March 03, 2015, 02:39:57 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 71
Lenses / Re: A Big Lens Announcement in September? [CR1]
« on: August 28, 2013, 10:35:12 PM »
It has to be a lens  to compete with the 12-24mm's tme.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Big Sigma Primes [CR2]
« on: August 25, 2013, 09:50:57 PM »
Cool!...bring it on!!! I love my Sigma35mm, f/1.4!

Lenses / Re: 50/50 for 50?
« on: August 25, 2013, 01:50:34 PM »
We've been here before, but I'll throw the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 into this discussion just for the hell of it. It is my quality 50mm, and it's nice that it shares the 77mm filter thread woth most of my other lenses. For travel I have a 50 mm f/1.8 Mk I. These are my workarounds considering the current offerings of Canon 50's.
I am a fan and own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4....guess we got lucky and got good copies... Love this could be that with Sigma's new commitment to the craft we may see an Art series 50mm and if it is anything like the Art 35mm f/1.4...I think I would be all over that!!!!!!!
Canon has a lot..but it just doesn't have it all.

EOS-M / Re: Some EOS M Information [CR1]
« on: August 20, 2013, 12:08:20 AM »
It would be foolish to look at the sales figures of the M and conclude the market isn't interested in this class of camera.  Canon was the last one to market and introduced an inferior product with no lens selection. 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying the M takes bad photos.  I'm saying it isn't competitive in terms of AF performance, features or lens selection with micro 4/3, NEX, or Fuji's new mirrorless system.  Why would any informed person buy it at full price?

I really agree with this outlook...I understand that the M is built well and that the IQ is great...but the real deal breaker for me is that there is no VF available for it.  ALL of the competition has that covered and Canon showed up last to the party with no VF and slower AF??? I realize that everyone does not feel as I do...but I can not get serious about creating images while making monkey shines behind a screen I can't really see very well in daylight at I would not pay 99 cents for a camera that I would not use.
I own a 5DIII full kit and I could never consider this as back up (but that doesn't make me "right"'s just my outlook).  I have an Olympus OMD and 10 lenses which give me a full micro kit which I just love to use when I don't want or need to carry the big guns. Lots of decently fast primes and a joy to use!

Well i hope it sucks. I´m too much attached to my Zeiss 21/2.8 and can´t justify having both   :-\

LOL! The Zeiss is neiss!

Great news...keep them coming Sigma...pull Canon's prices back to reality....puuuuuuleeeeeease.
I would not be in the market for the new 24mm as I have Sigma's 35mm Art Lens (sweeeeeet) and the Canon 24-70mm I kindof have that covered...but hey..this is positive info for all of us!..
Would love to see an Art 50mm in this series..I have the Sigma 50 f/1.4 which I like a lot (and everybody complains about, apparently with good reason...maybe I got lucky for once!)...but if Sigma could come up with a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.4 in the quality range of the 35mm f/1.4 it would blow all existing (canon, Zeiss, etc), 50mm lenses away...the only thing that would beat it would be the new UBER expensive Zeiss that is slated to appear soon...but hey the Siggy would have AF and be waaaaaay more affordable!!!!

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:
« on: August 06, 2013, 08:07:51 PM »
3 of mine...

EOS-M / Re: EOS M replaced my 5D kit
« on: August 06, 2013, 06:58:45 AM »
Perhaps an iPhone would serve your needs even better?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: First pic of Sigma 24-70 F/2 posted
« on: August 02, 2013, 05:37:22 PM »
yeah..I agree...that photo is very suspicious....I am thinking totally bogus...but it DOES make my 24-70mm II seem small now!

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: August 01, 2013, 08:47:09 AM »
As far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.

No dslr or film stock has ever come close to recording what the human eye is capable of seeing. We are capable of seeing 256 shades of grey total. In optimal conditions the average human eye can see up to 100 shades of grey at once with that number falling lower depending on lighting conditions. Every single variance of photographic format and technique is simply a representation of what we see as human beings.

The terms "accurate" and "realistic" are highly subjective when it comes to photography representing what we see.

I use 2 different techniques when I want to expand the range of tones in a scene in the digital format. The first being a manual merging of bracketed shots in photoshop (if I am going for the "realistic" look) and the second being the automated HDR technique via plugin software (when I want a more stylized look).

Both require a ton of effort in post to pull off successfully. Most "HDR" photos that I see suffer from 1 or 2 critical mistakes. Either mishandling of the technique (wether it be inappropriate lighting, insufficient bracketing, or straight up slider delirium ie overcooked file) or unfinished post-production after the file emerges from the HDR process (halos not corrected, noise not being corrected, localized color shifting not being addressed, etc )

The only attempts I find egregious are the files where the tonal range ends up getting anhialated and file photo looks like a chalky washed out mess. Whenever I use either method I try to protect and enhance my tones throughout the scene (zone 1 through 10) making sure that I still have rich shadows, rich highlights, and pure blacks and whites.

In the hands of a proficient photographer these techniques can be very useful and successful.

Ahh...let the light shine are totally on target.

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 11:10:52 PM »
so just to /thread:

HDR is fine as long as it's made so realisticly than you can barely tell it's HDR. Artistic attemps of over cooking might have good intentions but, even well done, quite a few people hate them.

Can we all agree on that? Group hug!

Yes...and the other end of that spectrum is....if I wanted all of my images to look like Kodachrome 25 from 1967 (with no fill flash). Then I would not have spent all of this money on a digital camera system and a powerful computer.  We can do so much more now....I love to bring more tonal range out of images with the new tech...

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 10:25:14 AM »
I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.

Very nice balance!

Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 10:23:08 AM »
I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.

Well said!

Canon General / Re: Canon Press Event on August 21, 2013
« on: July 31, 2013, 08:11:39 AM »
Don't get your bloomers in a twist!!

You're both wrong.

Company Name:   Canon Inc.
Founded:   August 10, 1937
Headquarters:   30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 146-8501, Japan

And it's not 'new'. Blooming Americans.


Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 06:16:09 AM »
Cool shot, infared. Nothing wrong with grunge on something that's actually grungy.

Thanks, fugu!

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 71