December 20, 2014, 03:57:34 PM

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 [4] 5 6 ... 109
46
EOS Bodies / Re: \
« on: October 13, 2014, 06:24:38 PM »
The ability to customize focus speed is a nice feature, which they have crippled by not having a touch screen.  Or swivel screen for that matter.
Very odd indeed. They improve one parameter, but then take away the critical touch screen to control it all and force you to stop AF and move a joystick around which shakes the video.  ???  Maybe on a Hollywood level video rig it will resist any shaking but....

The lamented, missing touchscreen couldn't have added more than a few dollars. I shoot video now with the Panasonic GH4 and the efficient operation of that camera would be hugely reduced were it not for the excellent touchscreen. If it were a toss-up between touch-screen and flip-out screen, I'd have touch screen every single time. My other touch-screen camera is the cool little SL1/100D. The touch screen functionality is brilliant, not as classy as the Panasonic, but brilliant nevertheless.

In spite of this curious missed opportunity by Canon, I'll still be one of the first in line for a 7DII, primarily as a replacement for my over-worked 1D MkIV.

Back on topic, the cello video is an interesting glimpse of the 7DII's potential.

-pw

47
As a photographer who was never as good as I wanted to be tracking action with pre-AF cameras & lenses (mostly Nikon) I was hungry for more keepers shooting dynamic situations, not just sports. Static just isn't in my working vocabulary.  The then awesome Canon EOS1n film camera with good AF lenses was a game changer for me. The AF worked! Subsequent improvements in AF have meant pushing the possibilities of creative "risk" delivering shots that would previously been impossible for me to capture.

In my earlier career it was not just better AF that would have delivered the goods, we used to think 800iso was fast and used the miraculous Fuji 800 neg film to achieve shots that were unthinkable previously.

With new gear vs old, I'm valuing AF performance and high iso capacity above other factors. The one other thing would be cheap, high capacity CF cards. As a heavy shooter who loves to explore, build and develop a shot, the freedom to shoot as much as I like, free from the very real consideration that it cost a dollar every time you pressed the shutter (with film...).

I have no doubt the work I did in the 1990's would have looked very different if I had the gear I use now. But it was the same for everyone. Look at sports shots from 25 years ago that got a big splash in news pages or on magazine covers. They mostly look pretty weak now. But that's progress. Fast forward to 2035 and we won't know ourselves. I'm loving it.

-pw

48
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS6D or 7DMKII ?
« on: October 09, 2014, 08:05:15 PM »
For the sort of projects you've described, plus the lenses you already have, I'd say go for the 6D. Why not wait until the 7DII actually ships, rent both for a weekend and make a properly informed call.

-pw

49
Lenses / Re: recommendation: canon 24mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.2 for wedding?
« on: October 09, 2014, 07:52:12 AM »
I'd get a 24-70 to put on one camera, and your 70-200 on another body.  Leave the rest home. 
Exactly. Remember the KISS principal? Weddings are fast moving events. The greatest moments can unfold before your eyes in a heartbeat and be gone the next. You're expected to deliver the magic. Two bodies & two zooms and you're never stuck with the wrong focal length. Peak moments never repeat.

-pw

50
Lenses / Re: recommendation: canon 24mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.2 for wedding?
« on: October 08, 2014, 07:27:00 AM »
You're perfectly set up already. Buy a new suit!

-pw

51
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 08, 2014, 03:50:07 AM »
I looked at the video and I had cramps in my stomach. I just cannot take this guy seriously. I'm not even sure he knew which DSLR he is talking about (24MP), then he was like "we dared shooting at ISO800, even at ISO1000 and OH MY GOD, *jizz in his pants* OH MY GOD YOU GAIS, it's unbelievable!!". I would like to see some badly lit sports at ISO3200-ISO6400.
Sure he posted, again "OH MY GOD YOU GAIS, 16.000 ISO of nipples", but at fast moving subjects in poorly lit conditions.. this is where it all comes down to what it can do.
So it wasn't just me...Scott Kelby is generally gushingly enthusiastic, but he was in other-worldly overdrive in this vid. He's exhausting! Hungry for any 7DII info, I skimmed through it.

-pw

52
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 08, 2014, 12:06:20 AM »
Good God you guys are dumb sometimes.
Download the full sized images, a couple have small crops but two are 5472x3648 for 19,961,856 px, a 20MP camera.
Jeez, talk about speculate rather than just think!
Awww be nice. We're not all maths geniuses!

-pw

53
Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 07, 2014, 11:27:54 PM »
Yeah I heard him say 24MP twice also. I was extremely disappointed, given the fact that the released camera will have only 20. I honestly believe canon made it 24MP but decided to use the 20mp in this body so they could keep the camera cheap and sell more.  >:(

I think you are right. The early talk was that several prototypes including a 24mp sensor body were being tested. Maybe the one he was using is one of those? That or he just mixed up the specs with an earlier prototype.

If it was genuinely a 24mp prototype, we may see even more improved high iso noise in the 20mp version. There are a lot of comments posted on Scott Kelby's blog. Only George asks about the 24mp blooper, and it's unanswered by Kelby.

Anyway, we'll see soon enough. Personally I'd prefer a lower noise, faster clearing 20mp 7DII.

-pw

54
Lenses / Re: Is FoCal worth ~$150?
« on: October 07, 2014, 11:13:57 PM »
Where is the $150 price coming from? I'm seeing FoCal Pro at the Reikan website for £69.95. http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/versions/focal-pro/

Converted to USD https://www.google.com.au/#q=70+pounds+to+dollars I'm seeing $112.48

Am I missing something here?

-pw

55
Lighting / Re: POLL: What flash modes do you use?
« on: October 07, 2014, 07:56:06 PM »
Flash tubes have a remarkably short full power rated lifespan. We all generally get hugely more out of them than the ratings but that doesn't change the actual manufacturers specs.
http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/2013/02/will-your-flash-last-forever.html
Interesting read. Thanks for that. It completely contradicts my own no-doubt narrow though long experience, but maybe I've just been just plain lucky.

To quote the Strobist article....And it might surprise you to know that 5,000 pops is an expected life span for some flash tubes. Disappointed? I was, too. And it gets worse: some tubes are rated at 1,000 pops.

No manufacturer could survive on these figures, every sale would result in a warranty replacement. On a big day I'd easily expect 1000+ pops from 580 exII & 600 ex-rt, and sometimes 3000+ from the Einsteins in a big studio session. Comments in the Strobist post are also completely at odds with the claims.

I'd love to see some real manufacturers numbers on this, unsubstantiated Strobist editorial content doesn't necessarily establish stable facts. Like contemporary Japanese cars, I'm constantly amazed at the durability and reliability of products sold by Canon, Panasonic, Apple, Paul C Buff (US) and so on.

But flash tubes? The future looks very bright.

-pw

56
Lighting / Re: POLL: What flash modes do you use?
« on: October 07, 2014, 06:55:09 PM »
I do know however that I fried my 600rt flash a couple of months ago, the flash head was replaced under warranty.
Ouch! That's unfortunate. I'm glad you still had warranty cover.

-pw

57
Lighting / Re: POLL: What flash modes do you use?
« on: October 07, 2014, 06:43:05 PM »
One note: shooting at full power kills your flash, so if you often shoot m flash anyway w/o need for Canon's rt protocol maybe it's a good idea to buy a cheap Pixel flash... ruining the flash tube of a €500 flash seems like a waste of money if a €70 flash does the same thing.
Interesting. Where did you read that? In a multi-decade career using flash almost daily, I've never heard this. On the contrary, underused flashes can have shorter lives, but then it's the capacitors that generally fail. Flashes that are stored unused for long periods should be "exercised" from time to time. Profoto used to advise that the big floor-pack flash packs be gradually built up through the power settings after prolonged storage rather than going straight to full-power pops.

I've had to replace three flash tubes and they were all resulting from drops. One was a brand new Profoto Compact 600 mono ( I was sad!) and twice with dropped 580EXII. They cost little over $100 each to repair at CPS.

What I have blown slightly more often is flash capacitors. My old Elinchrom 500 monos which didn't have cooling fans blew capacitors with alarming regularity. And I've blown a couple of Canon Speedlight capacitors, a 540-EZ and a 580-EX while working them far too hard on full power while hooked up to Quantum Turbo external battery packs. You just have to be a bit sensible when using gutsy external packs. Newer speedlights like to 600 EX-RT and Godox Witstro have overheat protection cutout functions. The $70 cheapies probably don't.

It's possible you may have been thinking about capacitors rather than tubes.

-pw

58
Lenses / Re: 45mm vs. 90mm tilt-shift
« on: October 07, 2014, 12:41:47 AM »
As a long time user of both (plus a 17mm) I use the 90mm all the time, but the 45mm only rarely. The 90mm is spectacularly sharp, while the 45 isn't quite in the same league and it also has a few optical chromatic aberration problems when tilted.
I agree, of the two go for the 90mm, especially as you're shooting FF. I have the 90mm which I mainly use for products...it's amazingly sharp. But for portraits? Wouldn't you miss AF? I've used mine on a few portrait shoots but nearly always get my best shots with the 70-200 f/2.8isII. I just keep the 90mm for 100% static subjects.

-pw

59
Lighting / Re: POLL: What flash modes do you use?
« on: October 06, 2014, 07:27:43 PM »
I use ETTL all the way unless the 600 ex-rt can't work it out, then I switch to Manual. It's very quick and easy on the 600 ex-rt, much quicker and intuitive GUI than the 580 and 550 speedlights.

Whenever I switch my 600rt flash from M to ETTL, the flash makes me cycle through these strange modes as there's no way (I know of) to disable them altogether. And I'm always wondering: How uses these anyway?

It not exactly any hardship to cycle through the different modes, the 600 ex-rt GUI attracted nothing but praise when it was released. But you do have a point. On EOS 1-Series bodies you can disable exposure modes that you never use. This is possible because the exposure modes are in menus rather than dial operated. So on my EOS 1-Series bodies the only exposure mode options are Manual and Aperture Priority. This not only speeds things up, but reduces the possibility of accidentally shooting in the wrong mode.

-pw

60
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: October 06, 2014, 07:11:14 PM »
I replaced an EF 50 f/1.4 with a Sigma 50 f/1.4 (previous non-Art model) and what a waste of money. My EF 50 f/1.4 was good at f/1.8 and sharp at f/2.  The Sigma was occasionally sharp, it had completely erratic and utterly hopeless AF, unable to be rectified by Sigma. When it nailed focus it was exquisite, but the AF inconsistency meant it was never trusted on a commercial job and was subsequently went off to eBay. The Sigma was twice the weight and bulk in the bag over the EF 50 f/1.4 which I wish I'd kept.

However the new Sigma Art 50 f/1.4 sounds like a big improvement, though there have been enough stories and user-feedback that question Sigma's quality control. YMMV.

-pw

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 109