October 23, 2014, 08:45:17 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 - pwp

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 108
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d mark II as reviewed by Artie Morris
« on: October 21, 2014, 09:49:56 PM »
Arthur Morris is a class act, no question. He's Mr BIF...even Sir BIF
Even so, this is a field report with a beta 7DII from a photographer with declared Canon affiliations.

I'll be using my 7DII for all sorts of commercial work where APS-C cuts it, but I'm really looking forward to the totally nerdy, pixel-peeping, technical excesses from the meanest independent camera reviewers on the planet.

What is becoming clear from the handful of beta-reports published so far is that 7DII performance is brilliant. What is not yet clear is the cold hard technical output/image quality from properly processed RAW files. Only then the dust will settle and we'll be able to get on with actually working with what is shaping up as a bargain-priced, high performance camera.

-pw

2
Lenses / Re: Zoom or 135 in Place of 100 and 200?
« on: October 20, 2014, 08:50:38 PM »
My 135mmL was by far my most used lens for a few years. Then, I got the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II.  Now, the 135mmL just sits. Then, I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L MK II, and my 2nd most used lens, the 35mmL dropped off the list.  So... I bought a 16-35mm f/2.8L.  It gets no use, so go figure.
the 135mm and 1.4 tele might be a good option, but I don't know if $wise it makes any sense. I've used the 135 and I owned a 100f2. I never found the 100f2 lacking in anything compared to the 135mm(besides 35mm), it's awesome. what camera are you using? besides 135mm + 1.4 tele gives you a fixed f2.8 lens for nearly, if memory serves me and it usually doesn't, the same money as a 70-200 2.8. unless you really need that 135 f2, I would take the 70-200 over it all day. I did in fact.

I'm firmly with these guys. Get the 70-200 f/2.8is. It's truly one of the all-time great lenses. Too conspicuous? That may be true shooting in the favellas in Brazil but at a sports event? Hardly. You'll blend in.

I also found my (now sold) 135 f/2 was sitting unused and the 70-200 was getting all the work.  I very rarely used the 135 below f/2.8 (too hard to nail focus) and I missed the IS and the total flexibility of the 70-200. Look at the photographers on the sidelines of major sports events. Most will have two bodies. The majority will have a 70-200 on one of them.

-pw

3
Technical Support / Re: Question about cleaning something off of sensor.
« on: October 19, 2014, 10:38:14 PM »
It sure sounds baked on, a deep wet-clean should do it.
Just had my sensor cleaned at Canon CPS. Here's behind-the-scenes footage of how they did it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrdkFXsr5Us

-pw

4
United States / Re: Is this the norm or outrageous?
« on: October 19, 2014, 09:02:33 PM »
Yes, same as what everyone else has said...so long as the quality is OK this is in fact very competitive pricing. Go for it!

-pw

5
Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: October 19, 2014, 12:52:51 AM »
Call me crazy, but if you are shooting digital, the need for an accurate meter is much less even in studio, because you can shoot, review, adjust, 10 times in 2 minutes. 
And you can probably pick up a used meter on ebay for $20-50 that will get you within a half stop of the high end meter you are looking at.
And last, even a super-duper high end meter is not going to give you a perfect exposure because we all have some personal taste in what we want to see. Are you shooting a scary Halloween scene, where you want it extra dark?  Toothpaste commercial, where it has to be extra brute etc? 

On the other hand is this the last piece of the puzzle in $100K studio where you intend to make a living or enjoy your retirement?  Is this going to provide the inspiration you need to shoot that piece of art that will hang in a gallery and earn a ton a $$?  Go for it.
You're crazy  ;)

I use an incident light meter a fair bit. Knowing where the 'correct' exposure is for a given lighting situation is really useful, at least for me. It also gives a clearer picture of where the histogram should sit in relation to the latitude of the camera.

When I use my Sekonic meter these days it's usually either during a shoot with seriously technical lighting where increments of 1/10 stop across different parts of the shot are worth being aware of. I also use it to get a quick sense of the shape of a multi flash lighting setup ie exact ratios. You can eyeball it but with a flash meter and an assistant you can get the shape right very quickly.

A flash meter is no longer the ultra-critical item it was in the film-era, but it's still useful item with a permanent place in my bag. Surapon, there are probably a lot of extremely high quality light meters up on eBay/Craigslist/Gumtree as photographers find that they are no longer using them.

-pw

6
Software & Accessories / Re: Hello Windows 10
« on: October 18, 2014, 11:02:34 PM »
This seems like a good opportunity to mention that I loathe Windows 8.1.
I run two workstation-class PC's, identically set up, saving the work out to a server. If one system goes down, I can just swear for a while, roll to my left and keep working with little loss. My top-specced Windows 7 machines were brilliant, lasting over four years. I usually swap over after three years.

The just-built smoking-hot Premiere Pro-ready PC's are Window 8.1. What an awful OS. Clearly Steve Bulmers parting practical joke to the PC users of this nice blue planet. I'm almost certain to write-off a day or two to go back to Win 7. Win 10 sounds like a hugely improved OS, they need to consign Win 8 to history ASAP, back in the naughty corner with Win ME and Vista.

I'm platform agnostic with a two Macs as well as the PC's. OSX is very nice, but it's hard to get anything like the bang for your buck in a Mac compared to a custom built PC. In the unlikely event that Windows 10 is another epic-fail, it could be time to build up business and get a couple of top-specced Mac Pros.

-pw

7
Past OSX updates have given EOS Utility users some grief.
Overall Yosemite looks like a very solid update, especially if you have iOS devices as well.

-pw

8
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D MkII RAW sample images
« on: October 16, 2014, 12:53:18 AM »
Pushing those sample images out may have been a bit of a mistake by DPR. They don't really tell us anything.

I'll be sitting tight waiting for some properly shot and properly processed 7DII RAW files processed with a shipping version of LR or ACR before making judgements. The 7DII is firmly on my shopping list.

-pw

9
EOS Bodies / 7D MkII RAW sample images
« on: October 15, 2014, 06:45:31 PM »
DP Review has updated the 7D MkII samples gallery after they got hold of an early build of ACR 8.7.
Check it out here:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7693022340/raw-conversions-added-to-canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-real-world-samples-beta

-pw

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 06:37:56 PM »
Neuroanatomist, here's a "pro" microscope for you: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-three-photon-microscopy-biological-imaging.html
Image the full thickness of a live mouse's cortex! But you must have seen this - I put it up here for the entertainment of other geeks.

Cool stuff!

Kinda my point, though...where is it called 'pro'?  I have scopes costing from $1,000 to $800,000 – none of them are called 'pro microscopes'.   ;)

Must be time to trade-up Dr Neuro...

-pw

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 07:19:18 AM »
Clearly it has to say "pro" in the name of the camera.
So... canon pro-1 must be the only canon pro camera, right?
Canon Pro-1! Whoa! (Rhymes with Pro...) Now there's a killer of a camera. This is embarrassing, but I had the misfortune to know someone whose neighbors brother-in-law actually had one of the ten or so of these cameras that were sold in this country.

-pw

12
Lighting / Re: Flash equipment for Portraits & Events
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:22:35 AM »
I prefer Canon speedlites, but get whatever suits your budget.
Even though I use Profoto studio flash, I've also been using a Canon 580EX (on camera) for many things. I bounce from walls, ceilings, and walls & ceilings (combined). It gives a very natural look.
You're right, skillfully used bounce flash can look just like available light.
It's simple really, whatever you aim your flash at becomes the light-source.
Most offices have low, white ceilings.

-pw

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 15, 2014, 01:17:15 AM »
I think manufacturers decide which are the pro models, whether it be a set of knives, a camera or laptop (though in the latter they are called business models rather than pro).
Errm, being pedantic for just a moment...I have a Macbook Pro laptop. Must make me a pro! Whoo-hoo!
This is an entertaining thread!  8)   I hope the OP has got something out of it.

-pw

14
Lenses / Re: Is my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II ok?
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:33:00 PM »
pwp, is your lens also noticeable sharper at the tele end compared to the wide end?
No, not noticeably. With most zooms there will be some variation from the wide to tele extremes.
I'm no pixel peeper, but what I do notice is consistently, usefully sharp shots and happy clients.

-pw

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:33:41 PM »
It has to have the word "pro" written on it. If those three letters are missing, it is not a "pro" camera.

That's funny!  ;D

Too many folks here are equating a 'pro camera' with a 'pro photographer'. 

That's right. Put me behind the wheel of a professional race car and I'd probably smash it at the first corner. 1DX ownership will make most photographers deliriously happy but it won't turn anyone into a pro.

Ahhh....the minutia of definitions, it's the pixel peeping of language.

-pw

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 108