April 17, 2014, 12:22:57 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 - Dantana

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
I'd shoot test charts, brick walls, and the inside of my lenscap.

One of these days I'm going to take it as an artistic challenge to make interesting art out of the typical measurebator subjects. Not sure yet how I'll pull it off, though I've got a few ideas....


That's a great idea. It reminds me of a time back in school. We had a list of subjects that were so cliche that they were off limits to shoot. One classmate took it upon himself to combine them all in very creative ways. It was one of the best, or at least most memorable, pieces in the class.

I'd love to see what you would come up with using charts and brick walls and color chips...

Of course not with the last roll of Kodachrome. I think the right person had access to that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d w/ eos remote and tablet connection?
« on: February 28, 2013, 02:40:23 PM »
I have the 6d and Nexus 7.  I have used the eos remote app to view and take shots with the 6d.  Compatibility is great. It just works! hope that helps.

It does :-), though I'm wondering why Canon writes that it isn't guaranteed to work - maybe they only test it on phones and/or the non-adapting resolution is the reason.

Android is open source and device manufactures modify the OS, sometimes significantly (e.g. Kindle Fire), for their own uses.  It's an unfortunate consequence of open source, that it creates conflict issues.  Canon is just covering their butts, any third-party manufacturer would do the same.  One of the pluses to open source, is that if there was a conflict on a popular Android platform you can pretty much guarantee that developers would be on it ASAP.  Go poke your nose in at XDA developers, those guys writing patches to stuff before the average user even knows it's a problem.

I've been working on flashing a custom ROM to my Kindle Fire HD for awhile now just so I could tether it to my camera.  Looks like the 6D may fix that.


I work for a company that develops mobile apps and I can tell you that keeping up with new Android hardware and software forks from device manufacturers really keeps our engineers busy. iOS is much more predictable since only one company is messing with the code. As Skirball says, Canon is just protecting themselves.

Nothing against Android (I have an SIII), developing for it is just complicated. It makes me thankful that I only have to deal with the art side of things.

Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 08:57:46 PM »
I did notice that about 80% of photographers were walking around with a 70-200 F2.8 (canon/nikon/tamron/etc.). For the life of me, I could not figure this out! For my entire trip, I was constantly reaching for my 14mm uwa lens. If that was not on the camera, the 50mm was. I only put my 70-200mm on my camera 3 times over the course of the trip.

And when I look at your photos, what do I see? Uncorrected lens distortion.

Where does lens distortion come from?

UWA lenses that people don't know how to use.

Your photos are a great example of why lots of people don't use wide angle lenses in Yosemite Valley.

Best lens for the Yosemite Valley is arguably 24-70. It would be 24-105 except that the 24-105 is rubbish wider than 28mm.

That's interesting. I see a couple beautiful shots.

Canon General / Re: What am I doing wrong???
« on: February 26, 2013, 03:18:12 PM »
The other posters have some great suggestions and you should give them a try, but when I look at these shots and read your original post, it makes me think of one thing:

You have no DOF and you are shooting a moving child. I'd say that's a huge part of your problem. I know that we all love the separation you get with a shallow DOF shooting wide open, but there are limits to what makes sense. I'd try stopping down a couple stops and see what you get.

I don't think you are seeing blur from the motion as much as the subject moving through the focus point.

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 25, 2013, 01:22:18 PM »
FF does not fit in an RX-1, that's why it has a fixed lens.  The lens includes the optical path for the light to get to the FF sensor.  LEICA = smart engineering and their FF body is the size of the 6D minus the viewfinder.

Your examples prove what I am saying and you are not understanding.  Fixed lenses to accommodate the approximately 35mm or 1.38" optical path minimum required between the FF sensor (35mm film) and the last lens element.  Add packaging for the body case and electronics and you are at around 1.75-2.00 inches minimum for a FF.  Film was easier, you could pretty much have the film slide along the back of the camera, not so with a sensor.

I do understand. We are talking of mirrorless here. No need for a lot of space betwenn rear lens element and sensor plane.

Whether "the light path is built into" a non-interchangeable prime lens stuck unto the body or into an interchangeable lens mounted via a lens mount makes no difference whatsover. Except the first "solution" yielda a dumb, inflexible single focal length camera and the second solution yields a versatile camera-system. :-)

Flange back for Leica M for example is is 27.8mm. I am quite sure 20mm are also doable with some smart microlens array and proper lens-design. And if the rear lens elements would stick somewhat into the camera body, the camera could be as thin as an RX-1 and the lenses could be really slim as well.

And that's exactly what I want.  And what the overwhelming majority of the market wants.

I will definitely NOT waste time and money moving from my current Canon APS-C DSLR plus lens assortment (EF-S, EF) to a Canon APS-C mirrorless plus new lens assortment (EF-M) to finally a Canon FF mirrorless ILC Camera ("EF-really right") with still another lens assortment. No way!

1. I want to skip purchase of another DSLR
2. I want to skip purhcasing any further APS-C cameras
3. I want to move right on to a compact, hi-performance FF mirrorless ILC with
* excellent sensor
* fast contrast+in-sensor-plane Phase-AF
* hi-end EVF
* full ergonomic controls [i.e. 2 wheels! ] 
* at max. 1/3 of the cost of a Leica M system - so basically at the price of Sony RX-1 

The first company to offer this, will be my next camera system vendor. :-)

And World Peace. Don't forget World Peace.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark ii with WiFi/GPS or Without?
« on: February 20, 2013, 12:41:34 PM »
It's interesting that if something new is going to be added to an upcoming camera, there are two reactions:

1. If you think you need it, you refer to it as a feature.

2. If you think you don't, it's a gimmick.

There are plenty of "features" that I will probably never use. Just turn them off. As for the issue of compromising the build quality/seal, I don't think Canon is putting themselves in that position since they are releasing both a 70D and a 7D II. Besides, the 7D already has a pop-up flash. I'm not sure how that can be considered sealed.

EOS Bodies / Re: 2013 Predictions for Canon EOS Products
« on: February 20, 2013, 12:24:41 PM »
The 3D will have eye-controlled focus and a blink-activated shutter. You heard it here first.   :P

But Nikon is working on thought-controlled cameras.....

And the photographer would have to think in Russian?

Is Clint involved in this?

Blast from the past.

Lenses / Re: Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is
« on: February 19, 2013, 06:18:06 PM »
For those that have used both, is there a difference in IQ between both the 70-200's at f4? Is the 2.8 sharper stopped down a stop, or are they about equal?

I have always used Sekonics, though the models that I have used are fairly old and analog (L-28c, L-398), no chance to use them as flash meters for stills and not as convenient as the newer digital meters. Maybe someone else on the board can chime in on personal experience with their newer meters. I was looking at the L-308DC. Specs look good for around $275, but I haven't used it personally.

You might want to rent a meter just to try it out. There is a slight learning curve to setting exposure that way.

You might also try using an incident light meter to see what kind of readings you get. The reflected meter in your camera is taking a guess at what it thinks you want. An incident meter will give you the actual amount of light falling in a specific place in the scene. It's also helpful in setting up your lighting so you can get your ratios to your liking.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better Dynamic Range in a Camera
« on: February 18, 2013, 03:26:04 PM »
There will always be some kind of compromise somewhere, DR, resolution, noise...

There will never be a camera that the number-crunchers think is perfect.

But there will always be popcorn. There is popcorn isn't there? Trade you some Junior Mints?

Black & White / Re: New Member to my Canon Family
« on: February 18, 2013, 12:10:46 AM »

I haven't dove into it too far yet. For around 50$ you can get all the necessary equipment to develop the film plus another 25-30 for chemicals etc, really my biggest expense is a scanner for 35mm film. I can't find a reasonable means of scanning it just yet, let alone how to tweak it to look good before I send it to print.

I might do a blog / write up on my experiences with it and my successes and failures. I find most film photography websites like step by step instructions or any real examples unless its lomo stuff which im not a fan of at all.

If you are going to be developing your own film, I'd look into doing your own printing too. For me, that was the most rewarding part of the process. Used gear should be cheap. You just need the space.

Lenses / Re: Starting Lens Recommendation
« on: February 15, 2013, 03:42:19 PM »
As I said, only my opinion. I am sure there are many learning strategies that would work out just fine. I can only speak from my experience.

I went to school to study film-making (still photography was something on the side) and through film moved on to animation. In retrospect, I'm glad that I went to a smaller school where we had limited and older equipment. I'm glad I learned to shoot on Bolexes that were older than I was, that hand-holding a 16BL wasn't a big thing, and that we didn't have every light at our disposal known to man. I am especially grateful for learning to use an analog incident meter, and for working on film in general. When you can use that equipment, you can use anything. The technical basics become second nature and you can concentrate on the truly important things. We concentrated on look and subject matter and didn't have to think about tech because everything was so basic. The definitely was no green square mode.

I'm also glad that when I went back to school to learn CG, that I had to learn the finer points of classical animation first. If you can make something move with a pencil, then it doesn't really matter what software package you are forced to use later on.

I'm glad that I learned to shoot stills with a hand me down AE-1 and a 50 prime. I'm glad that I learned how to process and print. I still use skills that I learned on analog equipment now that I live in a digital world.

I am grateful for these things because when I got out into the "real world" I found that things don't always work as planned and understanding the root of the craft will get you through most anything. I have seen people who were not taught from the ground up totally overwhelmed when things don't go as planned.

I think learning to shoot with primes is a very valuable experience.

Again, this is an opinion based only on my experience. Again Trumpet, I'm not saying that your approach is wrong. I only know that different paths have different merits.

I apologize for hijacking this thread, and I'll try to refrain from jumping in again.

Lenses / Re: Starting Lens Recommendation
« on: February 15, 2013, 02:29:12 PM »
If you are on a budget, and a student learning photography, I would recommend going the prime route.

I very much disagree.

For one, a single zoom is cheaper than a trio of primes covering the same focal length range.

For another, primes are specialized tools. The only time you want a prime instead of a zoom is when the prime does something the zoom doesn't.

It used to be that that meant image quality, but no more. Many of the lenses with the best image quality are zooms, and some of the lenses with the worst image quality are primes in popular focal lengths. For example, the 20mm f/2.8 -- a perfect medium-wide for APS-C, is one of the most "meh" lenses in Canon's lineup. And the worst lens I've ever owned is a Canon 28 f/2.8, which should be the ultimate normal lens for the format.

It also used to be that that meant speed, but not very much any more. While there are times when you want to shoot faster than f/2.8, those situations are rare and marginal. With the high ISO capabilities of modern DSLRs, you don't need the speed for low light shooting. And razor-thin depth of field effects are a specialist "look" of a certain style of portrait photography.

Now, there are a number of specialist lenses that happen to be primes that are well worthy of consideration. True macro lenses are always primes, for example, and lenses with movements (TS-E) are always primes. Until the 200-400 goes on the market, all the Great Whites are primes. The amazingly diminutive Shorty McForty is a prime. And, yes, the super-fast portrait lenses are all primes.

But each of those lenses has something in particular that it does that a zoom doesn't, and it's for that something in particular that you'd want said lens. When you don't need that something particular, though, the zoom is far superior to the prime, as it's literally a bag full of primes in a single lens for less money.

Some will suggest that the big limitation of a prime -- that you can't change focal length -- is somehow a creative advantage. Bullshit -- with a simple piece of gaffer's tape, your zoom suddenly acquires the exact same creative advantage as the prime. And a two-second adjustment gives your zoom the same advantage as with another prime of a different focal length.

So, rattlit, my suggestion still stands: get the 17-55 (and, if you really think you need it, a $2 roll of gaffer's tape).



Trumpet, I respect your opinion and you make some great points.

Still, I disagree that someone learning photography would be better off with a zoom than starting with primes. I think that the biggest parts of learning to shoot are finding/manipulating light (which doesn't necessarily fit in this discussion) and learning to see the world through your camera. To me having a zoom while you are learning acts as a crutch, and though I love the bit about a piece of gaffers tape, I have a feeling that it would be ripped off at the drop of a hat.

That is just my opinion though. Like I said before, I tend to use an old school approach when it comes to learning. I run a small computer animation department but I always look at a candidate's drawing ability even though that has become quite out of fashion in recent times. To me, that knowledge is important. I feel the same way about learning to shoot. I think the basics are very important. In fact, I would consider having a student start with only a "normal" prime until they know what else they really need, or get some recommendations from their school.

I also don't consider a prime a specialized lens. But that's how I shoot and obviously not how everyone else shoots. Perhaps Trumpet's advice would work out for the best.

Lenses / Re: Starting Lens Recommendation
« on: February 15, 2013, 01:24:09 PM »
If you are on a budget, and a student learning photography, I would recommend going the prime route.

Since you are shooting crop, I would start with the 35 2.0 non IS. Yes it's an older lens and doesn't have full time MF, but I've been very happy with the focal length on a crop body and it's made for some great shots. I don't have any experience with the 40mm pancake, but from what I've read it would be another choice for a "normal" lens.

The 85 1.8 is a great prime and has been living on my camera since I got it for Christmas.

One other lens to consider on the wide end is the 20mm 2.8. I know this lens has a dubious reputation, but I picked one up used last year for a good price and so far I have been pretty happy with it. It's a nice focal length on a crop body.

Since budget is a concern, I would start small and build, with say either the 35 or 40 and the 85, then see what you feel like you are lacking.

I also think that as a student, primes will serve you better than zooms, but then again I have been accused of being fairly old school when it comes to learning.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7