November 27, 2014, 07:23:25 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 - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 112
46
Lenses / Re: 2014, the year of the lens...but for whom?
« on: April 11, 2014, 05:20:02 PM »
The usual suspects from Canon: 35 1.4L II, new 50 1.4 and/or 1.8IS or even 800 5.6 II.

If they don't do something soon about the 100-400L, I think we might have a small revolt going on.

47
Reviews / Re: Lomography's Petzval Lens - RLPhoto's First Impressions
« on: April 11, 2014, 05:19:08 PM »
Nice! Thanks for sharing. When I saw it, I thought seriously about backing it...but decided I should do something else with the money.

48
Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 09, 2014, 07:29:56 PM »
Thanks for your feedbacks gent's.

Prior writing this topic, the only thing that make me think twice is non AF. This could be a huge issue for me. My current 16-35 II is fine when shooting at smaller apertures f11 or smaller. However, there are times I need to shoot indoor f4 to 5.6, the IQ is quite not same.

Another Q: is there any tilt-shift with AF?

Thanks surapon for sample photos. Those tall buildings look great with tilt-shift.

Not that I'm aware of. I think part of it is it's a specialized lens, and it's specialty will very much tend to be used on a tripod and longer exposures as necessary, so AF wasn't a thought. Might actually be real engineering issues since the entire barrel needs to shift & tilt, and even rotate. If they did, it'd probably add a good bit to the cost I'd imagine, and it's already expensive enough as is.

Is the issue that you need to shoot UWA indoors, but not on a tripod where you could do a longish exposure (e.g. moving subject(s))? I guess you gotta stick with the 16-35 v2, and step back a bit so that you can crop in somewhat to remove the corners. Or just live with what you have. Honestly, I don't think you generally can shoot at f/11 indoors, unless you have a ton of light coming in, which might be common for where you shoot (certainly not where I shoot!).

49
Photography Technique / Re: What if we were still shooting slide film?
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:27:43 PM »
I think with digital, it is easy to get in the habit of spray and pray.  I feel this is especially true for those photographers who never shot film.

Now that we are getting close to the point where we can buffer dump RAW files almost non-stop, there is nothing technically slowing down the photographer. 

There are, however, types of photographers who don't want to slow down.  Fencecheckers and sport photographers or anyone trying to photograph fleeting subjects want as many shots as they can.

But for some of us, photography is a slow process.   I am one of those types that uses a tripod and takes about 5 minutes for every shot.  :o

Different togs need different speeds.  But unless you truly need the speed, I feel that photographers would benefit from slowing down. Yeah, we used to think a lot more in the film days.  Not only from the expense viewpoint but also because we only had 24/36 exposures before we reload.  These days it is not unreasonable to be able to store 500 full frame RAW images on one SD card.

If a shot is worth taking, it is worth taking it slow.  LoL

Completely agree with this. A year ago I started shooting a bit of 120-film (Mamiya RB67, no way to move that around fast!), and I really slowed down and thought more. It carried over some to my digital shooting, and I think it's a positive thing for me. Plus, 6x7cm slides are OMGAWESOME. Too bad it's really hard to find an inexpensive used 6x7 slide projector. I suppose I could cobble one up somehow...

50
Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:25:02 PM »
The 16-35 II is a convenient UWA zoom.  The TS-E 17mm is one of the best 2-3 ultrawide lenses in terms of optical quality, and when you add in the movements it's an amazing lens.

I don't really see any of the TS-E lenses (I've used the TS-E 24mm v2) as a general use lens. On the other hand, with UWA, it's got a pretty big DoF if the subjects are standing a bit away from you.

Like Neuro says, for general convenience, go for the 16-35 v2 (or if you know you're going to be stopped down a lot, and want to save money, the 17-40), but if you want top optical quality, the 17 TS-E is fantastic. Although for doing the tilt & shift you'll probably want a quality tripod to put it on.

51
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:47:41 PM »
#12: Watching DigitalRev videos :P

For this, I'd rather actually have a list and maybe a few sentences around each one.

Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.

52
Lenses / Re: sorry i have to ask....
« on: March 26, 2014, 06:07:56 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

53
Lenses / Re: sorry i have to ask....
« on: March 25, 2014, 07:07:10 PM »
Quote from: RustyTheGeek
Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

Crazy!

The 24 IS and 35 IS lenses are both spectacular for different reasons.

First, they replace older designs that were far inferior optically.

Second, the 24 IS has significantly less flare closed down (where most landscapers would use it) than both the 24L II and the 24-70 II.  The smaller size also makes it more portable for hiking.

Third, the 35 IS has rounded aperture blades unlike the 35L, plus it is smaller and lighter than the 35L.  Fantastic for a city walkabout lens for those reasons, plus less obtrusive/expensive looking.

Fourth, these lenses have the added bonus of IS, which can be useful in select circumstances when you lack a tripod.  IS is really only a bonus though, the real beauty is in the other advantages mentioned.

I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

54
Lenses / Re: sorry i have to ask....
« on: March 19, 2014, 12:47:03 PM »
Seems like a lot of folks are interested in the extreme lenses in the long range.

Me, I would like to see a 24-105 ver II.  I would also like to see a 16-35 III.

Call me crazy but I thought the overpriced 24 and 35mm EF primes that came out with IS were a waste of time.

The 24-70 ver II that came out was obviously a hit but also way overpriced.

For most mid-range enthusiasts, the 24-105 has been a great lens.  It is likely most folks 1st L lens with good reason.  Why doesn't Canon improve that lens after all this time?  Seems like it would sell well for them.

Unfortunately, unless a new 24-105 v2 was significantly improved (f/2.8? highly unlikely) I doubt it'd sell in vast numbers. Mostly it'd probably be sold as part of a kit, like it is now, which wouldn't boost sales really. Just like with the new Sigma 24-105. It's a bit better in some ways, and if I were to buy a new FF camera and didn't have the current 24-105L, I'd probably buy that instead with a bare camera instead of as a kit. But since I already have the 24-105L, I'm not going to buy it.

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Evolution or the murder of art?
« on: March 18, 2014, 04:46:52 PM »
Somewhere out there are a couple of videos on this topic - one from a stills guy who shoots a skier and talks about needing more control (but thinks this is coming) and another with two guys testing various shoots but coming away with the feeling that the shutter speed for smooth video is too slow for most stills work when subjects are moving much.  Then there's this: Photos shot on Red, which makes you think twice, at least for portrait work.

Agree with this. Even if you've got 120fps, that equates (with a 180-degree shutter rule) to 1/240s, which is ok for lots of general purpose photo work (say, most weddings?), but not any sort of action photography.

56
EOS-M / Re: Want the 90EX?
« on: March 18, 2014, 04:44:39 PM »

57
EOS-M / Re: Want the 90EX?
« on: March 18, 2014, 02:53:03 PM »
Not sure if it's changed or what, but link now shows as $149 with $39 shipping. =P

Yea, me too :(   That's unfortunately, I'd have picked one up for $50.

58
Here's my bet as to what they mean:

Quote
We used high precision CAD tools to design these two parts fitting together so water's natural surface tension would make it unlikely it will get in between and sneak up into the battery compartment.

They state, "The camera is protected…," not the camera + grip. 

I guess my sarcasm was too subtle and failed  :-[

59
Canon's 5DIII brochure shows a diagram of the body+grip saying it's weatherproof - I guess because of the "high-precision alignment of seams and high-density structure".  I love the grip and it's by far and away the best accessory grip Canon has ever made.

I'm skeptical.  The body has sealing. The grip itself has sealing. I'm not convinced the combo is sealed. 'Seams' are integral to an assembled piece.  The battery doors on both body and grip have foam.  Is there foam on the body door opening or the grip where it contacts the battery compartment?  There wasn't on the 7D or 5DII.  There's play between the body and the grip, so I don't see how a 'high precision alignment' sealed seam can be formed.

Here's my bet as to what they mean:

Quote
We used high precision CAD tools to design these two parts fitting together so water's natural surface tension would make it unlikely it will get in between and sneak up into the battery compartment.

60
As an alternative to fill-flash, if it's not going to be super windy, you could get some of the white foam-core and 2 good stands to reflect the natural sunlight from 45-degree on each side for fill. Advantage is, once you get the locations set, it works rather well for the most part. Just make sure to put a couple of tape marks for where people should stand, and some weight bags to put on the stands to work to keep them from falling over if knocked a bit.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 112