January 25, 2015, 11:38:13 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 - Normalnorm

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 03, 2014, 10:44:21 PM »
I still don't see wedding photographers using more than entry level camera bodies, I've certainly never seen a 1D.

You need to get out more. I don't know of any seasoned pros that are using entry level gear. Amateurs and newbies are (for good reason).
I think his observation is based on the fact that so many of the wedding shooters remaining ARE amateur/newbies. There are a fair number of seasoned pros using top gear for weddings but the trend for revenue of wedding shooters has been down. The number of wedding shooters selling workshops to  newbs on how to make big bucks shooting weddings is certainly up.

Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 01:20:39 PM »
I live in the desert and it gets hot outside (surprise). I was shooting with fill recently in the sun and the flash shut down from overheating due in large part (IMO) to the elevated ambient temp.
Fortunately I do not have to do this much.

Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 17, 2014, 11:04:57 AM »
A fat Li-on battery like the Ving 850 would make sense.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic Range Question
« on: June 28, 2014, 01:39:21 PM »
I guess the real question you are asking is how much of a difference in DR is needed to see a real difference in a final image.
The debate seems a little misguided to me in that the quoted DR figures for cameras do not seem to be from a single objective standard for starters.

Second, when we do see differences in the DR ratings it is often quite small, on the order of a stop or so. This then raises the question as to whether this real difference in DR measurement results in real visible difference in a final image.
While many salivate over the purported DR of MF backs, I have yet to see a demonstration where the vaunted advantage is discernible over a well processed Nikon or Canon RAW file.

IMO the bulk of perceived advantage that is reported anecdotally about this camera vs. that camera comes from default rendering decisions embedded in the RAW files as they are imported into RAW processors.

As Dgatwood noted, try theater photography for a real test of DR. Then you will bump into the limitations of any sensor on the market. After PP the image quality will be far more about initial exposure and PP rather than the camera chosen.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR vs Mirrorless :: Evolution of cameras
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:17:26 PM »
I like the aspects of mirrorless for size and silence.
What I do not like is:

1. Having a dark VF for a bit when I bring the camera to my eye. I do like rapid response and a DSLR can frame immediately.

2. Really ugly preview in the studio when using flash. In available light I love the preview but it goes out the door when I put a flash or trigger on the camera.

3. Generally small batteries that go along with small bodies. I am not a fanatic about having the absolute smallest camera so I would be happy with a  slightly larger body to hold a more robust battery.

Even if one does it full-time stuff still happens. The greatest danger is when lulled into a false sense of security that allows lapses. A pro will generally not share his or her gaffes as it is far more psychically painful.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 20, 2014, 09:57:08 PM »
This won't make me a better photographer but it will help me fill the gap between my 17 TS-E and the 24-105. 8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Interested in Hasselblad?
« on: May 12, 2014, 10:42:10 AM »
If they keep Hasselblad's marketing department we might get a re-badged M.  :o

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: May 11, 2014, 04:48:21 PM »
My experience with the 50 1.4 was that I went through three copies before deciding it was a bad design (or toweringly flawed QC). I bought a Sigma 50 1.4 and after sending IT back once it has been a sharp performer.
The real problem was that 50 is a nearly useless FL for me so I am selling it to get the 35.

In the immortal word of Monte Zucker "Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder."

The reason a "client" does not like an image has never hurt my feelings but was a message to me that I was not on their wavelength.

You refer to this affair as a dissatisfied client situation. Once the the consumer of your work is identified as the client it becomes a business situation. What you love is irrelevant.

While there is some disagreement on this thread as to how to handle it my opinion is that you have to address it as a business deal as you were approached because of your skill. Their dissatisfaction will redound back to you in poor word of mouth so as a purely defensive move you have to invest even more non-revenue generating effort to protect your local reputation.

The real benefit to you in this situation is the education received.

It reminds me of a very early job a friend had in his job as a commercial photographer. He was very excited to be called about a product photography gig as he saw it as entry to the glamorous world of high end product photography. The client did not want to discuss the products as he said they would be very large sellers and did not want to tip off his competition. It turned out the client had a line of sex toys and vacuum penis enlargers that he need to photograph for a catalog. Needless to say the job was a bust as far as portfolio material.

I had an earlier Sigma 50 1.4 that I did not use much. When I started using it I found it awful so I sent it back to Sigma for service as I was convinced that it was out of spec.
Sigma reported that an element had come loose and they had re-assembed it and it now performs beautifully.

Unfortunately, I find I seldom use this FL so the new one is of no interest to me. However the 35 does interest me.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 16, 2014, 01:53:37 PM »
I won't dissuade you because the Rolleiflex is a brilliant camera.
The Mamiya TLRs are also great and are more flexible.
However the purity of the fixed lens is, to my mind, more in keeping with the pleasure of having a great walking around camera as opposed to the superhuman problem-solving capabilities of a more complex "pro" system.

Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 09, 2014, 02:27:47 PM »
What do you want to use it for?

I bought one the moment it was released and it has delighted me ever since.
I am a full time architectural photographer and I cannot imagine life without it.

The difference in the quality of my images in terms of sharpness and contrast is dramatic and my clients commented on that. They also noted the boss new lens when on location.

But it does lack flexibility in general photography. It is MF and I use it in Live View on  tripod exclusively.
FWIW, I recently acquired the 14 Rokinon and it has started accompanying me on my building shoots. As you know it is crazy sharp and I get fabulously snappy images out of it.

I tend to use it for casual shooting and it is fun but almost ridiculously wide.

Lenses / Re: Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.
« on: April 09, 2014, 02:21:25 PM »
I'm in the market for a new lens to add to my collection and I've narrowed it down to the upcoming Sigma 50mm Art or the Canon 135 f2L. I realize these are for very different purposes.

I currently have a nice arsenal of lenses and mostly do portrait photography as a hobby (35 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4).

I really enjoy portrait photography. I'm torn between the versatility of an extremely sharp 50mm vs a magical 135mm f2L portrait lens.

Can anyone offer any advice to help me seal the deal ?

The torrent of responses probably means you have some very good advice already.
My feeling is that 50 mm is covered very well by your 24-70 and the only advantage is the speed and additional increment of sharpness that would go unnoticed in most, if not all, applications.

If you like portraiture the 50 would not be my choice. To get good framing one has to be so close the facial features are distorted or one cannot get far enough back to make a satisfactory environmental portrait.
I think the real driver of interest in this lens is its other-worldly sharpness which is fine but IME not something that the viewer of a print will be aware of or appreciate.
I cannot comment on the value of  pleasure at pixel peeping the files but I would be honest about it as it is a solitary pleasure.

The 135 would , IMO, be the answer but I would rent both to see what rings your bell.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 05, 2014, 06:31:52 PM »
The review reports a brilliant performance.
I am waiting for the critics to gather their talking points.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13