April 16, 2014, 04:40:00 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 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 94
1036
Sheesh this is an old chestnut of a subject. There must be a billion or so words written on the clear benefits of shooting RAW. For colour critical work you wouldn't even think about JPEG.

My 5D3 certainly delivers good looking JPEG files, but frankly I'd prefer to do the RAW conversion myself. Every digital image starts out as a RAW whether it's in your phone camera or your 90Mp MF LEAF back. In camera JPEG files are created by software in the camera that "best-guesses" for an optimum result. It's often very close.

I used to dogmatically use & defend JPEG shooting, but the RAW advantages quickly shone through. If I need a deep burst rate when shooting action I'm more likely to shoot mRAW on the Mk4.

JPEG shooting has plenty of 100% valid scenarios, mostly for shooters with awesomely tight deadlines where every lost minute counts, measured either by potential earnings or being first with breaking news for example.

I shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

1037
Samyang 85 1.4 vs canon ef 85 1.8 - which one to choose?
Here's the answer, it's the Sigma 85 f/1.4. No question.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/85mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-sigma

Paul Wright

1038
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 06:48:59 PM »
It looks to me like it would appeal to a lot of Rebel owners who are ready to graduate from the kit lens but want something a little sexier than a 50mm f/1.8. Just my take.
Yep this could be spot-on. The 50 f/1.8 is not a sexy lens. It is asonishing value at under $100 new, but few copies really deliver at anything wider than f/5.6. With the pancake, f/2.8 should be a non-issue provided it's sharp wide open. f/2.8 also helps deliver on a low price and very compact dimensions.

I'd be close to 100% certain that this is not a mirrorless lens. Expect to see a new range of glass for the mirrorless Canon.

Paul Wright

1039
Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Lens Recommendations
« on: May 22, 2012, 07:30:35 AM »
16-35 f/2.8II is a very handy piece of class glass. To my way of thinking, and also trying to understand your immediate needs, you'd get a lot more relevant day to day use from the 16-35 f/2.8II than a 24 f/1.4.

No sane person would doubt the sheer quality of the files the 24 f/1.4 is capable of delivering at just about any aperture, but flexibility is the name of the game.  Carefully shot and exposed 16-35 f/2.8II files will generally cut it for most demanding client needs.

Paul Wright

1040
Serious question here.
... how long will I probably have to wait for the next generation bodies?

Arrgh! What are you doing to us? What are you doing to yourself? You know the established timeframes.
It's in the deep future. Around iPhone 9 time. Maybe you need a platform change. D800?

Paul Wright

1041
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 Pancake Coming [CR3]
« on: May 22, 2012, 05:14:54 AM »
As a photographer people are always asking me what sort of camera they should get. So the conversation continues with questions about their needs, wishes and budgets. The Canon S100 has the highest hit rate at the moment. Some people who have had fairly decent compacts but want the very small form factor with very good IQ. Think in terms of APS-C & pancake...

I've offered a solution to a few people that has cost a lot less than a Leica M9. It's a small Pentax DSLR with the 40mm pancake. What a winner! Or a small Olympus DSLR with the 25mm pancake. There is a definite market for this sort of ultra compact APS-C package. And with all the obvious benefits of a DSLR.

Paul Wright

1042
Lenses / Re: 300 f4 w/1.4x or 400 f5.6
« on: May 21, 2012, 01:18:45 AM »
Well i don't follow that outside the box thinking. Get a 7d when you have a 5dmk3? So with the 7d he'll get twice the DOF, thats not going to help isolating people in sporting situations.

Have you shot with a 400mm lens? The DOF is so shallow this would be more likely to be a help than a hindrance.

Paul Wright

1043
Lenses / Re: 300 f4 w/1.4x or 400 f5.6
« on: May 20, 2012, 08:07:43 PM »
Just some "out of the box" thinking:
Attaching your 300 to a 7D gives you 480mm with no loss of AF speed, no loss of f4 and no TC related IQ issues. I'd take f4 over f5.6 any day as a starting point.

Love your line of thinking. This will be a super valid viewpoint when the last +1.3 crop APS-H Mk IV ships, leaving a number of long lens shooters feeling stranded. If the rumoured 7DII specs become a reality your argument becomes watertight. I'm with you. Get a 7D! Or a pre-owned MkIII or MkIV.

Paul Wright

1044
Lenses / Re: 85 L vs 135 L
« on: May 20, 2012, 08:00:07 PM »
You've got a great lens there with the 70-200 f/2.8LisII. For portrait work it's a lot more flexible than a fixed 135. I bought a 135 f/2 and found I scarcely used it. It was nothing to do with the quality which was exemplary, it just lacked the flexibility of the zoom. And to be honest I missed the IS.

The 100 f/2.8Lis macro would really be in the same boat as the 135 f/2 in the context of this discussion. A fabulous lens, but for portraits, why pull it out when you have the 70-200 f/2.8LisII?

The stellar quality 85 f/1.2 is a gem, though very slow focusing. If your portraits are static, technical & considered,  this may be a satisfying choice. But frankly I see your lens set as first class and covering just about all possibilities. You don't need more glass. Why not use the money you've allocated for the glass on a shooting vacation?

Paul Wright

1045
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 20, 2012, 07:39:11 PM »
Drifting further off topic (why not?), for anyone who hasn't heard of him, check out the works of Ernst Haeckel, especially Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature). I wish I could take macro photos half or even 1/4 as good as his 120-year-old drawings.

Film vs Digital vs Ernst Haeckel. OMG what exquisite work.

Ernst Haeckel could teach most 21st century image makers a thing or two about patient observation & uncompromising technique. Fabulous.

Paul Wright

1046
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: May 20, 2012, 06:50:39 AM »
Yes film certainly does often display lovely subtle differences to carefully processed digital files. I love some of the exquisite Holga and Lomo images that better artists are producing. In a training environment film does have the advantage of forcing a student to really look at the subject and feel very sure before pressing the shutter. There is also a certain motivation  that comes from knowing it will cost a dollar every time you push the shutter.

I started out on a small newspaper where we had to fit four jobs onto a 36 exposure film. There were some narrow advantages in this enforced and necessary system but I know I would have delivered far better shots if I'd gone out with a couple of 32Gb cards.

As someone who has not owned a film camera since 2001 it was in large part a business reality that pushed me away from film. In a good year my annual film/processing bill was $35-45K. The switch to digital was eye-wateringly expensive but almost overnight my film/processing expenses fell to zero and I was sending out bigger invoices as I could value-add, custom prepping the files for exact client needs and delivering to deadline conscious clients in a fraction of the time. It was a business no-brainer.

There are many completely valid dimensions to this discussion, but my decision to dump film signposted a breathtaking leap in the quality and unhindered creativity in the images I was producing. As my first picture editor kept drilling into us, "content is king..."

Paul Wright

1047
Lenses / Re: varying aperture zoom lenses
« on: May 20, 2012, 06:29:00 AM »
I don't have anything critical to say about variable aperture zooms. Generally they offer good value for money in a slightly more compact package. The 70-300L is a good example. As a user of the 17-40 f/4 I certainly wouldn't mind if the new model was a 17-40 f/2.8-4 configuration. Why not? If that does not appeal there's always the 16-35 f/2.8.

Try to take the opposite viewpoint and see the wide end as an advantage rather than seeing the darker end as a negative? That gives you more "whoo-hoo!" moments in your life. As a good friend once told me, it only takes a little bit of imagination to turn a lemon into a lemonade.

Paul Wright

1048
Lenses / Re: 300 f4 w/1.4x or 400 f5.6
« on: May 20, 2012, 06:14:01 AM »
Looking to increase my reach occasionally. Will adding the 1.4x III to my 300 f4 yield as good (or better) results as the 400 f5.6?
I would think much would depend on how important IS is to you. Under perfect conditions I would very much imagine the 400mm would have better IQ, and I would think better AF action.

You don't mention what bodies you'll be running this glass with. But you do say that you'd like to increase your reach occasionally. The +1.4III is going to be a lot lighter on your wallet and a lot lighter in your bag. I had a 300 f/4is which I occasionally used with the +1.4II and from memory the results were perfectly fine. Mind you, I had a stellar copy of the 300 f/4is which I'm sure helped.

Why don't you get the +1.4III and see how you go. If you find that 400 (420mm actually) is a focal length that fits your shooting style and f/5.6 just isn't cutting it, that may be the time to take a deep breath and go for a real 400, the 400 f/2.8is. I would expect reasonable numbers of 400 f/2.8is glass to be finding it's way onto the second hand market as sports and some wildlife/bird shooters trade up to the new 2kg lighter 400 f/2.8II.

A pre-owned 400 f/2.8is is a risk free purchase. If you find you're not using it, re-sell and you'll be unlikely to lose a penny on the deal.

Paul Wright

1049
Are the aftermarket grips made out of magnesium alloy?
I can't find it now, but I seem to recall the the Canon grips have an alloy exoskeleton like the cameras.
No. They're probably all plastic, but hey I suppose you pay partly for quality + partly for the brand.
On an old 5D I wore out the genuine grip, and the paint over the metal lasted just a few months from new before it showed the metal underneath. This camera was worked mercilessly in all sorts of conditions as a second body to a couple of 1-Series bodies. I replaced the grip with a Meike clone. Being made of plastic, it looked as good as the day it was bought when I finally retired the camera. There are benefits.

Paul Wright

1050
I was 100% happy with an eBay clone grip on my old 5D which functioned perfectly for years after the original genuine grip became unusable. The tripod screw completely dislodged from the grip and the clone was cheaper than a repair. Buttons were perfect, fit was like the genuine...no complaints.  I'd go clone again for sure.

Paul Wright

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 94