November 25, 2014, 08:59:50 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 66
Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:44:31 PM »
American Diner

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon mirrorless: Status?
« on: August 18, 2014, 02:55:43 PM »
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately.  Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions.  They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities.  Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.

I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies.  I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small.  Period.  The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost.  Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with.  In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps.  Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.

I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?

This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M in an intelligent way to protect SLR sales.  Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options.  Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now:  "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent.  If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."

But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve all their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now.  Won't happen for years and years.  Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up their mounts with more options.  You'll find more joy there.
- A

That's what I did...I have two MFT cameras that complement my 5DIII.
I have two "full" kits...and let me say that my MFT kit is more than adequate for a LOT of my photography. It is high quality and a pleasure to use.  It is too bad that Canon does not pursue this wonderful compact solution to photography in any really meaningful way.  They could lead the pack.  "To me" the M is not much of a camera.
..but I know that everyone does not feel that way..and that's ok.

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:03:42 AM »
Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president.

What would be insulting about being Indonesian (I mean - to anyone who isn't inherently racist)?

And he's not "our" President. Yours, maybe, but there's still a big ol' world out there outside of the US of A...
OK...let me clarify...  I live in the USA. So he is "my" president. Of course that was implied, but I understand that you are a little slow.  The insult and insinuation from the partisan politics people is that he is not a United States Citizen. Bill O'Reilly could pick any country, name one....No  racism implied here...that is all YOU dude.

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:59:57 AM »
Firstly let me say that I have no interest in whether or not man landed on the moon. However, the whole did we didn't we debate is rather complex.

No it's not!

A very small group of nutters have the totally insane idea that maybe it was faked, despite an absolutely overwhelming amount of evidence that it wasn't.

Nothing complex about it.
WARNING! Sarcasm!
But what about the re-touched images! What about all the images that were re-touched to remove the reticule marks? Surely it could not be as simple as they wanted the images to be cleaner or more artistically pleasing?

Sarcasm warning lifted!

Almost all pictures that you see in print/publication are doctored. An essential kit of any darkroom was a series of greys and a set of tiny brushes for re-touching photos. Now we have photoshop, but it's the same thing.... you edit pictures before publication.

Not photojournalism images! :-)

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 09:28:00 AM »
I was in commercial product illustration back in the film days, 4x5, 8x10, giant light kits studios etc...I could be wrong about this..but here is my take on it.  The way I would figure out great photographers photos was to look a a shiny object in the photo...I could see all of his light, where they were placed, what type etc.
Now...what could be a better shiney object than  the front of an astronaut's helmet?  So when I see the photos from say Life Magazine..."some" do not ring true...they look like they were shot on a giant sound stage...(where did the big white reflector come from that is giving fill-light and adding a nice rounding accent to the reflective globe around the astronauts face? The reflector has a perfect rectangular shape, is very bright and on the opposite side of hi helmet than the very bright sun??).  The only explanation I have is that some of the images were heavily retouched by expert retouchers before being presented to the American public.  I used to take advertising Chromes into NYC and have these amazingly talented people work on the flaws. it was all done by the hand of an artist and it was just incredible what they could do! Just amazing...It was an incredible talent mix with technical skill. I revered them.
That is the only explanation that I have when I look at some of the Apollo  images...because they just don't "ring true" to my trained eye. No way.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:36:35 AM »
The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one ;)

If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.

Just a link, not a picture (it's not that important, but anyway):

pictures (c) by photozone, just taken for comparision

If you have a great photo, you are not really going to "see." A difference between the  Sam Yang and the Sigma. Me..I will take my Sigma and the AF every time. It a way more capable lens for more types of photography.

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:09:15 AM »
They can find evidence of the faked moon landing, but they can't dig up President Obama's Indonesian birth certificate?
Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president,. Thanks for letting us know that you are stupid enough to be an avid watcher of Fox News Channel. :D

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:32:41 AM »
For birders, and creepy stalkers, this is The Ultimate Lens! However, I don't see it in my possession anytime on this side of the grave. Gear like this would also create problems in finding suitable tripods and heads, and you would also need to hire a substantial amount of sherpas to haul it around to the birding locations.

It comes with a golf fits in the bag quite nicely. The price includes one year of salary for him.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:26:42 AM »
Offering for sale @ $100,000 and actually sell for that price are not one in the same!
The nonsense has made a lot of headlines though.

£99,000 is $157,000.

They have changed hands for over $100,000.

Really?  That's quite entertaining!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L For Sale
« on: August 16, 2014, 10:34:22 AM »
Offering for sale @ $100,000 and actually sell for that price are not one in the same!
The nonsense has made a lot of headlines though.

Photography Technique / Re: Issues with focus stacking
« on: August 15, 2014, 03:27:56 PM »
Is focus stacking similar to suitcase stacking?  :o

While very cool, I'm satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L already. Too late sigma. :P

+1  me too!!!!  ;D

Sports / Re: Cars cars cars (and some bikes)
« on: August 14, 2014, 05:13:18 PM »
I got a car..but I didn't shoot it with my Canon....
Ya know I carry a mirrorless when I don't want to haul the big gun!!!!!

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Photos used without permission
« on: August 13, 2014, 10:01:57 AM »
I had a commercial website take one of my photos off the internet and was using it for their business.
I just contacted them and told them that they had 24 hours to take it down. The owner sent me a arrogant email saying this and that. but he KNEW he had done the dirty. He took the image down.  I just let it go at that.

The search for the perfect camera strap system is a bit like the search for the Holy Grail. I've made my way through a number of strap systems and several hundred dollars in the process

1. Original Canon. Let's face it, neck straps are body busters when you're working with two bodies at long events.

2. Spider Pro. I used this for a couple of years with the dual holster belt. It's good, and I still quite like it, but moving all that weight onto my hips was actually giving me sore hips. I could hardly walk back to the car after an all-day track & field meet. Something had to change.

3. CarrySpeed. I loved this at first...but probably because a ton of research had taken me to CarrySpeed & I'd made a big dollar commitment to the entire system, so I had to like it. But sheesh! It really didn't work as advertised. It was bulky, heavy and very fiddly to set up before each job. The double strap was a functional disaster. Don't ever get a double strap whoever sells it. Now they're gone, litigated off the face of the Earth by an aggressively litigious Black Rapid.

4. I had been resisting Black Rapid all the way along. But hell, I gave it a try. Just the one... but I soon went back to the Spider Pro and sore hips. eBay was doing pretty well from my camera strap sales at this point.

5. Go directly to Peak Design. OMG this stuff is good. It's inexpensive. It's simple, light, customizable with flexibility limited only by your imagination. In the context of the OP's question, I use two Peak Design Leash straps slung one each side. Just make sure the heavier of the two (in my case a 1D4 with 70-200 f/2.8isII) on top. Leave the straps a little looser than instinct would tell you. I'm 15 months in now with Peak Design. I thought the narrow straps would cut, but they don't. In any case, they're releasing a wide strap within weeks, the culmination of a Kickstarter project. The quick release Anchors are the heart and soul of this system. They're pure gold especially if you also use your DSLR for video where straps are always in the way. Snap snap and you're strapless.

I've really worked the field on this subject. Peak Design. Check them out. Don't buy a double strap. Ever.


I bought in on #5...can't wait till they ship. LOOKS LIKE A WINNER TO ME !!!!!!

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 66