October 25, 2014, 12:13:28 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 38
United States / Re: warehouse space for photography in DC/MD/VA?
« on: January 11, 2013, 03:04:04 PM »
I just found this thread. Did you ever find a place? I'm about to start working with a guy in Alexandria on something similar.  We are looking at using his workshop space for the shoots.

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Jessops close to administration?
« on: January 11, 2013, 03:00:29 PM »
Jessops to close all stores: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20992125

It's a sad day for our British friends.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pocket Camera
« on: January 09, 2013, 09:35:59 AM »
Nikon J1. I bought refurb with 10-30 VR lens for $340. Great little camera.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mm F4 IS - anybody bought one yet ?
« on: January 04, 2013, 03:52:28 PM »
Even if this lens was exactly what you wanted, why would order one now? Recent history has demonstrated that the price will drop by at least 30% in a few months.

There have been a lot of people bashing Canon on this site recently for the price drops. I'm not one of those people and understand why it happens. I'm not bashing them now, but the question being asked is whether anyone has bought one yet. I think the answer has to be "no" unless you have some urgent need for this exact lens. You could buy a 24-105 now and sell it later when prices come down.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 03:01:01 PM »
Actually, it's looking like I am going to sell my 24-105 and get the Tamron. I'll be trading reach and filter compatibility for improved IQ and one stop of light.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 02:28:48 PM »
So, when it drops to $999-ish it would be a good alternative to 24-105. Smaller and lighter with macro and better optics and improved IS.

The steps get farther apart the higher you go. I've had the 1D Mark IV for a long time now.

Uh oh, looks like you've been demoted...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Review - EOS 6D By Gizmodo
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:55:17 AM »
I've noticed that over the last 18 months or so the quality of Gizmodo's content has gone way down. I haven't used a 6D so I can't comment on their review.

You are being mocked for asking this.

The GoPro was designed from the ground up as an action video camera.
The 7D was designed to be a very capable still photo camera with a cinema mode. I wish people would stop calling it a video mode. The cinema mode is designed to allow cinematographers to film things cheaper and with smaller gear than possible traditionally. No matter how much people might want to think of them as a video camera, they aren't.

Lenses / Re: Do other lenses compete with the "look" of L primes?
« on: December 26, 2012, 09:53:06 AM »
I am very happy with my Sigma primes. I have the 35, 50, and 85 1.4's. I've previously owned Canon's 85 1.2 L II, and had loaners of their 50 1.2 L and 35 1.4 L.

I posted some Sigma 35mm samples here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11210.msg203012#msg203012

And some 85mm examples here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10747.msg193668#msg193668

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: World's First EOS-1D C Motion Image Shoot
« on: December 24, 2012, 02:15:45 PM »
I like that they are honest about the limitations of not shooting RAW and the storage requirements.

Still, looking at some of the stills it seems hard to believe that the prints were that spectacular to see. The fine detail is a bit lacking. It's impressive overall and very impressive knowing it came from video, but not ready to replace shooting stills yet. At least not for weddings or portraits. For sports, it's probably going to cause a revolution.

Lenses / Re: 8-15L cut it yourself gelatin
« on: December 21, 2012, 12:03:34 PM »
These might be absolute crap(I don't know), but here's at least one place(assuming you are in the US): http://www.amazon.com/Norman-Neutral-Density-High-Temperature-Filters/dp/B000IU0HZK/ref=pd_bxgy_p_img_y

Lenses / Re: 8-15L cut it yourself gelatin
« on: December 21, 2012, 10:51:12 AM »
I would say that it's irrelevant. What kind of filters do you normally use? A circular polarizer? That's not going to work with this lens. The only thing I can see someone using on this lens would be some kind of neutral density filter. Practically anything else you can do in post.

I should have been more clear that I didn't mean to always turn off auto ISO whenever manual exposure is being used.

I figured that's what you meant, I just wanted anyone reading to realize that it has its place.

There's some bad advice being given here.

If you use manual exposure, make sure auto ISO is turned off. When auto ISO is turned on, your camera changes the ISO to obtain what it thinks is proper exposure, so all your work with shutter speed and aperture is undone.

I disagree. There are times when manual + auto iso is the way to go. If you want to set a fast shutter AND control depth of field AND have the camera meter... auto iso is the way to go.

Real world example: I was shooting a pro motocross race. I set a specific shutter speed that balances motion blur with stopping action. I set aperture to 5.6 (on 70-200 f/2.8 IS II) because it's outdoors with hills and crowds in the background and I don't want them blurred to nothing. Also the extra depth of field helps fudge focusing accuracy on fast moving riders. In some areas they move from open track to the shade under trees causing the lighting on them to change, so I used Auto ISO to allow the camera to meter and expose them correctly. It worked like a champ.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 38