November 28, 2014, 12:22:20 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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 74
781
Portrait / Re: Outside my Comfort Zone
« on: April 20, 2012, 03:06:01 PM »
Thanks. A judge criticised the lack of catchlights on the first one and suggested that some should be put in, but it wouldn't have suited the mood I wanted to generate. He also criticised the other one for the model not looking at the camera :P.

782
What I find rather arbitrary, is the use of a reduction in DR as part of the sports shooting score. The reality is, if you're shooting in low light, the dynamic range is typically very small, so looking to see when the DR drops below 9 EV is totally irrelevant. I'd much rather see R&D concentrate on low noise, than worry about DR at high ISO. At ISO 1600, DR does have some relevance if you have to use fast shutterspeeds (so the light is still relatively high), but beyond ISO 3200, it isn't generally a problem,

783
EOS Bodies / Re: Um... is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?
« on: April 17, 2012, 03:15:21 PM »
I understand. If you can come up with an AMAZING marketing plan for using all of those MP or all that DR that you have, that can give a business an edge.

If not it's just slightly bigger prints. Slightly cleaner shadows. Stuff my clients will never notice. Stuff that even my photographers friends won't notice.

To be fair not all photography businesses are the same and how sucessful they are doesnt nesserally denote how much they need extra megapixels.

A semi pro landscape photographer being able to put a tack sharp 30 X 20 inch print on the shop wall rather than say a 24 X 16 print is going to potentially create more impact and charge more.
A 30x20 inch print from the 5D MkII would be output at 187 pixels/inch. On the wall of a shop, I very much doubt that any customers walking in would see any visible loss of sharpness at that resolution. You would need to start looking up close to have any chance and even then, I doubt many would notice. Lens quality would have a much bigger impact and realistically, when it comes to landscapes, provided it is acceptably sharp in the first place, the colour and composition has a much bigger impact. Uneven sharpness (either due to corner lens softness or insufficient depth of field) is much more noticeable than slight, even softness across the frame.
Very few customers are discerning enough to take a forensic level look at whether an image is critically sharp, in fact many of our rejects would probably sell just as well as some of the images we actually put up for sale. I expect most pro or semi-pro photographers (and alot of amateurs/hobbyists fall could easily put their work against pros and semi-pros) are over-critical, as that is what constantly drives improvement.

784
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM
« on: April 10, 2012, 03:18:16 PM »

And the most photographed animal in the world! The Token Cat photo, never thought i'd post a cat photo but it's El TIgre and he is a cool cat! He stayed by us for prob 4 hrs strait out there.



No, no, no, you're doing it wrong. Cat photos are taken with cell phones and are heavily back lit.
They're also meant to be blurry all over :P.

785
EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue
« on: April 09, 2012, 08:41:33 AM »
I just did a similar test, taking two outdoor pictures with my new 5D MK iii. The one without the lcd light on is metered for 10" exposure duration and turns out fine. When I use the lcd backlight the meter shows 6" exposure duration and the shot gets underexposed by almost one 1 stop.
I acknowledge these tripod mounted night shots with long exposure duration are not the ones I do regularly, but to me the light leak problem seems very real.
So, should I send the camera back?
Is it normal practice (for you or anyone else for that matter) to have the LCD backlight on when metering? If your answer is no, then just use it as you normally would and don't waste your time and potentially money returning it. If yes, then may be you need to review your practices and/or make manual adjustments.

786
Software & Accessories / Re: Short tripod for close to ground shots
« on: April 08, 2012, 06:56:22 PM »
Hello all,

Seeing how spring is here and there's a lot of little plants I've been photoing for fun, I've come up with a new want - a low to the ground tripod.  My current one works fine for most things knee high up, but I'd like something that has the body sit a few inches off the ground so I can take some longer exposure with narrow aperture to get a better depth of field.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

DeadPixel
Might be worth checking whether you can lower yours by either removing the centre column or replacing it with a short version, to enqable the legs to splay out as far as possible. Most enable you to do one or the other.

787
Lenses / Re: Your Most Used Lens!
« on: April 05, 2012, 06:33:29 PM »
I just had a quick look in Lightroom. In 2010 and 2011, it was the 300 f/2.8, due to all the wildlife images. I haven't done much wildlife shooting yet this year though, so it is the 24 f/1.4 MkII (which is only about 4 months old). What is interesting though is how my lens use has altered over the past two and half years (it probably changed before that too, but I recently had to clear out my main hard drive, so it isn't as easy to check - I suspect the 17-40 featured highly though, as did the 100-400). In 2010, my second most used lens was the 100 macro (original, non-L), closely followed by the 24-105. In 2011, the macro and 24-105 were reversed, with the 135 f/2 closely behind. It reflects the type of shooting I have done, as I have found less opportunities for macro work and I fell in love with the 135 (a bit like I have done with the 24 MkII since).

788
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MKIII vs 1Ds MKIII
« on: April 05, 2012, 06:15:04 PM »
I've considered the 1Ds MkIII in the past, as I shoot a combination of wildlife and landscape mainly. However, I was looking for improved low light capability, so that was more important than the better build, AF and frame rate, as the 7D covered 2 of those 3 and sort of covered the third (i.e. build/weatherproofing, although in reality it isn't a contest). Because of that, I went for the 5D MkII then instead. If I hadn't needed the improved low light capability, then I would probably have chosen the 1Ds MkIII. Now it isn't as clear cut, as the 5D MkIII has improved weather proofing, better AF and frame rate than the the 1Ds and better low light capability.
I think the two key factors are how important the build quality is to you (with the lessened gap) and how often you need better low light capability (it sounds like not very much). The you have to balance whether the extra $1000 for the new technology or saving money on the 5D MkII compared to the 1Ds MkIII is worth it to you.

789
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?
« on: April 05, 2012, 05:47:41 PM »
Sure, I shoot loads of film. I have an EOS 3 and an EOS 5, both of which take EF lenses just like a modern EOS camera. And the flash works too...

The EOS 3 in particular is a fantastic camera - full frame (of course!), eye control focus, weather sealed, 8 fps, a real delight - and all for about £100 or maybe $150, on eBay !

I use a Nikon negative scanner, and then Lightroom 4 and Nik plugins, and have all the joy of digital post-process workflow...

Maybe you can the same effects with digital, and I do use a DSLR too, but somehow, you just KNOW that you have black and white film in the body, and it somehow alters your perception. Likewise, a bit of Fuji Velvia 50 for landscape or Portra for portraits. Superb.

The thing is, with 36 exposures, you have to THINK about what you are doing.

I also have a Mamiya RZ67 (medium format, 6x7 negative), which I use occasionally, but not so much joy with that yet - much tougher to use, more demanding, and harder to scan well. Manual focus, manual exposure, and a beast to lug around. I'll get there one day...

Aiming for a 5D3 later this year.
I actually bought a second hand EOS 3 to try out Velvia and Sensia, as well as try out the f/8 AF, but some of the early scans on my Nikon scanner were pretty soft and quite noisy. Now there is the compatibility issue with Windows 7 and 64 bit, so I haven't fully tried the experiment I'd originally intended. I since got a sturdier tripod (mainly for my 300 f/2.8, but it's also better for landscapes) and have found a company that can process the film and offers a value for money high resolution scan, so I need to look into it again.
I also still have my old Zenith 11 from the early 80's, unfortunately, it doesn't have mirror lockup, which was why I started looking for other options, plus I could then use my L glass on the EOS 3 for better image quality.

790
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM
« on: April 04, 2012, 12:18:33 PM »
Because I use it mainly for landscapes, I manually focus at narrower apertures. One day I'll get to use it wide open, but there is always something else to shoot. So far I've only used it wide open or near wide open for the aurora.

791
EOS Bodies / Re: Thoughts of Gizmodo today - pretty balanced
« on: April 03, 2012, 04:45:50 PM »
Also, a significant proportion of professionals aren't that tech savvy, so beyond not wanting to get more storage than they need to, they may not have the knowledge to get the best options. They will buy what they need for the job and nothing more. Storage may be cheap, but it is still an added expense on top of the photography gear and they have to be able to justify that expense in terms of being able to make a return on the investment. If they don't, then they have wasted potential profit.

792
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM
« on: April 03, 2012, 04:31:28 PM »
Daniel, I just ordered a 24 II tonight, I hope it blows the doors out for me, been dreamin about it for a few years. This is an expensive month!
I assume that was taken on your new 5dm3? The image is very clean.
What can you tell me about the 24 II from your personal connection with it?

I also dreamt about it for around two years (well since its release whenever that was now, time flies by). When I went to Norway to photograph the northern lights, I didn't have anything wider than f/4 at the wide end, so it was the driver to finally getting it. Now, I will never take another shot at around 24mm without it. My 24-105 has suddenly become a part-timer. I knew the image quality would be quite a bit better, but I wasn't prepared for just how good the 24 f/1.4 MkII is. It is much sharper, has much less CA and distortion and a nicer look, due to it being more contrasty. I no longer have to worry about the corners being soft.

793
Lenses / Re: 24-105 or prime lenses on 5D2 ?
« on: April 02, 2012, 06:13:32 PM »
Put some extension tubes on and you can even do some extreme closeups with the 24-105 :P.


The Blusher Wideangle by Kernuak, on Flickr

While I don't do alot of portrait photography, it is also a very good portrait lens. It may not be as sharp as say, the 135 f/2, but it is more versatile in rapidly changing shoots and you don't always want the sharpness the 135 gives you. Personally, I would say that the 50 f1/4 would make a poor walkaround lens, it's too short and the AF isn't always the most reliable. It does come in handy for certain landscapes though, provided you have other options as well. I used the 24-105 for most of my landscapes over the past couple of years, until I got the 24 f/1.4 MkII and apart from the corners at the wide end, it holds its own, even then, the corners are acceptable most of the time. I've also used it as a travel lens, when I had to travel light, not that I liked limiting my options that much.

794
EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: April 02, 2012, 06:04:37 PM »
Is this the one you are talking about:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_pts_article.shtml

edit: this is for the 1DX, but it is helpful as well:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/1dx_guidebook.shtml?categoryId=12
No it wasn't, I haven't seen that one, I'll have to have a read later in the week.

The article I was thinking of was actually for the 1D X, not the 5D MkIII and isn't specific, but it states that you shouldn't use single point spot for low light (which is irrelevant to this thread and obvious to most of us anyway) and that point expansion is to improve tracking. Reading between the lines, it suggests that point expansion shouldn't be used for slow moving/stationary targets. So while it isn't clear, it's suggestive that single point is the best option for low light. Of course, whether that makes it it any quicker isn't guaranteed.
That is helpful information. If you find the link back that would be sweet.
This link has good info at the Canon learning center.
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/dlc/search/search.spr?keyword=Rudy%20Winston&filterBy=Article
The AF system starts on page 4, with the bit I was referring to on page 5.
I don't know which article you are referring to as page 4...The link i provided had several articles on it.
Sorry, I was referring to the article I forgot to link to.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/eos_1d_x_explained.do

795
EOS Bodies / Re: My first real shoot with the 5DIII
« on: April 02, 2012, 05:54:45 PM »
I've never trusted evaluative metering. Supposedly it works better on the 7D, but I still use spot, as I've never got around to trying it, old habits die hard. Out of interest though, my 7D also tends to underexpose compared to my 5D MkII by 2/3rds stop, so maybe it is the new metering system reading things differently with the two coloured layers, although I always put it down to how it asesses ISO sensitivity.

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 74