Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: Back to the Future Parts 1/2/3 Canon Strategy

« on: April 29, 2013, 06:37:12 AM »

Cor blimey it's tough in here isn't it.
For about 2 years I have been an avid reader of this forum and never contributed, but learnt a lot from the various articles and advice that you find in here as I said I look in awe at the beautiful Photo's contained within.

I thought I would make a contribution and believe me it took some courage to do. I thought I would start by trying to create a discussion from the viewpoint of Canon and the future and then see what you the members thought. But it is clear to see that I have been slain, so I will now withdraw.
Best Regards
Gary

Come on Gary, chin-up...it's a tough crowd out there today. Must be a slow news day.
But hell, don't roll over, move on, keep posting! Maybe simplify a little.
In a few hours this will all be forgotten anyway.

-PW

32

Lenses / Re: About a REPLACE MENT FOOT RRS LCF-52: Foot for Canon EF300mm/f2.8 IS-II

« on: April 29, 2013, 06:25:26 AM »

Why on earth would you want to replace the original foot? It's perfectly fine.
Is there something I'm missing here?

-PW

33

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Best Point & Shoot that will fit in a pocket?

« on: April 29, 2013, 12:19:04 AM »

This question is one of the old chestnuts. But there are always new answers as it's a rapidly evolving area.

Not quite pocket sized, but I had a Canon G15 bought after reading a number of glowing reviews. My style of photography is very much about the moment, and the G15, while competent delivered a moment just after the moment I chose. It's called lag. This will apply to most of the pocket compacts, so it's something to be aware of so as not to be disappointed with results.

My other gripe with the G15 which I believe shares its sensor with the S100 & S110 was the dynamic range. When you're used to FF DR, the easily blown highlights and blocked up shadows sucked a bit of the joy out of the experience. This is no fault of the camera, it is all to do with my unreasonable expectations. I no longer own the G15.

So I concur with others and would look to the Sony RX100. There are reviews all over the web, mostly extremely positive. A useful, independent mirrorless/compact destination is the refreshingly entertaining and informative Steve Huff. Take a look.  http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/

-PW

34

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm 1.4 AF issues question

« on: April 27, 2013, 10:45:04 PM »

Good choice on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.

I regret selling a perfectly good Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and replacing it with a bigger, heavier Sigma 50mm f/1.4. When the Sigma nailed focus, it was fabulous. But it was so inconsistent that it couldn't be trusted for commercial work, or any type of work for that matter.

This focal length is now handled by the stellar 24-70 f/2.8II which for me has rendered all primes in this range obsolete.

-PW

35

Lighting / Re: How much light(watts) do you need to shoot f8 to f11 in studio

« on: April 27, 2013, 04:10:56 AM »

What you want is a couple B800s. But if you can spring the extra $80 / head for the B1600s, you won't regret it.

Are you sure?  The B1600 has a 640 Ws max like the Einstein, but only a 6-stop (vs. the Einstein's 9-stop) range.

+1 The ability of the Einstein to dial right down to something like 2.5 w/s can be incredibly useful.

-PW

36

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?

« on: April 25, 2013, 11:30:36 PM »

The 24-105 was a godsend to me after a number of completely hopeless 24-70 f/2.8 zooms. It was sharp wide open, was a great travel lens and refreshingly useful for event work with the IS and extra reach. I considered it a temporary lens until the 24-70 f/2.8II shipped.

So now the 24-70 f/2.8II has shipped, I know I'll be keeping both. The new 24-70 easily surpasses the 24-105 on most measures of IQ, and is the go-to lens for high quality commercial output, even pushing my primes out of contention. It's that good.

But the 24-105 is no slouch. I like it and it still has a valuable, relevant role in my kit.

-PW

37

Lighting / Re: photographing paintings that have thick paint

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:33:39 PM »

I shoot a lot of art for a number of clients, galleries & artists. If the works can be described as having dark, glossy, heavy impasto surfaces, I quote at least twice as much as I would for completely flat work. It's a bitch.

For works up to a couple of meters on the long side, I use two Einsteins with the standard 8 inch reflector, with polarizing gels on the lights. The lights are set back 3-5 meters at 45 degrees to the work, just like on a copy-stand. I also have a polarizing filter on the lens. Shoot tethered so you can have a very clear look at what you're doing. Even a very small adjustment to the light alters the result. It's very important that both lights and modifiers are 100% identical. Make sure you can work in a BIG space.

If there are multiple works, set up an easel and bring the works to your setup. If you move your setup for each work it will take you weeks to do what you can do in a day.

If there are still blown highlights/catchlights in the dark impasto areas, they can be fixed in post in a variety of ways. On an adjustment layer you can hit "dust & scratches" and/or "despeckle" and brush in the trouble spots through a layer mask. Or you can use the color range tool to select the blown areas, feather a tiny bit and literally paint them in. Or a combination of all these things. Remember to just reduce the blown areas till it looks good, not kill them completely or you take away the fact that it is a heavy impasto work. It's a tightrope.

Color? Get yourself an X-Rite color Checker Passport and use as directed. Trust the numbers more than what you perceive. If the works are framed, watch out for shadows thrown on the work by a deep frame.

Dark, glossy, heavy impasto paintings are the hardest of all. Good luck. If the work is important, and you feel it is beyond you at your current skill level, it may be best to pass on the job, skill up and start pitching to prospective clients again later. It's an area that looks simple but is full of traps for the unwary and inexperienced.

-PW

38

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D viewfinder too big ?

« on: April 23, 2013, 10:04:57 PM »

A best forgotten distant memory is peering down the tunnel that was the 20D viewfinder.
For composition and analysis, bigger is better. You'll get used to it and wonder why you ever made this post.

-PW

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: April 23, 2013, 09:22:09 PM »

Hey folks,
I've been waiting so long for the 70d.... now it's again some more weeks away-at least. :-(
Looks like I'm finally going to switch to Nikon after 8 YEARS Canon... and now I'm wondering who else?
Anyone else out there who takes the consequences of the missing features or am i the only one?
Just wondering....

OMG pictaker...your post will send shivers down the spine of the Canon marketing department.
The 70 D will be announced by the end of the week for sure and in stores by Monday.

-PW

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which to upgrade first? Camera or Lens

« on: April 23, 2013, 12:30:19 AM »

Stay with the current kit. Spend the money on travel.

-PW

41

Software & Accessories / Re: Induro C314 vs CT314

« on: April 22, 2013, 08:28:12 AM »

Recently I was shopping for a new ball head. At a local Induro showroom, I stress tested the heavier ballhead models. Even when fully locked off, you could drag/move the head. Absolutely not good enough. All the Induro ballheads did this. At half the price I got a completely satisfactory Manfrotto ballhead.

Induro legs may be perfectly fine, but I'd recommend avoiding their ballheads.

-PW

42

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]

« on: April 21, 2013, 09:49:04 PM »

Exciting times indeed. Sigma has definitely shaken off it's previous perception. Remember Stigma...?

I doubt Canon & Nikon are shaking in their boots, but if Sigma keeps this up, we may see downward pressure on Canon & Nikon lens pricing.

-PW

43

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: April 20, 2013, 05:36:46 PM »

I foolishly sold a very good EF 50 f/1.4 and replaced it with the well reviewed Sigma 50 F/1.4. When it nailed focus it was fantastic, but the AF was so inconsistent that the lens couldn't be trusted and sat unused.

But a new Sigma 50 as good as the new 35? That would be interesting and would likely sell its socks off. Personally I wouldn't get one or any other prime in the 24-70 range because the new EF 24-70 f/2.8II has rendered every prime in that range obsolete for the way I shoot. I've sold my Sigma 50 f/1.4, my 24 f/1.4II and if I had a 35 that would be gone too. The new zoom is amazing and primes just sat unused.

But that's just me. There is a huge market for stellar primes and an update from Sigma would be a welcome big seller.

-PW

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Safe to leave lens on camera?

« on: April 20, 2013, 05:27:28 PM »

With the exception of very heavy long tele lenses, I have never worried about this in the slightest in over 25 years. I have damaged lens mounts, and that's been when I have dropped equipment. Ouch! Mucho $$$

My spin on "is it safe to leave lens on camera" goes more along the lines of leaving the lens on in case you miss a great shot...

-PW

45

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4

« on: April 19, 2013, 10:43:28 PM »

16-35 II is by far the best. No spint. It is tag sharp from corner to corner.

Even at f/2.8? If so you must have an awesome copy.

-PW