February 27, 2015, 09:19:42 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 - brianleighty

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 20
166
The popularity of BR is undeniable in this thread and similar others and best wishes to all, but I want to add another shout-out for the less common Op/Tech. They work well for my needs (serious amateur, not pro), are very flexible (reconfigurable/modular), and have proven to be secure in my experience (2yrs owning).

I see some people worry about plastic clips, but I think I see similar clips are also used on the modular BR RS-7 -- and on military equipment such as helmets. I have also dealt with a fair amount of metal fatigue in my time, so metal clips can fail too.

The main thing that drew me to Op/Tech was the flexibility for rapid use on a tripod -- I want to minimize any excuses I might have to use a tripod as often as posisble (I'm mostly landscape/nature), and I couldn't find any good quick solutions for BR or others with Arca plates.

Op/Tech allows me to have a permanent L-plate, handstrap (3rd party), and completely configurable sling and neck strap -- and it's low cost too (though this was not the main driver, personally). 

I have no affiliation with Op/Tech -- just a happy customer!
Thanks for that suggestion. I might try them out. BR is too expensive to just try out but these are cheap enough to see if I even like it. The reviews on Amazon all seem pretty good too. Thanks for the suggestion.

167
Lenses / Re: Which Macro?? Please help!
« on: September 16, 2012, 03:34:19 PM »
I have the 65MPE and the 100F2.8Lis I'v also used tubes on older (FD) lenses in past. If I use flash, I use the MT24 or multiple speedlights off-camera. I use FF bodies for this (1Dx, 5Dii)

I would not recommend the 65 for your app because it is strictly macro (1-5x) and watches are actually fairly large.

The 100 is a great overall lens and being able to get close is a real advantage. If you do not have this range covered already it would be a good choice althought the non-IS verion is substantially less expensive.
Hmm very interesting. I'd never thought of using FD lenses as macros. Then you theoretically wouldn't need an optical element to adjust for the flange. I don't even know, does anybody even sell an adapter without an optical element though?

168
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Reminder: Announcements on September 17, 2012
« on: September 16, 2012, 03:16:47 PM »
IF 6D would have 11 point AF (cross-type) with center point double cross-type then OK - I will probably get one. If it is just 1 cross-type point - 5D Mk II is better for my needs. Fingers crossed !

no problem as long as it's cheap around 1500.
Keep dreaming

169
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Reminder: Announcements on September 17, 2012
« on: September 16, 2012, 03:13:43 PM »
So will be tonight around midnight EST?   Hope the 6D is crap... so I won't feel bad about my 5D2.  I don't want to get laughed at and ridiculed when out in public.  People with modern cameras already laugh when they see the outdated CF cards I still use and don't even have an articulating LCD.  It's embarrassing.
Then they don't know what they're talking & laughing about...  ::)
+1 I think compact flash makes you look more professional than SD cards.

170
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 16, 2012, 10:55:56 AM »
a "bounce device" is something (to me) that can control the light;  just just spread it around in all directions.  a directional bounce device is perhaps a better term.  with these you can control the ratio of light directed forward versus upward.
Gotcha. That makes a lot more sense. I would agree with you there. I have the feeling that a lot of times the tupperware does waste a lot of light if you aren't in a room that can provide adequate bounce. Hence why I just decided to buy one of those on camera soft boxes, although I don't have much faith in it being nearly as good but who knows maybe I'll be surprised. In the end there's no magical solution for on camera flash. You can only go so big with your diffuser so unless you have walls to bounce off of you're kind of out of luck.

171
Lenses / Re: Should I sell 35L f/1.4 to get 24-70II?
« on: September 16, 2012, 09:29:43 AM »
I agree with papa razzi. You should definatley sell the 35 and get the 24-70 II, but it may be necessary to get the 50mm f/1.4 or even the f/1.8 for those low light wedding situaitions when you absolutley need the f/1.4. However,the 5D III and its lowlight capabilities may be perfect with the f/2.8......... you just need to decide what you need.

Really? I guess it's just me but I find the 50 1.8 to be a good lens for the price but trying to use that as alternative to the 35 1.4 is a bit crazy in my head. Take a look at some charts and you'll immediately see these lenses, or for that matter any of Canon's 50mm lenses, are no where near what you can get with the 35 1.4. Not only is it sharper but I wouldn't trust just having the 50 1.8 as my low light lens for a wedding. Perhaps something else that it doesn't matter if you miss focus but a wedding. People pay good money for a reason, they expect you to be able to get the shot.

Now regarding whether to get the zoom or not, everybody so far seems to have only good things to say about it. Here's my thought though. Unless you really NEED the lens right now you're much better off waiting. The 5D mark iii launched only like six months ago at $3500. I just saw it the other day from Adorama for $2750. With these products, I think Canon realizes there is a pent up demand and that people are willing to pay the high prices to be first to get it. If you're willing to wait, at the very least they'll be having rebates on it and most likely a combination of that and a slight reduction in price could easily save $200-$400. That's just my thought. One alternative that would be much cheaper is to keep the 35 and get a 24-105 instead. Sure it's not quite as sharp but if you look at Roger's numbers from the comments section of his post on the new lenses resolution you'll see it's not that bad (835 / 820). This would give IS as the wide end which is great for a shots of the venue or anything else that's not moving. Plus add more reach at the long end. This lens has been out for a while so you're paying the premium that users of the new lens are. Sure it might not give you euphoric high of getting to play with the latest and greatest, but I think it would serve you well. I routinely see it for $800 and that's about what it's going for used as well so if you find you don't like it after 6 months to a year, then sell it and perhaps the 35 and go buy the 24 70. Chances are you'll have a better idea of what you're looking for as well after you've had a chance to try image stabilization on the wide end.

[CORRECTION]
WHOOPS just looked at your signature. You already have the 24 105. My bad. In that case my same logic remains of waiting. But of course it's your money and your equipment.

172
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 16, 2012, 08:53:40 AM »
the thing about light toys and graveyards is that you must first understand both your needs and the nature of light beore you select the tool.  light travels in straight lines so no amount of diffusion will soften the light coming from the strobe itself. a controlled  combination of direct vs reflective light is better accomplished with a bounce or partial bounce device insread of tupoerware imho.
And what is a bounce device? Obviously ceilings and walls are your best bounce devices as they'll always be bigger than what you can get on a camera. In which case the tupperware works pretty. Don't get me wrong it's far from perfect and I'm always looking for alternatives but it's the best I've found so far. One thing I will say is that I've tested just shooting the straight flash up into a ceiling vs with the tupperware and I liked the look of the tupperware better. But one advantage of shooting directly off the ceiling is the balance in light level between near objects and far objects is improved somewhat since less light is being directed straight forward. For this reason I'm looking at trying out this technique some more.

173
Software & Accessories / Re: iMac As Display / Calibration
« on: September 15, 2012, 02:09:12 PM »
Thanks for the suggestion RLPhoto. I guess I'm little ticked off by Dell since the display on my Studio Laptop by them is AWEFUL. Granted totally different market but still. The worst part is the tech support that tell me it's normal for the display to occasionally go extremely dark and then go so bright that it blows out everything on the screen. I have heard a lot of people using Dell's monitors. Anybody have any comments on how the iMac's display compares to RLPhoto's suggestion? It does look like that Dell monitor only has 6 bit panels while the iMac has an 8 bit panel but I don't really know too much.

I think LG or Samsung make the displays for apple, but they also make the displays for the Dell Ultrasharps. ::) Plus the ultrasharps do turn 180 Degrees for Digital Art and Editing.

Yeah it'd be interesting to find out if they were the same panel. If I could find a display around $300 that is comparable to the iMac's then it might be worth me upgrading my hackintosh instead but I just don't have enough information right now.

174
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 15, 2012, 02:05:13 PM »
First I have to say I *loved* the pie plate! Did you patent that or can I try it too? Super. Of course, at a wedding I shoot at a high fee I might hesitate, but maybe the crazy scientist persona would carry the day. I really do think it would make good light, and I would add maybe a stofen or something that caused a little light to be coming out sideways into the aluminum. something just 1/2-inch high so no higher than the projection of the pie-plate rim. I will search your flickr stream for examples shot with this.

Anyway....

I agree with the practicality votes here (ring light in the bag at an event doesn't seem workable except for times I have an assistant.) But I bought, cheap, one of these 6x9" (approx) softboxes for my 580EX that has a lower shape to allow the front 580 sensor to see the scene in front of it. Velcro attachment to Velcro pads already glued to neck of the strobe. Folds flat in the bag. Nicer light. Some loss of range, for sure. There is a thicker piece of the diffuser right in the middle to soften the output in the direct line of aim. I was going to hunt for an image but look on eBay or call your local pro store.

Pie plate beauty dish. LOVE IT!

jonathan7007

Yeah I just bought one of those small softboxes off ebay for like $2.90 including shipping. Can't beat that. If I don't like it then whatever.

@RLPhoto, I bought my "tupperware" for $30 with free shipping so that's twice the price. I agree the "tupperware" looks weird but that other thing looks even stranger. It looks like it's just paper on the ends. However I would think if you don't have a ceiling to bounce off that would work better than the tupperware. As I said I just bought an on camera softbox. We'll see how well that works for situations where there's no wall to bounce off of.

175
Lenses / Re: Which Macro?? Please help!
« on: September 15, 2012, 01:49:41 PM »
If you're looking for 50mm macro, I think you'll find many people on here who find the Zeiss 50 2.0 makro planar very nice. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet. It is only half size but I think that should work for your purposes. I've never actually used it but I'm renting it next month for a wedding and have heard very good things about it.

176
Software & Accessories / Re: iMac As Display / Calibration
« on: September 15, 2012, 01:42:02 PM »
Thanks for the suggestion RLPhoto. I guess I'm little ticked off by Dell since the display on my Studio Laptop by them is AWEFUL. Granted totally different market but still. The worst part is the tech support that tell me it's normal for the display to occasionally go extremely dark and then go so bright that it blows out everything on the screen. I have heard a lot of people using Dell's monitors. Anybody have any comments on how the iMac's display compares to RLPhoto's suggestion? It does look like that Dell monitor only has 6 bit panels while the iMac has an 8 bit panel but I don't really know too much.

177
Software & Accessories / Re: iMac As Display / Calibration
« on: September 15, 2012, 01:38:49 PM »
+1.
Couldn't agree more. Apple products have gotten so expensive it makes it harder and harder to justify. Don't get me wrong I work on an iMac every day at work because the company is happy to spend the cash, but at home I recently re-built my tower for less than £300. That's a new mobo, graphics card, 4GB of memory, intel core i3 2100 3.1 ghz processor and another 500Gb harddrive. And as mentioned above, Win7 is as good if not better than XPpro, which I too used for about a decade. The rest of the money I saved on PC hardware went towards my 5DMkII.

Not bashing Apple here, but they most certainly do not do value-for-money.
I think that's the main place where a Windows PC has advantages. You mentioned UPGRADING your tower vs building a new one. If you don't have buy all the parts and can reuse what you have then I agree using a PC can be very tempting. You mention pounds as well so I assume you're in the UK? In this case the price for Apple products is higher than it is for me in the states. For what you paid for your upgrade you could almost buy a mac mini in the states which is pretty comparable to what you listed.

178
Software & Accessories / Re: iMac As Display / Calibration
« on: September 15, 2012, 01:14:50 PM »
@RLPhoto, one other thing that factors into this is I also do a fare bit of video editing as well which I use Final Cut. Hence my need for a machine running OSX. I'm not trying to make this into a OSX vs Windows thread but there are definitely advantages of OSX over Windows 7. The hardware is definitely more expensive but my thought with the iMac is the fact that it has a quality display that made it a better value than a different Mac. I just did a quick calculation of building my own computer and I'm looking at somewhere between $700-$800 including a license for Windows Home Premium. That means I have to build it and if there's any issue I have to solve those. If I want to run OSX then it's even more of a hassle and most likely at least one piece of hardware won't function exactly right. Not only that but now I have a big tower taking up room and most likely using more power than the iMac would. Thus I would like to at least save $200-$300 off of an iMac for the inconvience so I guess the real question is, does a $200 to $300 display beat the quality of iMac display?

179
See link below It is not neck strap but definitely will decrease the load from your neck. I'm using it and it is best thing I bought for carrying Pro body with heavy lens. It is expensive but worth it.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/836943-REG/Cotton_Carrier_124_RTL_D_Camera_Vest_for_All.html
They have few other product that you might check on.
See that looks safer to me since you don't have to worry about it flying out and hitting somebody. A bit out of my price range currently but looks nice.

180
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 15, 2012, 10:48:06 AM »
Ok CR users, I bought a Wing light for my flashes. I liked the idea and will attempt to remember to post here about it when I receive it.
Wow that's pretty expensive for what it seems to be. I'll be interested to see how it works out for you.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 20