January 30, 2015, 09:31:39 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 - kirispupis

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22
181
EOS Bodies / DPReview 5D3 review out
« on: May 22, 2012, 08:52:38 PM »
It's out - http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/05/23/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-review-posted

In a sign of their political awareness, the 5D3 scored the same (82%) as the D800.

I'll let the fanboys comment on individual aspects of the review.  As far as I have been able to tell, both cameras succeed in taking pictures.

182
Lighting / Re: Bar Mitzvah lighting suggestions
« on: May 15, 2012, 08:03:53 PM »
Chances are you will not be able to photograph the Bar Mitzvah itself.  At least in our synagogue all Bar Mitzvahs are held on Shabbat, when photography (or use of any electrical device) is prohibited.  Generally, though, you should be able to photograph the reception - which is often held that Saturday night or on Sunday and therefore not during Shabbat.

One way I managed to get some decent shots of my nephews' Bar Mitzvahs was by photographing them during their tefillin ceremony.  This is usually held early in the morning and is lightly attended but as it does not occur on Shabbat it was my only opportunity to photograph them in the synagogue with their tallit and reading the Torah.  This is actually a very ideal time to photograph as I was able to wander around the room to try different angles due to almost no one being there.

I am not a lighting wiz, but I have received good results from a single 580EX mounted to my camera.  If you can bounce, that is great, but otherwise you should consider buying or renting a flash bracket.  Your most important shots will be the lighting of the candles, cutting of the challah, etc. - which generally are not WA shots requiring multiple strobes.

Where you will want to rent/buy is in terms of lenses.  A 70-200/2.8 is basically required.  Most true pros I see have a 70-200/2.8 mounted on one camera and a 24-70/2.8 on a second body.  Some photographers also like to use a 85/1.2 - but I would not do that if you haven't used one before.

In terms of printing services, Costco offers decent quality for a low price.  When I care about prints, I generally send them to MPix.

183
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod for macro photography
« on: May 13, 2012, 09:48:12 PM »
Unfortunately the words 'macro tripod' and 'moderate price' generally are not heard in the same sentence. :)

I use a Gitzo 2541EX and an Acratech GP ball head.  They work quite well though I believe Gitzo has replaced my tripod with another model.  Basically the Explorer arm type will work well.  I did not buy the geared version, though I wish I had.

Also do not forget that you'll need a decent macro rail.

Alternatively, a lot of macro photography can be done hand held.  If you look at some of my recent shots - http://500px.com/jcalev almost every single one of my macro shots were taken hand held.  There's only a few that were taken from a tripod (mainly the stacks and water drop shots).

184
Lenses / Re: Macro decisions
« on: May 13, 2012, 06:39:50 PM »
I am guessing using the flash is what makes hand held possible? Last time I really did macro work was with an AV-1 and a third party bellows.  ::)

James


The flash does make it possible to hand hold the MP-E 65.  With the 100L, I rarely use flash.  There, the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 are enough to usually get a good shot without flash + flash tends to hurt the image IMHO.

185

If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.

- You lose a lot more quality with a 2x converter than a 1.4x
- The 24 is sharper than the 17 to start out with
- The 17 has serious flare issues (no surprise given the front of the lens).  The 24 handles flare very well.
- The 24 can take filters, the 17 cannot (or at least cannot easily...)
- The do not have to worry as much about the front of the lens and don't have the huge lens cap to carry around

Those are all important considerations.

My concern, vis-a-vis "17mm vs 24mm", is that I will lose the wide end of the focal range (between 17mm and 24mm). It seems like a lot of the potential work I might see for this lens is with interiors. And it would seem like 24mm is going to be too tight for kitchens, entryways, master bathrooms, etc.

The 35mm equivalent is really just a "bonus" mostly, not as crucial as I might have suggested with my comment. My biggest concern is not being covered on the wide end. I can always crop a 17mm shot down to 24mm, and so on.

If I were shooting primarily outdoor shots with plenty of distance, then the 24mm would be my choice. But for the price tag, the versatility of the 17mm seems more practical for me. Maybe if there was a reverse teleconverter... then the 24mm would look a lot more practical. ;-)

I do quite a bit of RE photography and IMHO you really need both of them.  There will be times you have to deal with flare and the 17 isn't an option.  There will be interiors where the 24 is not wide enough.  You will have to shoot in the rain (at least I do here in Seattle :)) and the 17 is most definitely not the lens you want for that.

I use both lenses very heavily.  In general I use the 17 for interiors and the 24 for exteriors, but not always.  I find that in very large homes the 24 is more appropriate because you're not trying to make the home larger at that point - you're trying to sell its features. 

Here is an example of what I mean

Sunrise Melody by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

While here is a shot where the 17 was more appropriate

Master Bedroom by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I also use the TS-E 90 occasionally - mainly for shots of the property from the dock if it is a waterfront home.  I have at times wished I had a 45 but it is relatively rare.  The Canon 45 is not a great lens though and if I had the money I would pick up the Schneider 50 instead.

I think for your standard run of the mill house you can get away with a 17-40 - a TS is overkill, but when you shoot properties that are advertised nationally and make magazine covers, then you need to invest in the proper equipment.

Note that for what it's worth, when I travel I rarely use my 17 (the Burj Khalifa was a 2715 foot exception).  My 24, on the other hand, is my most used lens after my 70-200 II.

186
I really appreciate all these helpful posts, even Ontarian for hijacking and plugging his gear (just messing with you buddy). ;-)

The 14mm looks great, but in this focal range, I want full control over all types of distortion. Plus, I also feel like the 17mm TS-E is gonna be a better value for giving me so many variables to play with, beyond aperture. I definitely want a lens that can make me some money on the architectural/interiors scene. I'm hoping the 17mm TS-E will force me to step up my "pro" game.

The ability to add a teleconverter to the 17mm TS-E is the deal-winner for me. I've also considered the 45mm TS-E f/2.8, but a 35mm equivalent is close enough!

Thanks again, y'all!

If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.

- You lose a lot more quality with a 2x converter than a 1.4x
- The 24 is sharper than the 17 to start out with
- The 17 has serious flare issues (no surprise given the front of the lens).  The 24 handles flare very well.
- The 24 can take filters, the 17 cannot (or at least cannot easily...)
- The do not have to worry as much about the front of the lens and don't have the huge lens cap to carry around

187
Lenses / Re: Macro decisions
« on: May 10, 2012, 11:59:41 AM »
Personally, I am sorry to be a bit rude but if you are comparing the 100 macro with the MP-E 65, wondering which to buy, then you do not really understand macro and you should therefore stick to the 100mm.  These are completely different lenses.  I own and heavily use both of them and they have completely different uses.  I use my 100L for small things in general - flowers, leaves, knick knacks, etc.  My MP-E 65 is used for small bugs.  I almost never use my MP-E 65 without an MT-24EX and CP-E4 (for longer battery life + quicker firing).

Here is a rather typical shot taken with the 100L (handheld)

http://500px.com/photo/7019881

Here is a rather typical shot taken with the MP-E 65 (handheld)

http://500px.com/photo/7389001

While I shoot most of my macro hand held, I do take some tripod based shots.  I do this most often with flowers - which means the 100L or TS-E 90.  I also use a tripod for my drop photography, but that is more for repeatability than for stabilization.

Keep in mind that if you are interested in tripod based macro, besides the obvious macro rail you'll need a very flexible tripod + head.  I use a Gitzo 2541EX - which is the Explorer arm type - and an Acratech GP ball head.  This allows a good deal of flexibility.

For the macro rails themselves I started with the Kirk rail - which is very similar to the Adorama one (I believe they are made by the same company).  I later moved to the RRS two rails system so that I can move in both the X and Y directions.  This rail is more precise and stable than the Kirk rail and I like it much better.  I have heard that the Novoflex is also very good, but have not used it.

The ultimate rail in terms of precision and flexibility is the Cognisys Stackshot.  I own a copy and really like it.  I used it to take this stacked shot.  Note that I still use my RRS rails with it for X and coarse Y adjustments.


Crocus by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Note that a bellows is significantly different from a macro rail.  You can use a bellows + certain lenses to achieve similar magnification (and greater) than the MP-E 65 but you lose the flexibility because a bellows is significantly larger and general is confined to a tripod.  I have seen some people use a Nikon bellows with Canon.  There are other options if you really want to go that route, but personally I find the MP-E 65 so much more useful and if I wanted higher magnification I would just attach a microscope objective to the front.

188
The 14L and TS-E 17 are completely different lenses.  While others have already mentioned that tilt is not possible through the 14L + PP, you cannot replicate shift strictly through PP.  Here is an example.

All of these images were taken with the TS-E 17 and I have not yet processed them.  The first was taken unshifted.  In order to get all of the building in the shot, I needed to pan up.  While the Burj Khalifa does not look too bad because I centered it, you can see that the other buildings' verticals are majorly screwed up.


No shift, panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

You could imagine that with a 14L, the Burj Khalifa would be quite a bit smaller on the shot as 14mm is a lot wider than 17mm.

The following shot is the same building from the same location, but this time shifted.  With this shot I have leveled the camera.


Shifted but not panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The obvious difference is the verticals are now correct.  Unfortunately the entire building is not within view.  In order to have improved on that, I would have had to gain more height, which I was unable to do.  Still, you can see that no amount of PP is going to get the second image from the first.  You may be able to correct the verticals in the smaller buildings at its sides, but you will not get the same perspective in the Burj Khalifa.

Now you could argue that the two images aren't completely the same, as one of them was taken with the camera level (thus missing the top of the building) while the other was not.  Here is the same view taken with the lens fully shifted and the camera panned up slightly to get the top.


Shifted and panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

As you can see between the two images, the Burj Khalifa is about 30% taller on this image than on the first one.  The verticals on the smaller buildings are off but not nearly as badly as in the first shot.  You are not going to be able to stretch the first shot to match this one without a very noticeable quality drop.  Note that a 14L would be even more severe as the Burj Khalifa would be smaller - requiring even more stretching.

I have a number of other shots that demonstrate this but from the above you can see one reason why any serious architectural photographer makes heavy use of TS lenses.  The 14L is a very useful lens for extremely wide spaces (I do not own a copy, but have used one) but it has a completely different purposes from the TS-E 17 and the TS-E 24 II.

189
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Great review for D800 vs. 5D3 and DxO
« on: May 09, 2012, 11:32:43 AM »
I like the author's tone here and his opion of DxO.  This review pretty much sums up a lot of the current debate - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/comparision-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mark.html

His style is a bit brash, but I agree with him 95% about DxO (I actually have a more negative opinion of them than he does) and about the entire debate.

190
Macro / Re: Gross me out
« on: May 07, 2012, 09:48:40 AM »
I'm curious - what the fly is sitting on (second shot) and how did you shoot it? :)

BTW: Why disgusting only in macro? :)

The fly was sitting on dog sh$#t. I used an MP-E 65 + MT-24EX to shoot it.
You don't have to stick to macro, but IMHO macro does it best. :)

191
Macro / Gross me out
« on: May 07, 2012, 01:52:17 AM »
Let's see some of your most disgusting macro shots.  Let's try to make this the most feared thread on CR. :)

I'll start with two of mine.


http://500px.com/photo/7359028


http://500px.com/photo/2913355

192
EOS Bodies - For Stills / New D800 vs 5D3 comparison review
« on: May 04, 2012, 11:21:38 AM »
Ron still plans to put more reviews up soon, but for those interested in the resolution difference between the 5D3 and D800 he has this review up - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/first-look-nikon-d800.html

The detail on the D800 looks quite impressive, but I do agree with him that the 5D3 exposed better.

193
EOS Bodies / Re: Really Right Stuff L-Plate 5D3
« on: May 04, 2012, 11:19:46 AM »
Strange.  I have the original RRS L-plate for the 5D3 - the one everyone has complained about.  I have looked at the photos online and have examined my L plate and cannot see any issue.  I even had other photographer friends look at it and no one can see a problem.  It fits just fine.

The gap in question is here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5446.msg116666#msg116666

I looked at that thread but when I take a look at my L-plate on my camera, I see no such gap.

194
EOS Bodies / Re: Really Right Stuff L-Plate 5D3
« on: May 04, 2012, 12:45:27 AM »
Strange.  I have the original RRS L-plate for the 5D3 - the one everyone has complained about.  I have looked at the photos online and have examined my L plate and cannot see any issue.  I even had other photographer friends look at it and no one can see a problem.  It fits just fine.

195
Macro / Re: Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x 2.8 Macro Lens example photos
« on: May 01, 2012, 12:12:45 PM »
Here are a few recent shots with this lens that I took.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6954829096/#


http://500px.com/photo/6987958

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22