March 02, 2015, 08:15:47 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 ... 57
EOS Bodies / Re: 6d for underwater photography?
« on: September 27, 2012, 03:02:23 PM »
Probably quite good for that use, once Ikelite et al. come out with a housing.  Of course, the housing will likely be almost as much as the 6D, more including the lens port.
Yep, this is an important thing to consider, if $2000 is your budget, the 6D won't work because to actually take it underwater, you'll need $4000+. This also presumes you have a lens that pairs nicely for that purpose.

The -3EV focusing could be really useful, but, beyond that, I'm not sure you'll see a big increase over the 5dII. What you may be able to do is find better deals on the 5dII and underwater housings, since they would be getting phased out.

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?
« on: September 27, 2012, 01:27:46 PM »
Canon will probably price them that way, but I absolutely, positively disagree that they have to be.
Oh yeah, they don't have to be. Especially when many of the lenses arent using larger glass, and most of the improvements are R&D used over a wide swath of lenses. But it is the trend, sadly.

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?
« on: September 27, 2012, 01:18:43 PM »
Interesting discussion, but ... I reject out of hand the notion that L glass [better build, weather sealed] have to necessarily be twice as much - e.g. 17-40, 70-200 f/4 non IS are both quite reasonable - cheaper than many EF-S lenses.
Actually, if you are going by retail price, only the 17-55 is more expensive than the 17-40. The 17-40 and 10-22 are basically the same. The 70-200 is cheaper because its 13 years old and got updated with IS in 2006.

New L glass is necessarily twice the price (or, at least a 50% premium). Old L glass might not be, but that is usually specifically because its a popular model with many copies out there. Even when Canon has updated older non-L glass, prices have gone up quite a bit with the addition of IS. Or if its cheap (pancake), it sacrifices a stop

Another variant may be Canon coming up with a 35mm fsomething IS similar to the new 24mm and 28mm offerings. Canon does replace old lenses, which do not sell well. The problem with this may be when? I don't see this as a high priority issue for Canon.
Especially not since they have released those two primes as well as the 40mm pancake. A new 35mm at f/1.8 would either have to be priced like the 20-ishmm primes (so, $500+), or it would render the pancake somewhat obsolete very quickly after its release.

I actually think its possible that the pancake is the replacement for the 35mm, with them updating the 35L as well in the coming months.

Lenses / Re: No compact 'standard' L zoom?
« on: September 27, 2012, 10:57:57 AM »
I have this Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II. A great little lens, from the old days. It is a crunchy old design but optically quite good, and is still a fun small (read: tiny!) zoom option on FF :) Don't use it much though  ::)
Yeah, I have a 28-80 that comes from the film days and optically its ok on APS-C, but it would fall apart on full-frame. But, since I use it in conditions where I wouldn't want to break/scratch my good lenses, I'm fine with the compromise

The real answer is the 28-135, but optically that is a compromise as well. And Canon already makes a 35/2 and 24/2.8 (in both IS and non-IS), no need for an L to double the price for no reason

It's almost all mid-tones. Is that the end target, or from that they can make something really nice?
That's the point of a more flat profile, you can always add contrast, but taking it away is where you introduce noise, banding, etc. In the Canon shot, you'll never really recover the blown highlights by the sign or the crushed shadows, unless you are working with really high end gear. With the Black Magic, I could easily re-create that Canon shot if I liked the look...can't do the opposite though.

That means the BM is way more versatile. If you're doing high-key TV work, it produces a nice image with less light (and less light is cheaper). If youre doing grittier work, you can introduce that contrast while being able to keep details. That versatility is everything, because its rare to shoot the exact same video style over and over.

Canon General / Re: How do you sell your gear?
« on: September 26, 2012, 04:49:41 PM »
This thread's re-inspired me to get off my duff and get the writeups done tonight.

For one or two items, I've decided to state the price is firm (because I'm not really certain I want to sell them).  On others that I have decided to be a little flexible on, is it enough to not state it's firm?

Is it even worth mentioning not to lowball, or just outright ignore the responses?
People are gonna low-ball you no matter what you put in your listing, just ignore them. But, coming off harsh might actually scare a real buyer away.

All I do is list the condition, reason why I'm selling, and then state the price and that the deal is cash only, local pickup. If you decide to be flexible on price, wait a few days, then add that to the description when you renew the listing. No reason to encourage lowball offers from the start.

EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:45:36 PM »
Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.

Most explanations are gonna be a little technical, but I think this one does a decent job

As for comparisons, sadly most of what I have seen are video tests, I can't seem to find any straight photo tests. The reality is that it would be extremely difficult to test, as getting an objective test would mean you'd have to use the same lens on each camera, at the same settings at the same time. I dont know a lot of people with multiple 14-24's, a D800 and a 5D Mark III. The moral of the story is generally that the D800 has more dynamic range, it allows you to photograph scenes that have darker shadows and brighter lights than the 5d Mark III. But, that is one aspect of a photo, and depending on what you are shooting, there are many, many other aspects.

I think only HTP and black frame subtraction do anything to the RAW file maybe other than tagging it with some settings.
HTP, that's what it was. There is some discussion as to whether or not the other settings have any effect, but, if you are shooting RAW, there is zero reason to have any of them on anyway.

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:

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).

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 57