

Are we having fun yet?  :-)

Larry - I need to totally disagree with you. Photography is the skill of producing photographs. There is a big difference between a photograph and digital picture.  "digital art" produces stunning pictures - which more often then not do NOT reflect anything real.

Photography as I understand it - is about recording a real moment or object in the most accurate way.

Yes I understand that some tweaks can be allowed - but these should be minor and unnoticeable. The "photo" should remain something real that the photographer saw. Photography is about VISION - NOT about enhanced photoshop / lightroom skills.

My 2 cents


EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 23, 2014, 06:30:27 AM »
Hi everybody  :)

So as I move into my 3rd year of photography, I find my 500D isn't able to help my take my photography to the next level and its beginning to feel like my L series lenses are begging to shoot on a full frame body.

I've never had the chance to shoot full frame so most of what I know is pure theory derived from reading reviews etc online.

With South Africa's economy in a bit of trouble, I can get a hardly used 5D mkii for a reasonable price so I'm considering taking that.

Just what can I expect in terms of image quality and noise performance? Is the IQ of a full frame substantially better than a crops? Will I be able to take relatively noise free images at say ISO 3200?

The reviews seem to indicate that the native system for L series glass is full frame. Does this mean that I will experience a dramatic improvement in IQ?

The more I read, it seems that crop bodies have a singular advantage over full frame and that is the increase in focal length.

Can you guys chip in and throw some opinions and facts my way please?

Thanks in advance everybody.


My 2 cents. I have a 550d and my friend has a 5d mark 2. We often go shooting together. He uses a 24-70 2.8 mark 1 - I use a tammy 17-50 non VC.

1) Sure FF produces higher IQ. Is it "dramatic" ? well in my opinion it very much depends on the scenario of the shot. In good light - there is a difference - but I'm not sure "dramatic" comes to mind. In low light the FF is cleaner. In my opinion the photographers skill will influence the results in a much more "dramatic" way.

2) My style of shooting is often "walk around". The FF body and lenses are heavy and I'm not sure worth the weight and added overall drag.

3) The FF body and lenses - are more expensive and for me not worth the cost - as I shoot as a hobby. I much more enjoy the composition and photo part of my hobby then admiring the electronics of the result. That's me.


Lenses / Sigma 18-35
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:46:45 AM »
I was thinking of purchasing this lens as a walk around for my 550d. I currently own the Tamron 17-50

Its quite allot of money - and I was wondering if anyone here in the forum can give me feedback on my debate.

I borrowed the canon 17-55 for a while - and for some reason - simply did not like it. Its heavy, build quality is dicey, and the IQ was somewhat boring as compared to L lenses like the 24-70.

Thoughts ?

Lenses / Re: 100mm L not for portraits?
« on: January 29, 2014, 04:37:24 AM »
I use the 100 L on a crop 550d all the time for portraits. I think the lens is stunning as its overall colors and IQ are top of the top. As far as your picture a few tips:

1) When shooting 2 kids or more - try and get the kids to be all more or less the same distance from you. Here the right hand child is much closer. I try if possible to pose them a little.

2) I would shoot in AV mode and stop down to f/4 or 5.6.

3) Take a few shots with trial and error - so you can fine tune the focus.

For one subject - you can open up to 2.8.

Lenses / Re: Upgrade for 17-55 2.8
« on: January 01, 2014, 03:31:27 AM »
The EF-S 17-55mm is from 2006, so it's not that old as lenses go (it's a year younger than the 24-105L).  The 17-55 is sharper than the 24-105/4L IS, and sharper than the new 24-70/4L IS, when compared on the same APS-C body.  No, it's not quite as sharp as the 24-70/2.8L II, but the latter is double the cost. 

I doubt Canon sees the point in L-series build quality, weather sealing, etc., on an EF-S lens, since the 7D is the only compatible body that has decent sealing.  It's also unlikely they'll bring out an EF-S lens costing $2K like the 24-70 II, or even close to that. 

Instead of releasing optically excellent lenses for APS-C, Canon brought out the 6D which is getting down to the price range of the 'flagship APS-C' so people can buy even more expensive lenses. 

The 6d is still double the price of the rebels. For my hobby purposes - I do not need such an expensive body.

I also own a bunch of APS-C lenses and it would be a shame to lose use of them.

The 17-55 remains the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.

Lenses / Upgrade for 17-55 2.8
« on: December 31, 2013, 05:55:26 AM »

I currently use a t2i and have no intentions to move to FF in near future. I'm fine with crops.

What I would like to see is a high quality wide to long zoom to rival the new 24-70 L mark 2 for FF. I guess this would mean a mark 2 for the 17-55. The current version is quite old, and could use an upgrade to something more modern, smaller, better build, and improved IQ to match the look and feel of the new L lenses - and the new fuji / tamron/ micro 4/3 lenses flooding the market.

I'm surprised this seems to be a non issue and nobody else brings this up?

thoughts ?

EOS Bodies / Re: Change from T3i to 70d, or invest in a new lens?
« on: December 24, 2013, 06:39:41 AM »

I use a t2i. As far as sensor and overall image quality - all the current crops are very close of not identical 18MP camera. The 70d 20 MP seems to be more of the same - with a very slight improvement as far as digic 6 and more MP. Bottom line - the 70d is not a "jump" in IQ. (if you do video that's a whole other matter as the 70d has ground breaking constant AF)

I would easily recommend the 15-85 which I use allot as your "go to" lens as a superior general lens. The 15-85 is a pleasure to use, durable build, nice and wide, nice and long, fast AF, great colors.

The only cons I can think of are:
- A little nose heavy on the rebel - get a grip to balance this out.
- Some annoying lens creep - the grip will help for this as well - as the camera will hang from your neck nose "out" and not nose "down" because of the balance / weight of the grip at the bottom of the camera.

Assuming you have the 15-85 (15mm is very nice on a crop!) you might want to get the nifty fifty as a fast prime for portraits or more artistic work.

I would even say - to prefer the 15-85 over the 17-55 for your purposes as a travel lens. For most outdoor usage the 15-85 is more attractive as it is wider and longer, lighter to carry, and built stronger.

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 21, 2013, 07:35:33 AM »
As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies ....

Assuming you're referring to Canon crop cameras I think your premise is false - unless by "performance" you're excluding what ultimately counts, image quality.  Over the past few generations of Canon crop bodies there has been negligible improvement in sensor performance - the images taken with a 70D don't look much different from images taken with a 7D, 60D, or the last few years' worth of Rebels or EOSM, even if it's now easier to reach that result thanks to better AF etc.  The gap in price between crop and FF may be narrowing as the price of the 6D continues to fall, but if anything the gap in image quality between crop and FF has been widening: cf 5DII vs 7D/60D/Rebel and 6D vs 70D/EOSM - the crops have stayed much the same, but the 6D is noticeably better in image quality than the 5DII, which in turn is still considerably better than any of the crops.  (And even when/if Canon does start to introduce crop sensors with significantly improved image quality - 7D2? - the various physical traits referred to by the short-hand phrases "crop factor" and "full frame advantage" will remain.)

Is this really true that FF IQ is so significantly superior to crop ? I think the market is moving rapidly to smaller bodies and smaller high quality lenses.  Sure there are certain aspects of FF especially in the area of DOF that are not achievable with a crop, but ultimately the prosumer like myself, will not justify the cost of FF bodies and lenses. I still think there is a new much bigger prosumer market - that will go for high quality lenses for crops.

EOS Bodies / L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 19, 2013, 03:57:01 AM »
As the lines between FF and crop continue to blur - and we are seeing very high performance crop bodies - I am hoping canon will invest in high quality lenses for crop bodies. Why not L lenses for crops ? There is no good wide angle prime lens options for crop (outside third party lenses) this is a pity.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 70d for stills - IQ Improvement ?
« on: July 02, 2013, 02:17:06 PM »
I am a 550d shooter looking to upgrade. I primarily shoot stills not video, so my question is pertaining stills only.

From this perspective - would the 70d give me more of an upgrade then say the 650d which is half the price ? They seem to have the same ISO range.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 70D Reaction
« on: June 30, 2013, 09:56:27 AM »
Why is such fowl language trash allowed on this site ?

There is no insight/experience or information in this video ? He reads the spec and curses ?

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« on: June 23, 2013, 06:01:05 AM »
I have all kinds of lenses. The ONLY lens I have that is simply superb in every way is the 100 L IS. Its AF is super fast, color rendering excellent, lightweight, and overall a pleasure to use. It is can perform many duties in addition to macro, portrait, artistic, etc.

I shoot a canon crop 550d.

Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm macro L or Zeiss 50mm makro?
« on: June 17, 2013, 05:06:56 AM »
I happen to own the Canon 100L and I had a chance to use the Zeiss Macro planar 50mm f/2 for a few months on loan from a family member. I have a 550d crop body.

The canon is simply a joy to use, as it has the IS, AF, and is VERY sharp and contrasty. For me the longer FL is an advantage for macro as well allowing me to stand back.

The Zeiss is built like a tank - and for studio macro shots, mounted on a tripod, and MF carefully in LV for perfect focus. Personally I do not see any real overall advantage of the Zeiss to the Canon, unless you want 50mm.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13