211
Site Information / Re: In Sympathy for CR Guy
« on: July 17, 2012, 01:27:33 PM »
Really sorry to hear about that. Take a break if you need one.
May 19, 2013, 06:54:00 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.
212
EOS Bodies / Re: AF Point Color on the 5D Mark III & 1D X Update [CR2]
« on: July 14, 2012, 02:14:55 AM »Use the single shot blink red option, and you don't need to worry.
I looked for something like this in both the manual and in the menu, but couldn't find it. How do I change it?
213
EOS Bodies / Re: AF Point Color on the 5D Mark III & 1D X Update [CR2]
« on: July 13, 2012, 06:48:21 PM »
Effectively, they add $1000 worth of improved auto focus... and then make one little mistake that renders the improved AF handicapped in numerous situations.
[SMH]
[SMH]
214
EOS Bodies / Re: Any actual photographers out there?
« on: July 08, 2012, 02:16:30 AM »
One of the great things about photography is that people of minimal artistic talent or experience can have a great time doing it for very little (or no) money. It's like softball... you don't need to be good or take it seriously to have fun.
215
EOS Bodies / Re: LightRoom...HELP!
« on: June 24, 2012, 12:47:20 PM »
+1 for Lynda.com
Lightroom can be difficult to learn. The develop tools are relatively straightforward. But Lightroom is fundamentally a workflow program... and that's where much of the difficult learning is.
Lightroom can be difficult to learn. The develop tools are relatively straightforward. But Lightroom is fundamentally a workflow program... and that's where much of the difficult learning is.
216
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 17, 2012, 10:35:31 AM »
While it's always appreciated to see example shots, I think we should be able to agree that one person's images don't make a definitive argument for or against a lens.
Even DxO is controversial.
Even DxO is controversial.
217
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 16, 2012, 01:03:58 AM »I don't know..but somehow i'm not too excited about this lens..It's "specialized" in a way to me..14-24 is a small zoom range and it is VERY wide. Yes, it will fit in nicely with the zoom trinity..but that also means you'll have to carry around super heavy f2.8 glass with a equally heavy FF body...
That was one reason why i didn't go 16-35 and went for 17-40...i wanted a wide yet light enough lens to be a nice walkabout lens as well in times where i'm not specifically going to shoot landscapes.
Personally, I wouldn't say 14-24mm is a tiny range. It could replace a 14mm and a 24mm in many shooter's bags (as is the case with the Nikon 14-24mm). But the range is narrow enough (and wide enough) that it might not pair up as well with other lenses, as a 16-35mm or a 17-40mm does.
I'm guessing a price of at least $2500.
What's this about Canon/Nikon patent swap rumors?
218
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Film is still hard to beat
« on: June 09, 2012, 06:15:41 PM »
For ideal circumstances, where resources and flexibility are not an issue, film is the best.
For everything else... digital.
For everything else... digital.
219
Lenses / Re: Looking for travel zoom
« on: June 09, 2012, 06:13:32 PM »
If I needed range beyond 135mm, I would go with a 70-200mm f/4, paired with either a 17-40mm f/4 or a 35mm f/1.4.
If I didn't need anything beyond 135mm, I would go with a 24-105mm f/4 and a 135mm f/2.
I also feel that the 24-105mm f/4 is the single most versatile lens in the Canon lineup, unless you need distance, in which case the 70-200mm lenses are more versatile.
For on-the-go shooting, I swear by my Lowepro SlingShot.
If I didn't need anything beyond 135mm, I would go with a 24-105mm f/4 and a 135mm f/2.
I also feel that the 24-105mm f/4 is the single most versatile lens in the Canon lineup, unless you need distance, in which case the 70-200mm lenses are more versatile.
For on-the-go shooting, I swear by my Lowepro SlingShot.
220
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dm3 Grainy Images?
« on: June 06, 2012, 02:05:49 PM »
If all three bodies have the same problem, it's almost certainly a software-related issue.
I've been seeing some noise and grain in my shots too, and I also use LR, so I'm guessing LR is the culprit.
If Aperture isn't having this noise/grain issue, would it make sense to convert RAWs with Aperture and do the rest of the processing in LR?
I've been seeing some noise and grain in my shots too, and I also use LR, so I'm guessing LR is the culprit.
If Aperture isn't having this noise/grain issue, would it make sense to convert RAWs with Aperture and do the rest of the processing in LR?
221
Lenses / Re: Which 3 Primes to go for. Your advice will be appreciated
« on: June 05, 2012, 03:53:47 AM »
I would recommend starting by picking the ONE lens that gets you most excited. For some it is the dreamy 85L. For others it is the amazing versatility of the 100L macro. For many it is the all-around magic (and bargain) of the 135L.
Pick that one lens, and then work the rest of your quiver around it. Don't get fooled into thinking that three lenses will ever give you perfect coverage. Because they won't. The reason why you got so many responses is that choosing lenses ALWAYS requires a compromise, even for those who have every lens (and sherpas to carry them).
Let's say you choose the 100L as your most exciting prime. In that case, it would probably make sense to decide between 24/50/100 or 24/100/180. If you went with that last one, I think most everyone on here would agree that it would make sense to get the 70-200 instead of the 180.
Aside from that, I usually just ditto what neuro says.
Pick that one lens, and then work the rest of your quiver around it. Don't get fooled into thinking that three lenses will ever give you perfect coverage. Because they won't. The reason why you got so many responses is that choosing lenses ALWAYS requires a compromise, even for those who have every lens (and sherpas to carry them).
Let's say you choose the 100L as your most exciting prime. In that case, it would probably make sense to decide between 24/50/100 or 24/100/180. If you went with that last one, I think most everyone on here would agree that it would make sense to get the 70-200 instead of the 180.
Aside from that, I usually just ditto what neuro says.
222
Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« on: June 04, 2012, 05:07:29 PM »I had to sell my ESL hybrid set-up to fund some of my lense obsessions, right now It's an all cone set-up on mains; but Modular, since I can only afford a HT set-up, so the dedicated Music set-up had to go. I design my own speakers/ enclosures and tweak my power amps. I have 4 modded Luxman M-117's bridged to power 4 15" subs. 2 are TC subs (16Hz to 50Hz) and 2 are jbl Cinema woofs (50Hz to 250Hz) . The mids are B&C 6md38's (250Hz to 3kHz) and the tweets are Vifa XT-25's 3 per channel. The Center channel are Martin Logans (for vocals) and the surrounds are Bose 901's. A Krell KAV-250a powers the mids/ highs and an Adcom 545ii powers the centers. I used to upgrade and sell Adcome 555's a few years back when I had time. Brings back memories...
Wow. That's inspiring.
223
Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« on: June 03, 2012, 09:35:24 PM »
ET: Woah... incredible setup! I definitely lost my 20KHz hearing a long time ago. But I can still feel a 20Hz bass when it's cranked up. :-)
I also dig all of that late 60s/70s JA stuff. If you're ever looking for mixes (mostly mp3s, alas), check out my @ericjnord Twitta acct. I post lots of mixes in all sorts of genres. I'm what's known as a person with a music problem. ;-)
I feel lucky that my obsession with photo quality hasn't infected my audio needs: I still have the same Adcom/Paradigm setup I bought as a kid back in the 80s.
K-amps: Ah, didn't know about the highs. Sounds like a cool setup.
I also dig all of that late 60s/70s JA stuff. If you're ever looking for mixes (mostly mp3s, alas), check out my @ericjnord Twitta acct. I post lots of mixes in all sorts of genres. I'm what's known as a person with a music problem. ;-)
I feel lucky that my obsession with photo quality hasn't infected my audio needs: I still have the same Adcom/Paradigm setup I bought as a kid back in the 80s.
K-amps: Ah, didn't know about the highs. Sounds like a cool setup.
224
Lenses / Re: Bokeh...is the look getting dated?
« on: June 03, 2012, 05:57:00 PM »Dirtcastle,
Cones vs. Electrostatics? - really?
Vinyl on good electrostatics will floor you
ET
No doubt... electrostatic is amazing. I can't deny that. :-)
For super clean theatrical/classical/movie stuff, I would give the nod to electrostatic for accuracy and low noise/distortion. Most of the music I listen to is extremely bass-heavy, hip hop, funk, reggae, dubstep, etc. Cones are still the standard for bass music, if I'm not mistaken. Plus, the recordings don't necessarily "sound" better on super high end speakers. A lot of the music I listen to has been intentionally degraded and/or is expected to be played on systems that will distort the music and sacrifice large swaths of the sound spectrum. Lots of bass music sounds different at different volumes, because of the distortions. And that's not always a bad thing.
Ideally, I would go with a "mixed" setup... both electro and cone (and maybe even a true mix of cone subwoofer with electrostatic satellites). But I'm pretty easy to please, actually. I've got 20 year old cones that do me just fine.
225
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?
« on: June 01, 2012, 02:05:54 PM »I wonder what F stop our eyes have?
The range is aproximately f/3.2 - f/8.
Yep, I find the bokeh of my eyeballs to be quite displeasing, too.
lol.
I have thought about the same issue. I think over the past 5 years photography has become more and more popular, not because of technology but because of social media and their inclusion in phones. I feel that basic point and shoot will be come extinct and a higher end NON DSLR will take its place. However this has made high end photography more valuable because of the intrinsic increase in photography itself recently and because most of these newer picture takers take really horrible pictures. Like the typical "look a me and my crew at the latest club" etc. It makes no sense to have a point and shoot cam and a phone. Phones will have better cameras because it is now a primary purpose and buying decision of a high end phone because it is more convenient and better to have it there because of social media and comms. There seems to be emerging more and more interest in higher end consumer cams for those consumers who dont want to be bogged down with learning and carrying a DSLR. These newer cams are cooler and smaller than entry level DSLRs. Those who want the use the best lenses /sensors must continue to use DSLRs (Semi Pros and higher). THe link to those golf pics i really dont see these as anything great. These are Ideal conditions (lighting, subjects etc), where DSLR excels are in difficult conditions.
Even if DSLRs become a smaller percentage of the camera market, the absolute number sold will continue to rise with the popularity of photography overall. Photography has become much more accessible and the artform is gaining appreciation as more people participate in non-professional photography. While it's true that DSLRs are "for pros", and pros will always be a small and limited group... the number of aspiring pros and serious hobbyists will continue to rise.
I can attest to the fact that I am one of those people who found older digital and film technology to be an obstacle to enjoying photography. This made me less inclined to do ANY type of photography. But with the new digital technologies at all levels, it encouraged me to climb the ladder up to DSLRs.