January 30, 2015, 07:39:25 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 - preppyak

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 56
It seems to me the same is the case for both video and stills, and I was wondering with that being the case, why there were not recommended 'flat' settings for stills...?
There are actually, just a different process. "Flat" for stills involves shooting raw, and making sure all of the extra settings (auto-light optimizer, noise reduction, etc) are turned off. There is also ETTR, or exposing to the right, which is a similar technique to maximize dynamic range in stills.

So, while it isn't a single picture style, there are some tricks that are similar for stills

Landscape / Re: Can I save this shot in PP?
« on: September 24, 2012, 04:18:45 PM »
I see the problem, your raw converter isn't in english!  ;)

Yeah, this is probably the spot where a grad ND is the only thing that will really get the shot cleanly. You can look into luminance masks if you have Photoshop, as they would help you recover some highlights if they are blown out. You're definitely looking at combining multiple exposures though


EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D & 700D in 2013? [CR1]
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:33:12 PM »
Btw: "EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D & 700D" ... only one consumer body? There are supposed to be at least two xxxd releases a year, what's up Canon? :->
No, Canon has only ever released on xxxD camera per year (T1i, T2i, T3i, now T4i)...and then every couple of years they update their entry camera, which is an xxxxD (XS, T3)

You can see the timeline here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras

Canon would just replace the xxxxD lineup with the EOS-M camera/lenses.
I think this will be the reality. I can't imagine anyone who would buy a T3 at this point when the EOS-M is similarly spec'd and priced. I think the xxxxD line is dead.

Also wouldn't surprise me if in 3 years or so, the xxxD line goes by the wayside too.

Landscape / Re: Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?
« on: September 24, 2012, 01:18:08 PM »
One issue is that the 60D does not have AFMA, and if a rental lens does not AF accurately with the body due to tolerance buildup, you will be stuck.
That's not really an issue with the 10-22, and if it becomes an issue (seems to miss focus a lot), then you just manual focus. But at f/3.5 at 10mm, its really a non-issue.

And yeah, if the place doesn't have filters you'll be fine without one. It's really more for cutting reflections off the water, but you can do fine without it.

Landscape / Re: Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?
« on: September 24, 2012, 11:55:31 AM »
I am planning on going around Switzerland for a week to travel through the alps and photograph scenery and landscapes. I also want to rent a lens that would be best for landscape photography. I have a 60D with an 18-55mm, a 28mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200 f/4 L. Here are the lenses I am considering to rent:

Canon 10-22mm (I had a Tamron 10-24 when I used to shoot Nikon and absolutely loved the wide angle)
I'm not sure many people actually read your post, since people are suggesting buying lenses, etc.

Since you are renting, get the 10-22. If you were buying, it might be a different set of circumstances, but, renting you should get what works best for your camera. While the 17-40 and 16-35 would be upgrades over your 18-55, they don't really add to what you have. The 10-22 adds a whole different world of shots (10-17mm), which is critical for landscape stuff. And its a rental, so it has no impact on what future lenses you own.

Honestly, with the 10-22, the 28 and the 50, you probably don't even need to take the kit lens. And I agree with others, rent a CPL as well, just be careful when you include the sky in shots. I did my travel this past summer with an ultra-wide, a 28mm, and my 70-200 f/4L, and that is all you really need.

Lenses / Re: Which to get next: 35 f/1.4L or 16-35 f/2.8L...?
« on: September 23, 2012, 12:33:33 PM »
I guess it depends on whether your wedding/portrait stuff is paid or not. If it is, then I'd get the 35L, because right now, if you get a church ceremony with no flash, you're basically stuck with only one low-light prime. You'd have to go pretty high ISO with the other lenses.

The 16-35 will be better for landscapes and travel, but, it leaves you basically all at f/2.8. And, depending how how much you travel with just the 24-105, I might even consider swapping that for another prime (85mm, 135, etc).

EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 22, 2012, 05:04:04 PM »
i really donĀ“t know what people need ISO 25600 and above.

and i wonder how these people have worked before.....
Not so much a need, but, if you're shooting a ISO 6400 and 1/15th second, you'd have to use flash in the past. Now, you can push to 25,600 and get the 1/60th shutter speed you need. Makes shooting a wedding or on the street a lot more flexible.

EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 22, 2012, 04:51:30 PM »
Yeah, you're probably right, it could be a 4D, but the low ISO range of 100 to 12,800 and not 50 to 51,200 or 101,400 threw me. Is this going to be a $4,999 EOS 4D designed for Studio or outdoor Landscape photography where low-light is not an issue?
Yeah, I mean, of the professions that need low-light, how many of them need 46mp? Wedding photogs and PJ types don't. Most sports guys wouldn't, and if they did, 5fps wouldn't be fast enough anyway (I think they'd take 12fps at 18MP).

I guess the use case would be astrophotographers who want to be able to shoot at 12,800 and print big. But that is such a small niche within the larger group of landscapers that I think they'd focus on low-ISO levels. Heck, most landscapers would probably take extra DR right now over the ability to use 25,600.

They did the same thing with the 1Dmk3 and 1DsMk3 I believe

edit: Yeah, the 1D3 was announced in Feb at 10MP with ISO 100-3200 and 10fps, the 1Ds3 came out in Aug at 21mp with ISO 100-1600 and 5fps.

EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 22, 2012, 04:44:39 PM »
Has to be FF sensor with pixel size of about 4.3 microns so very close to current 7D. Perhaps a FF 7D2 after all?
So, they will take their current APS-C sports camera and turn it into a high MP landscape camera? Seems rather silly to me.

I'd expect a name with a number lower than 5 (4d, 3d, 1ds, etc). 46mp and 5fps tells me it'll cost more than the 5dIII as well

Somewhat higher??  26 days compared to 6 days, on average.  You must have a different definition of 'somewhat' than me. 
Well, and take that a step further, since Nikon shut down 3rd party repairs, where he stated that Nikon prices nearly double Canons now.

All Canon 24-70 repairs were either $268 or $370 (non-discounted price) during the entire 6-month period. All Nikon repairs were $539 or $602 from April 1 onwards

Now, part of that might be attributed to the fact that the Nikon 24-70 was more expensive originally than the Canon v.1, or it could just be that Nikon is jacking up prices. We won't know until Part 2 of the list when he mentions the v.2 repair costs. Either way, a turnaround time that is 4x as long and potentially 2x as costly is definitely not "more or less neck and neck".

That said, every company should be matching what Tamron does, that sounds incredible. Makes me re-think future lens purchases knowing they can turn around a repair that quickly.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Watch those CF pins on your 5D3
« on: September 21, 2012, 01:24:52 PM »
Yeah, the difference between repairs for Nikon and Canon is pretty staggering; just crazy that they think they can get away with charging double

For landscapes I might add some saturation in LR. Let's say up to +10. Generally speaking though I prefer to work with the saturation sliders of individual colors or use the brush to select specific areas.
Yep, and even then its rarely over +10 or +15. Sometimes I will get a very specific color I want to highlight and I'll go more.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How canon charges 6000$ for firmware upgrade
« on: September 21, 2012, 11:06:59 AM »
Again, what other companies offer 4k for $6800? Aside from JVC with a fixed lens, tiny sensor camera.

The closest thing is the theoretical 4k of Sony when they release it, and even that will likely cost $10k as a package. It'd be insane for Canon to offer their 4k camera for significantly less than their competitors, especially when it would destroy the rest of their video line (who buys a C300 or C500 when they can get better res at half the price).

Also, if you consider that the cost of R&D has to be spread out over potential buyers, who is to say it doesn't cost a S___ ton of money per camera. 4k isn't just some cakewalk piece of software....Sony hasn't even delivered theirs despite announcing their camera 6 months ago. Nobody even seems to know what it will cost or when it will release. Panasonic only has a concept camera that does 4k. Everything else that does 4k is $20k+, and the industry standard stuff is $50k+. The number of people who buy a camera this pricey might literally be in the hundreds or low thousands, and most of that will be production studios and rental shops.

Yes, and RED certainly doesn't make you spend thousands of dollars on accessories (that a normal camera should just have) just to make their cameras work...

And Sony certainly isn't charging money for a firmware upgrade to actually record 4k in their FS700...

Can we stop pretending Canon is the only company doing this; EVERY video company does this. If you don't mark up products, you take huge profit losses and fold.

Lenses / Re: Update for the EF 24-105 f/4 L ?
« on: September 20, 2012, 04:21:59 PM »
You have to remember what its purpose is. As a kit lens for their pro camera bodies, the only real reason they would have to update it would be to make it cheaper to produce (increasing their profit on each kit).

And as others have mentioned, its better than any other standard walk-around other companies have, and while it has a few known issues, I'm not really sure they are easily avoidable in such a design (name me a 5x zoom Canon has that doesn't have HUGE barrel distortion on the wide end). Plus, would you really want to be paying $1500 for an update when the current version is easy to get at half that price?

And with them having just released both their full-frame bodies that would go with it, you've got probably 2+ years until another full-frame body where they would introduce a new kit lens.

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 56