November 27, 2014, 06:31:26 PM

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 - Dantana

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
I picked up the Canon 20mm used a few years ago. To be honest, I really haven't used it that much. When I bought it, I was still on crop and was looking for a lens in that range. I don't know if I've had it on my camera more than a couple times since I went full frame. I really should try it out again. I know that it never wowed me when I did use it.


2
Photography Technique / Re: Austin,Texas
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:42:17 PM »
As others have said, the capitol building is great at night.

I am not sure if it's too late in the year for this, but watching the bats emerge from the Congress Street bridge at dusk is quite a sight. We just missed it trying to find parking when I was there this year.

http://austin.about.com/od/austinattractions/p/Bats_in_Austin.htm

3
Lenses / Re: Zoom or 135 in Place of 100 and 200?
« on: October 20, 2014, 06:39:26 PM »
I am curious why conspicuousness might be an issue in indoor/outdoor sports, especially as every fifth person I see nowadays near a sporting event (not a pro) carries a white zoom.
Would using a lenscoat/gaffer's tape wrap solve that issue?
Clearly, what would serve you best is the 70-200 II.
I think I have to come to grips with that and not fight it.  I just like small and compact, but I think it's time.  I  have some more winners to post, but my latest round of favorites (with the 100 and 200) are at the top of www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ if you'd like to see.

Not to take anything away from the sports shots, because they are quite good. But thanks for sharing the landscapes. Great work there.

4
This is what I don't understand about the photography "community".

Some guy decides to switch camera companies.  He is not saying that his previous camera sucked, nor is he saying that he thinks that every other photographer needs to follow his lead.  He simply made a choice.

But, when the story is posted, look at the defensive (and sometimes offensive) posts. 

Who cares if this person switches camera systems?  Clearly it was the right decision for him

Equally clear is that his reasons should have no influence on anyone else's decision to stay or move.

No one here can say that his reasons for switching are wrong for him.

So he switched to another manufacturer.  Good for him.  I wish him the best of luck and I hope that his new system makes him happy. 

So why did some people feel it was appropriate, or even helpful, to attack his photography? 

It just does not make sense.
+1000

If company X made camera model Y that was better than every other camera for every possible reason, then that would be the only camera that people would select. until someone invents a camera that meets a multitude of conflicting requirements, people will choose what works best for their criteria.... and to those people I say "Go for it!"

+1000 to you both.

These are just tools that we use to make image. Some tools are better at certain things than others. The systems that these tools exist in also have a great impact on their use.

This guy decided to switch tools for reasons that are important to him. Maybe these reasons are not important to anyone else. Maybe they are important to a lot of people. Good for him. He didn't sit around complaining about one brand or another, he just switched.

There is no perfect camera/system out there. There are cameras and systems that work better for individual users. There's no reason to take it as an insult that someone has found a new tool that they like.

I'm very happy with the tools that I use. Maybe at some point I will become less satisfied and look elsewhere, or be lured by some other system for some specific reason. That doesn't seem like something that should make others angry or hurt.

5
Photography Technique / Re: Yellowstone in Winter - what to take?
« on: October 12, 2014, 05:14:36 PM »
Disclaimer, haven't done Yellowstone, but I'm basing this on a Yosemite trip last year.

If it was me and I was hiking a lot, I'd take your 3 zooms and the TC's to use with the 70-200, your tripod (but with a ball head), and a good remote.

I'd only consider taking the big lenses and the gimball head if there is going to be somewhere secure to stow them when you decide you don't want to lug them around the whole time. And for me, I'd leave the TS. It's not something I'd want to deal with in the field, but I'm not a TS user so I can't really speak to that. I don't think I'd want to lug around the second body, to be honest, but that's a personal choice.

This is just based on the way I shoot, so it may not apply to anyone else. I'd much rather be more mobile than being weighed down with a ton of gear, especially since you will have to deal with winter gear on top of everything else.

6
Lenses / Re: HERE COMES THE BRAND NEW EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: October 03, 2014, 12:31:46 AM »
while a TC without any moving elements is probably a lot easier to copy than regular lenses with focussing elements [MF, AF or possibly even IS). Yongnuo might be able to offer a TC at only 1/3 of the cost of the original item, whereas this might not be possible for a regular lens.

BUT it am also really wondering, why Yongnuo chose the 2x TC, rather than the 1.4x.

Anyway, really interested to see what  price and quality will be like. I'll definitely NOT pre-order.  ;D

I get it about a 2x rather than a 1.4, but my biggest wonder is why it's labeled as version III. I mean, they haven't made one before, so why would it be a third version just because the Canon is version III. Strange.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: One is the loneliest number...
« on: October 01, 2014, 04:53:44 PM »
I would tend to side with the one body option for hiking, though I do like to slip a waterproof compact Lumix that I have into my bag as another option/insurance.

As far as taking a bunch of lenses, I can say that on a multi-day trip to Yosemite last year, most of my lenses went unused. I found myself using my 24-105 for 90 percent of my shots, with a few coming from my 200mm with and without a 2x. I didn't have my 14mm at the time, and I think I would have used that also, but the rest of my kit was either dragged around and not used, or locked in my trunk (we were making a series of day hikes from a fixed location).

The things that proved more important were a good tripod, camera remote, filters, good day-pack, day-pack rain cover, camera rain cover, extra memory cards and batteries, lens cleaning supplies, rain gear, extra layers/gloves, general hiking equipment, sunscreen, and a lot of water. I'm not sure about Ireland, but I know the weather changed rapidly where I was.

Oh, and as JD says, a bit of the Irish Whiskey would be welcome. Perhaps some Paddy's.

8
I really screwed up my knee, and weather is blowing in rather fiercely now. I can hardly walk, so hiking up to my landscape spots (Long Lake is a great one, but it's a decent hike up past Brainard Lake, which is a nice area...and I can't take any hikes like that now. :().

I'll see what I can do about getting some more demonstration shots.  Given the tone of this thread, I don't think it will matter much...same old stuff, same old retorts, same old nastiness. I simply set out to demonstrate the differences, as best as possible...which required an extreme situation. It doesn't matter if you always do a 5-stop push, even with a one or two stop push, the differences can be realized.

I'm pretty dismayed at some of the insults being thrown, not even at myself, it's just not necessary (Sporgon!) We can be civil about this issue.

I'm sorry to hear about your knee. Go easy on it. I know you are on a rental timeline, and I'm looking forward to seeing your images, but don't hurt it any more than you have to.

9
Jrista,

Thanks for comparing things side to side in a visible way. Even in an admittedly unrealistic subject, the comparison of DR is there.

The thing for me is, and maybe this is just because I'm getting older, the whole thing seems a bit silly.

Yes the Sony sensors have more DR. That's great. having more latitude and useful information has always been a good thing, going way back into my film days. I'm never going to turn down more range.

So, I suppose if I was going to buy a new camera or a whole new system right now, this instant, I would look at Sony/Nikon gear. But I'm not looking for a new camera, and certainly not looking for a new system. I have had my 6D for a year now and I plan on having it for quite a few more.

Canon will come out with a sensor with more DR. It's inevitable. Nikon/Sony will improve their high ISO performance. It's also inevitable. But what is also inevitable is that at some point those numbers won't be enough, and people will be asking for better High ISO performance or more DR. The status quo will never be enough for some people. I can't afford to be chasing one statistic after another, perhaps others can.

The part of this that feels silly to me is that we have tools with capabilities today that I never dreamed possible. If you can't get a good image out of them, you're doing something wrong. Picking a subject, and the time to shoot, and the day to shoot and the time of year to shoot, and judging the weather, and an infinite amount of other decisions we make are all part of photography.

So again, thanks for the images. It's nice to see them. I am also looking forward to seeing some landscape shots from you taken with the Sony not because of the sensor, but because I like the landscapes that I have seen on your site. When I look at them, I'm not thinking about noise and banding and... They are just nice images.

10
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 06:15:54 PM »
I would vote for insuring your gear and using some combination you already have.

11
Does anyone use the built-in levels in Canon cameras? For landscapes, I usually use the level. It isn't 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough to give you a proper gravitationally level horizon. Sometimes, I find that what I think is my horizon is actually not...it may be the back curve of a lake shore or something. Curved aspects of a scene like that, when leveled, often throw out the "uprightness" of the rest of the scene.

I've found it useful to try and look for other non-horizontal aspects, like curved shores, but also particularly trees. In the past, I often found that I'd level what I thought was the horizon, but then the trees, once I saw them in post, were clearly tilted. Knowing the geography of the thing your photographing can help as well, and sometimes you can determine levelness by looking at mountain peak heights relative to each other.

No, not the level. I was taught not to pay attention too much to camera/tripod level bubbles. It's the apparent level of horizontal lines in the subject that makes things look level. I'm more apt to look at something in Live View with the grid on to check horizon lines, etc. This is coming from someone who hates Live View.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 04:13:15 PM »
Too much MP for my taste.

Sounds just about right for landscapes. :) If only it has the DR...

Completely agree, totally.

This would be a Pro Body, main competitors being the Phase One IQ250, Pentax 645z & Haselblad H5D, basically anything with the Sony 50MP CMOS Sensor in it (and you can bet good money that Sony are about to drop that Sensor into their own body, sooner not later), is that worth competing with ?? I think so, I hope Canon does as well.

Price ??, about right, Competes well with the price of the 645z, certainly competes more than well with the Phase One & Haselblad (Sony will do it for 1/3 the price, but that have zero Lenses to match without Zeiss).

Will it happen, no idea, but I certainly hope so.

It would have to have a large sensor to really compete, though. Put a 50mp FF and 50mp 44x33mm MF head to head, and the MF is going to win. The Sony 50mp MF in the backs or MF cameras from any one of those companies would pulverize a Canon 50mp FF in any IQ comparisons. Again, that boils down to equivalence...more total light for a given subject framing, better IQ. Pixel counts really wouldn't matter.

I guess it depends on how you define "win." I won't argue with you that a medium format camera of the same resolution won't turn out better images than a 35mm full frame. But if the image quality was good enough, something better than what is out there in the rest of the 35mm world but not quite up to the level of modern medium format, some would consider that a win. You'd have a much more portable kit with many more lens options the you would have with medium format, especially if you were already invested in high end EF glass.

That being said, it's not something that will end up in my bag, unless it's ten years from now on eBay.

13
Lenses / Re: Ultrawide Zoom from Canon?
« on: September 05, 2014, 01:39:37 PM »
Not every lens is going to be perfect for every photographer.

For me, if I looked at the full frame ultra-wide zooms that have come up in this posting so far:

17-40 4 - Size and weight are great, accepts filters, f4, soft unless stopped down. I've seen a lot of great images taken with this lens, but nobody "loves" it. The softness overall and the softer corners keep me from jumping on it. The price is great though, especially when there is a special at the refurb store.

16-35 2.8 II - Bigger and heavier than the 17-40, reportedly not a whole lot sharper, a lot more expensive, but it does accept filers, and it's fast. If I found a good deal on a used copy, I'd give it a try, otherwise the one stop difference doesn't matter that much to me (with the emphasis on "to me").

16-35 4 IS - About as big and heavy as the 2.8. Sharp across the frame. I don't really see the need for IS on this wide of a lens for how I would use it, and I wish there was a smaller lighter version without IS but with the same sharpness, but that doesn't exist. It's not cheap, but not crazy expensive. Something I will consider when it shows up in the refurb store.

Nikon 14-24 - The biggest and heaviest of these lenses. Sharp and fast. Bulbous front end won't take filters without giant filter system. Expensive. If this was a native Canon lens, it's not something that I would be thinking about anyway. For me, the cost, size, and filter situation outweigh its strengths.

Do I want Canon to come out with new fancy ultra-wide zooms? Sure. The advances they make on one product seem to make their way into others, and it could possibly lower the price of their other zooms. Would I buy it for myself? Probably not. I doubt I could afford it. And if it's huge and heavy and can't take normal filters, I don't have a whole lot of use for it. On my radar right now in this category is the 16-35 4, when it goes on refurb. There's a small chance I'd pick up one of the older lenses used or refurb at the right price. Until then, I'll make due with my Rokinon 14.

I'm not sure how many more lenses they would actually sell if Canon came out with their version of the 14-24 2.8. I'd have to imagine that it would be very similar to the Nikon. Yes, there are always people on boards like this clamoring for such a lens, but I think that in real world numbers that wouldn't really be that many sales for Canon. Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened once or twice.

14
I always increase the green saturation when I'm using lightroom... so I don't find it to be a problem ;).

Thanks for that. I was beginning to get mad at myself for reading this thread.  :D

15
Lenses / Re: help on lens
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:35:31 PM »
I can't speak to the 200 2.8 specifically for sports, but I have been happy with the overall performance of the lens. Fast focus, sharp, compact. I've been quite happy with it as my only telephoto since switching to full frame.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9