March 02, 2015, 12:15:21 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 34
Not a lot of people use light meters anymore since we have them built into our cameras. I guess the answer is up to Sekonic.

Really?  What camera has a built in light meter?

Most cameras have evaluative meters, and you can see a histogram on the back of the camera, but it is far from a light meter.

As for Sekonic, why would they.  My L-758R fires off my Photogenic strobes with no problem.  There are far more Norman, Profoto, and Photogenic users than those with the 600EX-RT. 

If you want to use the 600EX-RT, just pick-up a PocketWizard and plug it in via a Sync cable.  You will not be able to use E-TTL through the light meter.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom VS Photoshop
« on: April 28, 2012, 12:08:12 AM »
These are two very different beasts with a small core component of similar functions/features.

LR excels at organization of collections and "developing" or "adjusting" of photos.  Think of it more of the software version of a "dark room"

Photoshop is more of a photo manipulation and creation tool, giving you far more editing, compositing, and retouching tools.  Try removing hairs, cleaning facial blemishing, or say reshaping an arm or leg in LR vs PS.  There is a reason covers of magazines are referred to as being "photoshopped" and not "lightroomed" 

I use both.  I use LR to do a lot more of global corrections like color (ColorChecker Passport), white balance and applying these changes across all images in a shoot, as well as making some image by image adjustments, but when it comes to heavy lifting, correcting, and polishing of images, then the rest of my work is in PhotoShop. 

I always have to laugh at how often people with "soft pictures" who blame the AF are the same ones who don't AFMA their lenses. 

Those of you wanting to skip over CS6 might need to reconsider.
You will probably need to have CS6 to upgrade to CS7.
That's been hinted.

I will do you one better, and I am thinking that CS7 may be subscription only.  A lot of software vendors are starting to see push back on the upgrade cycle and many people are 2 or more versions behind... There are a ton of say Windows XP machines still out there, and I still see people using PS 6 even. 

Adobe also does not play fair with their antiquated products.  For Acrobat Pro for example, we have seen issues with older full versions that run into crashes or hang ups because of update endless loops, i.e. searches for updates, and since product is now sunsetted, product basically will lock up.

As incentive to upgrade becomes less and less (i.e. incremental improvements are mainly performance and little tweaks) looks for companies like Adobe to really start pushing subscriptions, i.e. you only lease, never own.  Someways much more inexpensive for the casual user, but for those who sometimes get 3 or more years out of software between upgrades, you are in the sights.

I will upgrade because I want the performance tweaks for multi-core like what you see with Liquify which I will use a lot working on model shots.  I also expect this to be my last upgrade.  I could live with CS5, but also think CS6 has a good chance to be the last purchasable version from Adobe

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxO results out for 5D3
« on: April 19, 2012, 10:55:54 PM »
DxO is about as relevant as Ken Rockwell and their numbers similarly make as much sense.

After all, according to their numbers the PhaseOne and D4 are pieces of crap compared to d800

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weird banding on new 5D Mark II
« on: April 07, 2012, 07:25:52 AM »
It is a bad/corrupt card. I have the same issue with a Lexar Professional 600x 16GB card.  At first I thought it was a Light Room import issue, then a started transferring the files directly to disc and would have the same issue in LightRoom and DPP.

It happens to me roughly 2 out of every 100 shot.

Just more support where shooting on smaller cards is better because it is much cheaper to toss an expensive 8GB card than a 32 GB one.

Technically that would likely not be covered I don't think. 

Just as dropping the camera would not be covered. 

Good to know, especially for those shooting concerts or clubs. 

Here is another one. 

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder
« on: April 06, 2012, 07:34:47 AM »
That's not a very encouraging MTF chart.

Especially compared to the II from Canon... Though some people have been clamouring for IS... Though not sure is IS is all that great if the image is soft to begin with.  I would prefer tack sharp with some misses than a peak of muddied across the board

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III White Balance Test
« on: April 06, 2012, 07:29:14 AM »
Do you primarily shoot auto as well. 

AWB is generally crap.

Call me old fashioned, but I generally shoot a grey card as well as when working with models use a ColorChecker Passport

Especially with Lightroom, just use the export pre-set, generate a DNG and then apply accross and VOILA!  All my raw shots are adjusted and colors are fine and pop!


2) problem: no one touch ability to switch between commonly used AF modes.  Truth:  Fully customizable.  I set the DOF button to switch to AI servo, so when I'm shooting in single shot mode, if I wanna quick switch to servo without taking my eye off the subject I just hold the DOF button and then it goes AI servo until I let go and then it's right back to single shot. 

Great minds think alike!  Few days ago, I configured the DOF button to assign AI servo for those exact reasons.  Kind of exhilerating to follow a moving object, hold down DOF (AI Servo) and squeeze off High Speed Burst.  That's how I got this shot the other day:

DZ3C0198A by drjlo1, on Flickr

Too bad that Bee completely ruined your flower shot and shame the Canon lost focus on the flower like you intended.

... Oh?   

That was your point?


Very nice picture.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark III vs Nikon D800
« on: April 05, 2012, 10:37:03 AM »
I think you are missing the real point which is the Nikon D4 versus the Canon 5D MKIII.

When I upsize images from the D4 to equal the 22MP of the 5DMKIII I notice that the D4 images are softer and have more noise.  I also notice the D4 is crap for detail when compared to the 5DMKIII at 22 MP...

Go figure...

The question is not D800 versus 5DMKIII, it is 5DMKIII versus the D4 and why when you upsize the D4 images to match the resolution of the 5DMKIII, the little camera that is almost half the price of the D4 has sharper and much more detailed pictures.

Go figure.

Lighting / Re: 580ex II or 600EX-RT
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:37:52 AM »
I wonder if somehow those triggers could trigger studio strobes?

If Canon release a RF receiver for their non-RF flashes to work with the ST-E3/600EX-RT system, then possibly that could be used to trigger a studio strobe via PC sync cable.  But until then, that's the main reason I'm sticking with PWs - the ability to trigger both Speedlites (via FlexTT5s) and a PCB Einstein (via PowerMC2).

I will one up you there... my PW fires my strobes, as does my light meter.  Most days all I need is my MiniTT and then a Flex for the occasional times I use a speedlight

EOS Bodies / Re: Thoughts of Gizmodo today - pretty balanced
« on: April 03, 2012, 11:35:04 AM »
The funny part of Kai's review was him waiting for the Nikon to write from buffer after a burst. 

As for the file size, it is what it is.  The D800 will fill up hard drives a lot quicker, as well, depending on your back up solution, those will get pressed a lot quicker too, especially if you prefer to have 3 points of failure

For folks doing landscape and large images, I am sure it is a dream.  For someone shooting fashion and models , and doing a few hundred shots over a couple of hours, maybe not so much.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III & Possible 1D X Issue With PocketWizards
« on: March 29, 2012, 04:34:07 PM »
Have you updated your PW Mini TT1 for the 5D MKIII???

Do they have this available for the Mini yet?

You have to configure both the Flex and the Mini via the USB to set the camera up.

I got the exact same results when I first got my 5D MKII...


Because my mini was still set to my T2i.

Yup.... Went through the same thing... I thought I had a bad 5DMKII... or that my 5DMKII had to shoot at 1/160 or 1/100...

Ah...  Configuration.

Right now I don't think PocketWizard has an update firmware yet:

EOS Bodies / Re: DXO vs Reality
« on: March 29, 2012, 08:46:19 AM »
For me it was not so much the Nikon D800 score, but it was that score relative to other cameras I know to be better and more capable.  If you go by DxO, the D4 and D3s are S___e compared to the D800 which is just not true.  Then when you throw the whole MF quality into the mix... Yes, the MFs may bot be designed for High ISO per se, but does beg to question the ability to quantitatively measure IQ

Then don't look at the score, look at the signal to noise ratio, colour depth, tonality and dynamic range graphs individually to see how the D800 scores relative to those other cameras. The thing is, DxO didn't give the D800 for one attribute alone, it was from many.

If you compare the DR of the D800 to any other DSLR, you'll find that at ISO under 400, and especially ISO 100, it has no competition.

To me this diminishes the value of DxO since they are telling me a new BMW outperforms a new Ferrari

That's not unheard of.

Just because a new Ferrari is new does not mean it is as good as or better than any other car.

Is the D800 a better camera than the D4?  DxO says it is by a big margin.

DxO doesn't measure/score "camera", it scores "sensor." Thus DxO ranks camera based on sensor and sensor alone. For some people that will make it a better camera than the D4, for some it will not.

Your making my point.  Sorry.  The sensor in the d800 is not leaps and bounds over that of the D4.

I know that.
Nikon knows that.
DxO tests can't figure that out.

Despite what DxO is trying to tell me, Rosie O'Donnell is still fat and not more attractive than Olivia Wilde. 

Fact.  Not Opinion. 

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 34