October 21, 2014, 12:42:45 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 - kbmelb

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone using ISO 50 on 1DX?
« on: October 15, 2013, 02:11:18 AM »
The question is, how much DR do you need? To say IQ is reduced is pulling at hairs I thiink. While I don't have a 1DX, I have used ISO 50 on both the 5D MkII and MkIII (mostly for water or some other motion requirements) and haven't had issues with insufficient DR, any more than I have at ISO 100. Yes graphs show that there is less DR, but looking at graphs and actually testing are two different things, The best way to find out whether it's suitable for your needs is to try it out.

Yes.

17
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: "Downgrading" for a very specific reason
« on: October 15, 2013, 02:08:53 AM »
I shoot with a gripped 5D3 and 1Ds3. I prefer the images that come out of the 1Ds3 also.

I think I actually preferred my 1Ds2 most of all. I think the characteristics are closer to 5Dc. I owned in in concert with a 5D2 and usually shot with 1Ds2. I felt it was the most film like of all the DSLRs I've owned. I loved how the gradients and shadow transitions were just so much more smooth. You can't really fix or retrieve that in post. I think the 1Ds3 does this well but not as good as the 1Ds2.

If I could only have one camera though, I'd take the 5D3 due to ISO/low light capabilities. the 1Ds3 really falls off at 800. Wouldn't mind trying a 1Dx but can't justify the price.

18
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 06, 2013, 11:24:40 PM »
I would reply to all the people who ask "Do you do Photoshop?" with a simple "NO!"

19
Lenses / Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« on: October 05, 2013, 02:09:59 PM »

"Hoods offer no protection whatsoever when you drop the lens when you are changing and you haven't put the hood on yet."



I beg to differ. On two occasions I have dropped unattached lenses out of poorly fastened backpacks with the hoods reversed and they absorbed most, if not all, of the shock and neither lens was damaged. So I'd never say don't use a filter but I will say use the darn hood they gave you FREE! (L lenses anyway).

My hoods are all pretty beat but my lenses look (almost) brand new. If I didn't use hoods, my lenses would look pretty rough. It just makes sense.

I have even dropped bodies with lenses (and hoods) attached and have never damaged glass. I've broken internal stuff but am positive a filter won't save internals from shock.

You may not agree, but if you have the hood reversed you have put the hood on the lens. :)

You are correct about the lenses protecting reversed.

I try and leave the hoods reversed on my lenses and most it is no problem, but the 16-35mm is a special case sometimes. Storage may be at a premium, for instance one case I carry it in if I leave the hood mounted it fits very tightly in the case. I worry that the hood may be crushed so I remove the hood and lay it over the lens the same way it comes packed from the factory. Fits nicely that way.

I actually leave the hood on as I'm attaching the lens then flip it once securely locked on the camera. There is never going to be an absolute way of preventing all risk but you can greatly reduce the chances.

20
Lenses / Re: UV Filter damage limitation on 16-35II
« on: October 03, 2013, 03:42:36 PM »

"Hoods offer no protection whatsoever when you drop the lens when you are changing and you haven't put the hood on yet."



I beg to differ. On two occasions I have dropped unattached lenses out of poorly fastened backpacks with the hoods reversed and they absorbed most, if not all, of the shock and neither lens was damaged. So I'd never say don't use a filter but I will say use the darn hood they gave you FREE! (L lenses anyway).

My hoods are all pretty beat but my lenses look (almost) brand new. If I didn't use hoods, my lenses would look pretty rough. It just makes sense.

I have even dropped bodies with lenses (and hoods) attached and have never damaged glass. I've broken internal stuff but am positive a filter won't save internals from shock.

21
Lenses / Re: 50/50 for 50?
« on: August 25, 2013, 12:24:33 PM »
Ok. Given that possibility, how great of an issue have you found the back focusing on the L to be, and how have you adapted around it?

Never focus and recompose and if possible adjust AFMA for point(s) most used. 9 out 10 times I use outer third points so that is what AFMA to. I have excellent results.

22
Anton Corbijn
http://www.corbijn.co.uk/

#1 Anton is the top of my list too.
#2 Annie Leibovitz
#3 Dan Winters
#4 Richard Avedon
#5 Herb Ritts

Just throwing out my top 5.

23
Lenses / Re: 50 F1.4 durabilty question
« on: July 08, 2013, 05:27:36 PM »
I dropped the 24 1.4L (I) onto carpet from about 3 feet and it's focus motor and mount were damaged. Oddly Canon fixed for free.

I dropped 5D3 and 35 1.4 from 1 foot or so onto asphalt and the 35's focus motor was damaged. and the the hood absorbed most of the blow. that cost $300.

I've dropped my 16-35 II onto asphalt from about 3ft with out any damage and my 24-70 (I) from 3ft onto gravel without damage.

So I'm guessing either the older lens designs have cheaper parts or luck of the draw.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 07, 2013, 07:40:54 AM »

As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.
I have had those same idiotic request from some clients even though I know that the difference will be invisible. I scale up the images (5dmk3) strip the metadata and deliver thumping huge 16 bit tiffs and they are delighted. I also notice that a client recently supplied me with iStock images that were shot with a 7D and the kit lens! They got the job done (24x36 poster) but they were not as crisp as I expected of a stock agency and really got me thinking about the MP debate.
If your client wants to see you using high MP gear and is willing to pay a premium, just rent it, bill them and call it a day.

I actually work for a large health care provider. I am "their" photographer. Even have a contract. They want to use me for everything but they work with outside ad agencies and one of them resist using me with all their might. And one of the excuses they give my company is the resolution of my gear. This is obviously just an excuse to use THEIR guy.

I'd even go out on limb and say that agency has tried to sabotage shoots before just to get out of using me.

It really irks me because 95-100% of Victoria Secret catalogs, posters, billboards are shot with Canon gear and I doubt anyone is complaining about Russell James' resolution.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 06, 2013, 03:20:47 PM »
So, high MP is good but not really necessary while greater dynamic range is paramount. The fact that those features might come in one package is just fine though.
Fred
That's a big generalization.

Indeed. Not everyone DRools over DR.

I actually prefer the images of my old 1DsII and now 1DsIII to my 5DIII. Straight out of the camera. Why? They have less DR or more contrast. I can make the 5DIII look like them in post by increasing the contrast, blacks and definition (clarity for LR users).

As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.

26
I saw this on a B&H Facebook post this morning and hardly thought twice about it. I talked myself out of it a couple times last week when it went down to $444 on B&H.

I had already gotten the EF adapter off ebay for $70 so it was just an issue of when. $300 was when for me.

I really hope there will be a 30mm M-lens soon.

27
EOS-M / Re: ebay EOS M adapters?
« on: July 03, 2013, 10:55:10 AM »
I wouldn't buy a non-Canon adapter, especially with what we've seen recently with 3rd party batteries and firmware updates.

I bought mine from one of the sellers on eBay that breaks up the kit components and sells them off - BigValueINC. It was $69.99 vs $150 from Amazon. There's no glass or moving parts (aside from the tripod adapter), so while I wouldn't buy a body or expensive lens from them, this seemed like a no brainer given the savings.

I'm of the same mind. I bought from same eBay auction. I don't even own the M yet but this was too good to pass up. I just ordered the EOS M w/22mm today from B&H for $299!!!

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 2nd Body - your thoughts?
« on: June 15, 2013, 12:06:04 PM »
I'd go 5DIII.

I was in a Best Buy a couple weeks ago and could not make heads or tales of the 6D's controls (I didn't spend a lot of time on it though).

I have a 5DIII and 1DsIII. I really love the 1DsIII's feel but I know deep down I should get another 5DIII. The biggest thing I miss is the multi-controller in portrait orientation (with grip). Next would be all the AF points.

I'd say with fast primes more AF points are paramount. Shooting shallow DOF and having to recompose will certainly equal lots of blown shots.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III phenomenon
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:07:10 PM »
I hit the Quickview button, navigate to the card settings and change it back there. It happens so frequently the card setting is always highlighted,then it is just a quick flick of the the Quick Control wheel and it is back to where it should be.

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« on: June 04, 2013, 12:50:47 AM »
The Canon 35L is really good. In fact the only think I find it lacking is weather sealing. I know the Sig is supposed to be amazing but from what I've seen, real world stuff wasn't enough of a difference for me to sell the L and take a chance with Sig's spotty history.

As for the 50L, at f/1.2 even when you nail the focus the focal point has some gaussian blur in concert with the sharpness. What I mean is, you can see the sharpness but there's some halation that makes it seem soft. Especially in situation where you'd NEED f/1.2. By f/2.0 it is sharp and the images are amazing.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9