October 20, 2014, 07:32:51 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
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 06:31:06 AM »
Obviously a Fuji Sponsored campaign.

However - I agree with the idea - that the advantages of FF over Crop - are getting smaller all the time, as far as overall IQ. The DOF issue will always remain as it is an issue of optics and not electronics.

CROP also has many advantages - primarily smaller cheaper gear, lenses that are cheaper to develop.

Less to carry, and cheaper price for many of us = more fun taking pictures.


2
Perhaps you never understood her in the first place...

Be careful...the beauty of your new paramour's resolution can be easily marred if you choose the wrong glasses for her face...there are many such glasses that will reduce her to parity with your former beloved.

Regardless, I doubt she'll miss you...and it's certain that her family won't miss you at all, being larger and more popular than the one you're joining.

Farewell...

OUCH !!

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 70d center focus point -bug- problem
« on: May 15, 2014, 07:38:36 AM »
Hi,

I was considering upgrading from my t2i to the canon 70d. I use quite a few fast primes at 1.4 like the canon 50mm 1.4, and 35L 1.4.

There is quite a "buzz" on the net - claiming a focus problem with the 70d when using the view finder and center point for maximum accuracy. it seems there is a quirk which does not provide sharp focus.

Can anyone confirm or negate this ? If I cannot focus like my t2i with my fast glass - then the 70d is not for me?

Phase detect autofocus is fast, but is not as accurate as the dual pixel AF or manual AF either.  I have not heard of any issues, do you have links to reliable testers that found a issue?  Usually it is lens related, some lenses do not focus reliably or accurately.  Be sure that the tester is experienced and knows what he is doing.  Beware of posts on forums where testers make incorrect assumptions or use lenses that may not be consistent.
 
I've yet to see any expert reports of a issue that is repeatable using good lenses.
 
Here are some links to people who know what they are doing. 
 
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/27/canon-dual-pixel-cmos-af-autofocus-secrets-of-the-canon-70d-explained
 
DP Review did a lot of testing and has some remarks specifically about AF accuracy.
 
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/12

Here are links about this:

Canon 70D- Serious Focusing Problem!

Canon 70D Focusing Issue

4
This is a great topic. Taking pictures is one thing - running a business is something totally different.

Like many others here already mentioned - there are many components about getting people to pay you for your work. It is very much a function of the clients PERCEPTION of your service.

The client needs to perceive that he is getting a good deal, that you are special, that he too is special and will get the best service from you. There need to be added value factors to the overall package beyond just getting pictures such as Bunnies :) , gifts, a surprise extra enlargement, etc. etc.

Selling yourself and your service - are not things you learn in a photography class. Closing a deal, making sure you get paid, getting more leads, are all part of what you learn in business school.

5
EOS Bodies / Canon 70d center focus point -bug- problem
« on: May 14, 2014, 06:26:49 AM »
Hi,

I was considering upgrading from my t2i to the canon 70d. I use quite a few fast primes at 1.4 like the canon 50mm 1.4, and 35L 1.4.

There is quite a "buzz" on the net - claiming a focus problem with the 70d when using the view finder and center point for maximum accuracy. it seems there is a quirk which does not provide sharp focus.

Can anyone confirm or negate this ? If I cannot focus like my t2i with my fast glass - then the 70d is not for me?

6
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 08, 2014, 07:15:55 AM »
Photography is a hobby for me to ENJOY. So I weigh my purchases with this question in mind: Will this piece of gear enhance my pleasure from my hobby?

For for example, when I asked myself if I should upgrade from the 550d to the 6d - the answer was NO. For what I do - having a FF heavier camera will not make any substantial contribution to my hobby.

On the other hand I purchased a 100L - and enjoy it immensely.
6D hardly a 'heavier' camera plus the 100L looks beautiful on a 6D : }

I know :) don't think I'm immune to GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) - But I'm on a budget and need to spend carefully.

7
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 08, 2014, 05:55:01 AM »
Photography is a hobby for me to ENJOY. So I weigh my purchases with this question in mind: Will this piece of gear enhance my pleasure from my hobby?

For for example, when I asked myself if I should upgrade from the 550d to the 6d - the answer was NO. For what I do - having a FF heavier camera will not make any substantial contribution to my hobby.

On the other hand I purchased a 100L - and enjoy it immensely.
 

8
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:

http://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/

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 :

http://www.edward-weston.com

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. 

9
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.




 

10
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





 

11
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.

Hi,

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.

J.P.

12
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 ?

13
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.



14
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.

15
Lenses / Upgrade for 17-55 2.8
« on: December 31, 2013, 05:55:26 AM »
Hi,

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 ?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13