April 20, 2014, 05:32:39 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 [4] 5 6 7
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Any news on the SL1 sensor?
« on: May 13, 2013, 02:55:37 PM »
Its not possible to compare raw images for SL1 and 60D on the digital picture web site, just jpeg images, which means very little, since they were processed in camera with different firmware.
 
However, DXO has tested the raw output of the T5i which has the same sensor as the SL1, and found no change in raw output compared to 5 year old sensors from Canon.  That's a more telling statistic than comparing jpg's on the digital picture.

Are you sure they share the same sensor? From what I read at launch, the T5i has the same sensor as the T4i, and the SL1 was something new. Maybe I had it wrong though.

47
So far,

I've looked at the tutorial pages for Pixelmator, and it seems to not be looking much like a 'pro' tool like PS.
The interface seems a bit cartoonish, and from the little I've seen of the demos there, they look to be most presets to select from and that's it...

Am I missing something? Others had said it may be the next best thing at this point to PS as an alternative.


Thanx,

cayenne

Well, next best thing for $15, maybe, on a good day.

I needed to edit a few things on a Mac with no PS and bought it. It was okay in a pinch for some simple work.

48
A whole lot of this will depend on what you do, and your workflow, but maybe that's obvious.

I've got Pixelmator on an old Mac at home and it seemed okay for what it is. I've messed with Gimp and Paint.net on the free side of things. I've barely touched Elements, Corel, and recent versions of Paintshop.

These all may be fine programs on their own. The problems that I have run into (and have had co-workers run into when they didn't have a PS license) is that nothing I have found is 100 percent compatible with existing PS files. Sometimes it's text layers. Sometimes it's vector shapes or masks, or something else. It gets to the point where it's not worth it for me, at least not on a professional level.

If you work in a bubble and don't have to exchange layered files with clients/subcontractors/etc., there is probably something else you can use. If you're not in a bubble, you have to be careful.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:41:00 PM »
I can only speak for myself on this, but I have a mixed reaction to this bit of "news."

On the one hand, it would have been nice to see the 7DII live and in action. I am hoping to upgrade in the not too distant future and I am curious about this camera. I am leaning to full frame though, 6D or 5DIII. I'm interested to see if some great leap forward would keep me in crop.

On the other hand, it will be nice to see what Canon comes up with given the extra development time, once the 7DII actually comes out. Maybe it will be a big step forward.

For me, the timing of my upgrade has much less to do with when Canon puts out a new body, and much more to do with when I can afford to upgrade. I have a feeling I'd be quite happy with a 7D, 6D, or 5DIII right now. I just can't spend the money right now (especially on full frame since I'd also be looking for a new zoom).

Until, I have the funds saved up, I'll be toting around my XSi and trying to get the most out of it that I can.

50
Black & White / Re: street photography...feedback please!
« on: May 03, 2013, 12:58:01 PM »
"Seeing in Black and White" is not BS, but you shouldn't take it literally. It's the ability to see the contrast in a color scene the way it would be represented in black and white. It's an acquired skill. Yes, you can make good black and white images from your RAW files if you don't work on seeing this way, but it will take you longer in post and you will have less black and white keepers.

51
Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners
« on: April 29, 2013, 06:51:37 PM »
One thing to consider is to go completely the other route and pick up a used darkroom setup on CL or somewhere similar. I've seen whole kits of very good equipment available locally for very reasonable prices.

I know this brings up details of space, etc., but I bring it up because there is something magical and almost zen-like in the process of printing your own photos the old fashioned way. I enjoyed my darkroom time almost as much as the time spent shooting. I ditched my gear two house moves ago, and I still regret it. It's something that I really miss and I'm trying to figure out a location in my condo that I can setup a small rig again. The smell of fix still brings back memories.

Don't get me wrong, Photoshop and Lightroom are great tools, but it's a completely different experience.

52
Lenses / Re: Speedy Manual Focusing?
« on: April 17, 2013, 12:17:26 PM »
I miss the AE-1 split prism every time I try to focus manually.

Oh, and Don, I think you are right. Most MF lenses back in the day, even less expensive models, had a longer and more precise focus turn. Every once in a while I see it referenced on a high end AF lens in a review, but I know the lenses I own don't have that same precise feel.

I did look into a split prism finder for my XSi like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Split-Image-Focusing-Focus-Screen-for-Canon-450D-500D-/190590997928

But I read somewhere that installing this kind of screen somehow disables the focus confirmation points, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly. Since it's the only body I have at the moment, I don't want to mess it up.

53
Canon General / Re: How do you buy equipment?
« on: April 16, 2013, 01:11:37 PM »
I only buy what I can pay for right then, cash, Paypal, or Amex, but pay it off at the end of the month. I don't make any money directly from my habit, so I can't justify overspending or financing anything. Just the cost of living in the LA area has the budget fairly tight. Of course living here also provides some great photo opportunities.

To quell the urge to buy new stuff, I've been picking up older gear on eBay. I know it's a gamble, but it reminds me of going to camera shows to pick up used gear when I was younger. Picked up a Spotmatic for the Super Tak that came with it, but now I'm interested in trying out the camera too.

54
Software & Accessories / Re: Wrist or Neck strap
« on: April 15, 2013, 05:10:38 PM »
Been thinking about picking up a BR. Currently have a Rebel with a Click wrist strap (just in case). I hate the feel of a neck strap.

Since I use a smaller body, and I am usually using smaller lenses (most of the time, not always), 35 2.0, 85 1.8, which BR would be the best choice? Is the new Metro for even smaller gear like m43?

Thanks in advance for the input.

55
Lenses / Re: Which Super-Zoom is the best?
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:19:03 PM »
I went through this myself looking for a single lens to take on hiking trips. The canon 18-200 was a clear winner, but be warned that sharpness from any super zoom is nowhere near a great zoom like the 17-55 or any of the 70-200's.

It is also the worst lens that I have ever used for "lens creep". Mine has a rubber band from a head of broccoli as a permanent feature to keep it under control. Also, this lens does NOT play well with teleconverters.

I made the same choice a few years ago, thinking I could live with a little lower IQ and take more pictures since I wouldn't have to swap lenses.

Now, my 18-200 pretty much sits in the bag. It's not a bad lens when you take into account its range, and I have used it to get some nice shots. It just doesn't hold up to my other lenses. I've gone back to shooting with primes for the most part, the same way I shot back in the FD days.

It is convenient to have the range, and I haven't gotten rid of it. I just don't use it as much as I thought I would. It might be something to borrow/rent (if that's possible) to get a feel for it before buying. If I had to go back, I think I would have put the money toward a 200mm 2.8 L and stayed with my kit lenses for zooms.

56
Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens
« on: March 27, 2013, 12:26:58 PM »
Has anyone compared the 40 to the non-IS 35mm 2.0? I already have the 35, so the 40 would seem redundant. But if the AF, sharpness, etc. is much better I would think about replacing the 35 with the 40. I'd be giving up a stop though.

Thoughts?

57
It will only produce better IQ if the lenses improve.  Once it does arrive you will hear on these forums about how soft it is.  This will be due to lenses and not the camera.  Even with the MK II lenses, the images will be softer and the complaints will start.

I think instead of focusing on 135, they should expand into larger formats where the extra MP will be of more use.  Makes no sense for the sensors to out resolve any of the lenses currently in production.


I'm not so sure about that. Are people with an 18 MP 7D complaining about the softness of the MK II lenses? If you made a full frame sensor with the same pixel density of the 7D, you'd be around 47 MP (unless my source on that is off).

A crop from the center of a big MP sensor would look much like what 7D shooters ( and I suppose anyone with a decent 18 MP APS-C body) are shooting right now. I know there are a lot of complaints about that sensor, but none that I have heard have to do with it making high end glass look soft.

Maybe my logic is off there, but I don't think you'd be pushing it with the newer lenses.

58
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.


59
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.

60
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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7