Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Development Announcement in the Fall? [CR2]

« on: March 25, 2013, 01:51:18 PM »

Anybody that can't print big from a Canon file just doesn't know what they are doing. I posted these in another thread about sharpness.

First image is the complete 21MP 1Ds MkIII capture, the second image is a 7" crop from a 47" print file. Now I played with the figures a little (downsampled my print file) to get the crop to display in the forum at around 7" wide. On my 27" monitor (which is where I got the measurements) the crop is 7" wide, but your screen size and resolution will affect the absolute size, if you have a tablet zoom until the crop is 7" wide.

You can now put your nose up to a pretty accurate representation (depending on your screen size, resolution and calibration) of a small section from my 31"x47" print, not the file, an actual print at life size.

I print big often, even I don't need much more than 21MP, when the Canon big MP camera comes out I won't buy it. Hopefully the 1Dx MkII will go up to 22-25MP, if it does then I am all over it, I will buy two and probably never buy another camera.

EDIT: When I wrote this it was in reply to another poster who said they could only print to 19" with their 5D MkII, it kinda doesn't seem as relevant now since they removed it, DOH!

That's a great image Private. I think it's in the eyes, and of course the light. The sensor sure doesn't seem to be holding you back.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: AFMA – Easy or Not

« on: March 22, 2013, 07:09:19 PM »

Child's-play! Now I really don't understand why Rebels don't have AMFA.

Whoops, sorry, left my sarcasm filter on. I'll have to watch that.

18

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?

« on: March 18, 2013, 07:12:39 PM »

For the OP, who is a pro and can justify spending money on 2 systems for 2 purposes, I would say this is not crazy, especially if the lenses for the two different uses don't overlap too much. Or, if the cost of the overlapping lenses is not an issue to the OP, then, well, it isn't an issue.

I'd also echo what at least one other poster said about the possibility of medium format digital as a solution. If you are going to stay with Canon for one side of your business, you have the freedom to choose something even more use specific than Nikon, if it's something that you like to use. If I had the business, and the means, I'd rent a digital MF rig and a D800E and see which I liked better as far as usability and results.

For me though, an amateur shooter that can't afford to dabble in two systems worth of glass, splitting systems does seem crazy. I would have to choose one or the other. Not that I wouldn't want to have both. I just couldn't justify it.

19

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens

« on: March 15, 2013, 05:20:23 PM »

Does anyone that has used it have an opinion on the Canon 200mm 2.8 L, paired with a 1.4x?

20

Video & Movie / Re: Iceland with my Mark III (feat. Orcas, Seals and Auroras)

« on: March 15, 2013, 01:06:15 PM »

Beautiful.

Curious what you are using for color/exposure correction and editing.

21

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Medium Format Film

« on: March 12, 2013, 08:17:41 PM »

Sorry, sounded like you were just experimenting with MF. If you're shooting events then I take back the Kiev comment.

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Medium Format Film

« on: March 12, 2013, 07:38:16 PM »

Plenty of Kiev 88's on eBay.

I haven't used any Russian still cameras, but we had quite a few Russian 16mm cameras at University, back in the day. I remember the glass being nice.

23

Lenses / Re: Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?

« on: March 12, 2013, 06:00:06 PM »

But does the Jackie Chan 550D come with a petal lens hood on its kit lens?

24

Lenses / Re: Buy EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II now or wait until September?

« on: March 12, 2013, 05:49:34 PM »

Agreed.  Sometimes I wonder why people even post questions on here.  A lot of times they already know the answer and/or only want to hear the answer they want to hear, and if posters post a different answer, they argue and do whatever they want anyways.  Amazing.

And yet I can't stop reading this thread. It's a mesmerizing train wreck in posting form (with little tidbits of good info thrown in).

25

Reviews / Re: Hands-on Review: Canon EOS 6D

« on: March 12, 2013, 02:55:12 PM »

Great review, and you have some amazing images up on your site.

I also like the post on Visualization. Great stuff.

26

Technical Support / Re: A Film Look

« on: March 12, 2013, 01:21:52 PM »

Ah, film look. Honestly, that's become another one of my pet peeves really. What is a "film look"? With film only "gone" for a few years now it seems that a lot of folks who have never used it now assume that film gave/gives us some grainy, low resolution discolored "lo-fi" look. Equivalent assumptions being made in the audio world drive me equally crazy.

That being said: yes, film does look and feel different, especially when you're looking at real prints and not some scanned negatives put out on the same ink jet printers that we have to put up with as digital shooters. But there is not one look. Different film types and processes will render different results - most of which will be tack sharp, not discolored or grainy.

I actually just shot a few rolls b/w Ilford for portraits that I'm planning to develop and blow up myself at a local lab place next week or so. I shot these together with my digital SLR with the same light and settings so I'm really looking forward to a nice A/B comparison that I haven't done yet to that extent. I'll be curious to compare some digital b/w prints from the same session next to them.

My next bigger expense is likely to be a medium format camera and some darkroom gear for my basement. As much as I like my DSLR and wouldn't want to miss it again, for some things I feel those blown up large and medium format portraits still look better. And it's not the hipster-grainy-lo-fi look I'm after but quite the opposite actually.

+1

You really need to define what kind of look you are going for. There are more looks than can be listed, to be honest. Different emulsions, formats, not to mention how they were eventually printed. And for me, that doesn't even include things that I would consider "special fx" to a film shooter, like the aforementioned cross processed look, or something like bleach bypass. They are totally valid techniques but not what I would say is inherent in a "film look."

7enderbender, I'd be very interested in how your prints turn out. There's a part of me that really misses the darkroom experience.

27

Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?

« on: March 11, 2013, 04:57:33 PM »

Long ago, in my much younger and stupider days, I was assisting on the shoot of a dancer on the beach. At the beginning of the day she asked me to hold onto her engagement ring which I proceeded to put in my pocket, since I didn't have anywhere else secure to stow it.

A few hours later I was holding a large reflector about thigh deep in the surf and got bowled over by a wave I didn't see coming. Sunglasses gone, other odds and ends missing, but on incredibly agitated inspection of my pockets the only thing that actually was there was the ring. No thanks to me.

28

Lenses / Re: EF or EF-S for 7D/70D

« on: March 07, 2013, 05:44:41 PM »

For your zoom options, I would think you might want to wait and see what is being offered with the 70D in a kit. It may be an upgrade over what you have now at a good price in kit form. Maybe not. Won't know until they release that info.

As far as the EF, EF-S debate goes, I would agree with all those that recommend buying for what you shoot now, as far as zooms are concerned.

Of course, a 35mm, 85mm, or 200mm prime would be a nice pickup for both crop of FF.

29

Lenses / Re: Considering lens upgrade options....

« on: March 07, 2013, 05:28:51 PM »

Maybe you should rent the 70-200 2.8 IS II for a weekend and see how much of a difference it makes for you.

30

Lenses / Re: Addicted to dof

« on: March 06, 2013, 04:51:33 PM »

I think it's kind of funny that the title for this post is "Addicted to DOF," when it's really a lack of DOF that everyone is talking about. Not saying anyone is wrong. It's just kind of funny how the term gets thrown around.

If we want to get technical, it is the adjective "shallow" that is missing.  You can be addicted to DOF whether it is shallow or deep so the statement is not incorrect, it is just lacking a full description.   

Isn't a lack of DOF a blurry image and not an image with a shallow DOF?

I suppose you could look at it that way, though if someone told me (without me looking) that an image had more depth of field than another, I would take that to mean that it had deeper focus, a larger depth of field.

Besides, blur is about motion, depth of field is about focus.

Not that this has anything to do with the original post. Sorry about that.