August 01, 2014, 06:38:12 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 - Plamen

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Transition from Nikon to Canon
« on: March 03, 2013, 01:29:12 AM »
Stay away from the 50/1.8. It has very inconsistent AF.

17
Canon General / Re: How well do you see color?
« on: February 25, 2013, 11:57:21 PM »
Also known as "how good is your montior"?  ;)

18
I borrowed the Sigma 85 from a friend - it was OK but the AF was terrible. It needed very different MA values at different FLs. My friend had similar experience on a different body and he returned it.

19
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 4
« on: February 25, 2013, 12:03:11 PM »
I keep it simple. Spend enough time to choose the best parameters, and then save as JPEG. I use default sharpening unless I print big.

LR gives you much more freedom in the conversion than DPP. I wish it were not catalog oriented. For people like me, who use it as a converter only, "importing" is a unnecessary annoying step.

It is also much faster. Before LR I converted using DPP and then edited in PS. Add all the resizing and sharpening actions. A real nightmare. LR must have cut my PP time at least in half.     

I typically choose Standard for output sharpening. In your opinion which is the better media selection when the client does not know what type paper they will print on  Matte or Glossy?  I usually go Matte as my guess is most don't go full gloss.   

I do not use outputs sharpening, so I do not know. When printing small - does not really matter. For large print, I sharpen in PS. And I am my own (only) client.  :)

20
Thank you for posting those.

I have experience with the 50L but never shot with the 50/1.4. If you have the opportunity to compare them in good light outside, with a colorful subject, both at f/1.4, this would be very useful.

21
The 50L has noticeably more blurred background than than the 50/1.4, both at f/1.4. Are those files labeled correctly? There is no aperture data in the EXIF.

22
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 4
« on: February 24, 2013, 05:52:38 PM »
I keep it simple. Spend enough time to choose the best parameters, and then save as JPEG. I use default sharpening unless I print big.

LR gives you much more freedom in the conversion than DPP. I wish it were not catalog oriented. For people like me, who use it as a converter only, "importing" is a unnecessary annoying step.

23
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: February 24, 2013, 05:13:38 PM »
I love this lens, but it seems to me that it is optimized for closer range.  I don't find that it resolves like my 135L wide open in the 25-50 foot range.  The 100L is deadly up close, and makes a nice multipurpose prime stopped down a bit at distance, but I do find that I am somewhat underwhelmed at the detail wide open in the medium distance range. 

And yes, I have done the AFMA on my copy.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

My 135L is slightly better at f/2.8 (and much better at f/2  :) ) but it is a slight difference only. I just tested them outside - it is a cold but sunny day here - and I am satisfied with my 100L.

24
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Exposing to the left?
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:02:27 PM »
My 5D2 underexposures slightly as well. With a flash and shiny objects, it underexposes even more. I believe that the metering system is too protective of the highlights. Just dial in EV= +1/3 or so.

In my experience, Canon crop bodies meter differently.

26
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: February 23, 2013, 10:39:05 PM »

27
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« on: February 23, 2013, 03:32:48 PM »
[The busy background in this fairground image is in the distance.
It does not matter (much) where it is. It matters how much it is blurred. In this case, the "transition zone" goes more or less to infinity. In the shot with the beer bottles, the background is pleasantly blurred and it is just 3-4m away, if I remember well.

In the boy with the Cowboy hat shot (Sigma), the background is very far and the bokeh is still bad. DPReview has nice portrait shots with the Sigma where the background is close but the main subject is much closer, and the background is well blurred.

Focus a 34/1.4 lens wide open at 4m, or so, and you are trouble with the background. Focus it even farther away, no problem.  :)

28
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« on: February 23, 2013, 01:09:44 PM »
Here is one direct comparison. I would be more curious to see what happens 2-3 m behind the tree though.

29
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« on: February 23, 2013, 11:33:52 AM »
but my real reason here is to say
this in an opportunity for Canon 35L II to really work the bokeh...I mean assuming they get sharp at f1.4 like Sigma does now

make Bokeh the difference.....

c'mon Canon ...you are up ... design a new top-dawg...
I could not agree more. I am afraid that they may go the other way - to "beat" the Sigma and to sacrify the bokeh for more resolution.

30
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« on: February 23, 2013, 10:13:39 AM »
that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L.

Oh, no. The 50L is better in terms of bokeh (and much softer) by a mile. I can post pictures, if you like, where I pushed it hard to test the transitions.

You can find poor examples of bokeh with any lens. But with wide lenses, situations like the one I posted are just too common.

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