October 21, 2014, 12:09:49 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 102
1366
EOS Bodies / World's priciest Photograph... bland
« on: November 10, 2011, 04:35:27 PM »
Why did anyone pay $4.3m for this...? it's nice... but whats so great about it.

Experts... please make me see the light.

http://gizmodo.com/5858107/worlds-priciest-picture-is-as-bland-as-it-is-expensive



1367
Amazon price back up to $3178.

1368
EOS Bodies / Re: T2i vs. 60D vs. 5dMKII
« on: November 03, 2011, 03:54:19 PM »
As the saying goes 'invest in the glass, not the bodies' - and I would have to agree with it. You will probably switch your body every 3 to 4 years, whereas good lenses should last 15 years +.

---edited----

Also, since you want to do docs and lots of interviews you are going to need approx $2K for the audio gear you need although pro most sound guys would even scoff at that number saying that's what they pay for 1 mic. I in no way mean to get preachy, but most people new to video greatly underestimate the importance of getting good sound.

+1 on both counts especially on Audio.

I was an audio guy before I got into the photography thing.... you can get kilobuck mics and gear, but a $250 budget can land you decent gear... the point still stands for anyone who grew-up in the mp3 era... never skimp on the audio, if someone does not like your video, they can look elsewhere, but if your audio is crappy, they have nowhere to hide.

1369
EOS Bodies / Re: T2i vs. 60D vs. 5dMKII
« on: November 03, 2011, 09:42:42 AM »
All of us weighed the options and made a choice based on what we needed and what we could afford.  Eash of us made the decision that was right for us, and people will give you their preference, and why they think its a good choice.

The fact is, they are all good camera bodies, putting more money into a good lens will give you something that will outlast several camera bodies, so plan on getting a upgraded lens and T2i as opposed to a 7D and beginner lens. 

The choice of lens, is a whole different question.  A t2i along with a 15-85mm lens is a good start,add a 50mm f/1.8 lens for low light, and you will cover most common usages.  If you need a telephoto lens, I'd get a 70-200mm f/4 non IS for a low cost high quality lens.

+1: Nailed it.

If budget allows, upgrade the T2i to a 60D which is a bit better for video.

1370
Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary
« on: November 02, 2011, 05:04:40 PM »
The Cokin P filter holder has three slots.  If you don't mind having only two slots, here's what you do: take a sharp utility knife and cut off the outer slot from the filter holder.  Voila, no more vignetting.  This 5 minute fix has served me well.

Good idea! ... however would like to know how wide can you go with 1 slot cut off (2 left) i.e. is 24mm ok?

I should have mentioned that I fixed my Cokin P filter holder for my Sigma 10-20 in this way.  So I can't tell you exactly how it's going to pan out for a 24-105 on a 5D.  However I can tell you there's quite a bit of gain in FOV.

Do u have a FF or APS-C?

1371
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: November 02, 2011, 04:03:34 PM »

I'm no neuro but I can take a shot to rephrase it into less technical terms....  we'll see if I have this right!
........ 

Perfect response Meh .... really dumbed down for me!   ;)

You get a gold star!

1372
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: November 02, 2011, 04:02:19 PM »

Practically speaking, shallower DoF with FF.  Meh nailed it.  But to give an example: ...Hope that makes sense.

Sure does, thanks,   :D

1373
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:49:37 PM »
@Meh - Exactly, it's the iris diaphragm that matters. Practically, since you have to actually do simple math (eek!) to determine that from the focal length and f/number, it's more practical to use those values to determine DoF.

LL's experiment with the gremlin is approximately correct. In fact, at the distances involved it's actually not the best approximation. I don't agree that the degree of unsharpness is identical - but it's close, good enough for approximation. I've tried an equivalent experiment, as a post hoc test, with my AFMA testing. Since I use 25x the focal length for all lenses, and the LensAlign fills the same proportion of the frame (i.e. distance and focal length are equal and opposite).  With an actual distance scale on the ruler, it's apparent that f/2.8 at 16mm (16-35/2.8L II) and at 200mm f/2.8 (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), the measured DoF is the same, when distance and focal length are reciprocal.

Actually, the reduction of DoF to dependence only on magnification holds at macro distances (and for microscopy, although we usually call it axial resolution not DoF, and use numerical apertures vs. f/numbers).

I thought I had this figured out till I read HillSilly's post...

Neuro or any other Savior : Please dumb this down for me... (you have done this many times  :) ) : Bokeh notwithstanding.... do I get more or less OOF blur (Quantity) is APC-S or with FF.

Ok so let say i use a 50mm f1.8 on both a 5d and 7d, subject is 10 feet away from both cameras. After capture and 100% crop (lets say we frame 1 feet on all sides of the head of the subject (to get some background) in the crop )... basically like this frame for a  passport picture

With image will show more blurring of the background?

1374
Canon General / Re: Buy one of these
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:29:59 PM »
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/628301-REG/Cokin_CBPW400_BPW400_Wide_Angle_Filter.html

I use it with a 17-35 on a 5D and it works well although, as I recall, not all the way down to 17mm.

Another great idea... I wonder if this will be compatible with the adapter ring I already have (it's not a Cokin... but Cokin compatible I think...)

1375
Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:25:13 PM »
The Cokin P filter holder has three slots.  If you don't mind having only two slots, here's what you do: take a sharp utility knife and cut off the outer slot from the filter holder.  Voila, no more vignetting.  This 5 minute fix has served me well.

Good idea! ... however would like to know how wide can you go with 1 slot cut off (2 left) i.e. is 24mm ok?

1376
Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary
« on: November 02, 2011, 10:04:47 AM »
neuro, BTW, what ND filters do YOU use (if any), I think I've read somewhere on the forum from you about it and it's just now that I get interested too.

Go ahead John, Splurge.. OP is ok with digression in this regard  ;)

1377
Canon General / Re: Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary
« on: November 01, 2011, 05:32:15 PM »
It is possible to get special adaptor rings for wideangle lenses (although I'm not sure about for the Cokin system), but there comes a point where the field of view is just too great. If you try the 17-40 on full frame, you'll get the holder in frame as well :p. The only alternative is to use a 100mm system, such as Lee or Cokin Z, but even then, at 17mm, you have to position the filter holders carefully and stacking becomes an issue.

Looks like I need to hand hold the filters sans the holder  :P

1378
Canon General / Filters: Cokin P Series "Equivalent" quandary
« on: November 01, 2011, 04:46:51 PM »
As some of you know, I am fairly new to the hobby... so much so that I have never used Filters before (did most of my stuff in PP). As I begin to broaden my creating wings a bit... I bought a cheap Filter kit off ebay: this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/200641087439?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

to go on my 24-105mm. I think it is great for the price... seems to work ok but there is something weird... at anything below 30mm or thereoff, I get black bars on the sides (severe vignetting); which I think are the edges of the filter holder showing up in the image.

Seems weird that I got graduated filters for outdoor/scenery shots and I cannot use this wide? Is this a defect or was the P series not designed for FF cameras like the 5D?

1379
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release
« on: November 01, 2011, 04:40:03 PM »
First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on

In US, it is more like 4.5 cameras... (based on current prices /rebates)

Seems there's an assumption that the increase is linear, when it's not.  Actually, it's more like 2 cameras.  Plotting the prices of current cameras from the T3/1100D through the 5DII, the best curve fit is a 2nd order polynomial (R2 = 0.99344).  Extrapolating that curve upwards, the next increment is $3600, then $5000, then the $6800 1D X.  Replotting the data including the $6800 price of the 1D X, fitting a 4th order polynomial curve, and interpolating that curve by integer units also yields two intervening models, but with approximate prices of $4000 and $5300.

Made me smile  :) Thanks John.

The next time Canon deviates from a 2nd order polynomial, i'll create a new thread and ping ya!

1380
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs 7Dii (FF vs APS-C)
« on: November 01, 2011, 03:36:59 PM »


I agree. They do compliment each other.

I also agree about the ISO.. I'd never put the 7d above 640, yet regularly have the 5d at 1600.

Is this for RAW's or jpegs?

Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 102