March 01, 2015, 10:49:58 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 - Policar

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 31
196
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: mini review: Yongnuo 568EX
« on: April 07, 2013, 02:42:58 PM »
Youngnou is working great. Even the cheapest models are doing its job. Here you definently get the alot of gear for the money.

POLICAR: I would recomend you to also take a look at reflectors. To reflect sunlight with 2-3 reflectors gives the same result, and are probably an easier entry to reach youre goal. You see the light with a reflector,and it stays the same all the time. the problem with a flash is that it has to reload, and it is much more tricky to get it right. And even with a flash, to flash on a reflector will be a great gain for outdoor portraits.

Thanks. The issue I see is that most of those portraits are staged in the shade. And so the fill from a reflector would be less than if the subjects were backlit. Would a single flash bounced from a silver umbrella right off-camera provide enough light during the day for fill? I can bring in reflectors, too. We'll have a full grip truck nearby (6x6, 8x8, 12x12 ultra bounce and lamé, HMIs, bead board, etc.) but the key here is SPEED. As regards metering and ratios, I can chimp fast.

197
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: mini review: Yongnuo 568EX
« on: April 07, 2013, 12:42:58 AM »

The unit performed flawlessly in all the above-mentioned areas.  For example, the photo below shows my YN-568EX firing in optical slave mode, using ETTL metering, HSS and 8:1 ratio set via the camera menu.  Fantastic!   To obtain the photo below I mounted my 580EX ii master inside an Apollo Orb softbox at camera right.


I have the 580EX II and YN-568EX also.  How did you connect your camera to the 580EX II which is off-camera in Apollo?

ahh -- good catch.  I used Syl Arena's ETTL extension cord from OCF gear.   Both camera and flash think the flash is mounted atop the camera.   ETTL works beautifully

my order for two additional 568EXs just arrived; that took about 9 days.  two 568's and the 580 go in the softox, one 568EX outside for rim or other fun.

Forgive me for the dumb question, but it's pertinent to this thread.

I'm a videographer just getting into flash photography and I want to know where to get started. I recently upgraded to a 5D Mark III and miss having an on-camera flash sometimes... Money is tight but I have some upcoming stills I want to knock out of the park so to speak....

I'd like to learn to shoot family photos like these in the short run and then later I want to get into more complex multi-flash set ups like high fashion stuff. But this is my first assignment:

http://www.sistersavealot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/family.bmp

http://www.dougellisphotography.com/data/photos/73_1family_portrait_pictures_ca.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/7500000/Modern-Family-modern-family-7554980-2560-1920.jpg

Looks like the families are in shade or under a 20x20 solid, catch lights show a large soft source from camera right as the most common set up with no fill or back light. Focal length appears to be long, approaching 200mm, lenses at f4 to f11.

The easiest way to do a cheap approximation of this (I imagine) is a flash bounced into an umbrella from as close to camera as possible... would this be bright enough? How would I trigger the flash in this case (radio received) and would I just figure out my ratio/brightness level/exposure by chimping? I'd like to try to do this with one battery-powered flash. Is this possible if I bring it close and shoot off-camera or would I need a much brighter flash than the Yognuo 560/Canon 580 (my two options).

Lastly, I want to shoot TTL like I did with my old t2i, but this isn't a priority. My options are the 560 II, 568EX, and an old used 580EX. Will I notice any real difference between the three? And for multi-flash set ups how can I trigger them all? For off-camera do they use the same radio receiver? Thanks! Mostly interested in the above style but also in getting into flash photography in general but stressed over having a high-stakes paid (low pay, high stakes) shoot soon.

198
It's very cheap. Relative to a $50k budget for a short or $1 million for a very low budget feature it's nothing to rent something like this.

If you want it and can't afford to buy it, rent it. Footage looks fine, but not quite "great" yet. I'd love to use one of these and plan to rent one for a few projects if I can. If these become popular so will ultra small cameras (1DC, etc.) perhaps...

199
Similarly, I kinda doubt it'll be lighting equipment. $3k will get you a most luxurious Paul C. Buff studio with multiple Einsteins. I can't imagine the video hot light equivalents being radically more expensive.

They are:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/417447-REG/Arri_563500_Arrimax_18_12_KW_HMI.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/417450-REG/Arri_562814_Arrimax_18_12KW_Electronic_Ballast.html

That's $34,000 for a single light that still needs more parts to turn on. A decent indie-level grip truck has half a million dollars in gear in it.

But more expensive than lights is renting a crew to operate them and a generator truck, etc. I'm not sure any one light could be that big a deal. Some LED kit maybe?

I think it's stabilization, too. I would love to be able to do the kind of moves I see on bigger productions with cheaper gear, but cheap gear is not steady... or handhold a camera without much shake.

200
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice
« on: March 29, 2013, 02:41:50 PM »
Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

I'm weird but I actuall like 100 or 135 :).

I do, too, but it's hard to get enough depth of field. Do you ever do focus stacking? I've been thinking about it. Lenses are so close to orthographic when zoomed in that a tilt/shift seems unnecessary if you do focus stacking.

I don't get why landscapes are so often associated with UWA lenses. I prefer much longer lenses for landscapes.

201
Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice
« on: March 29, 2013, 01:43:23 PM »
Thing about what focal lengths you like before buying.

I like 45mm and 90mm for landscapes, so I would probably go with the 45mm and 90mm TS/E. Most people seem to like wider, but I do feel too wide is cheesy. What does the 17-40mm L lack? The 24mm TS/E should be sharper and I find lens movements essential for landscape, but the flexibility of a zoom is nice.

202
EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?
« on: March 25, 2013, 04:44:22 PM »
iPhone 5 video.

203
EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?
« on: March 25, 2013, 04:43:08 PM »
Straight out of camera, unprocessed:

5D Mark III, neutral, low contrast, 1 sharpening, 17-40mm L at f5.6.

204
EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?
« on: March 25, 2013, 02:33:15 PM »
I don't know about the iPad but under ideal conditions the iPhone is sharper with better resolution than any Canon dSLR, but with less manual control and a worse "look" obviously. But for exterior video in low contrast light in wide shots in some cases it might produce the better image. I wouldn't count on it, though.
LOL I guess you're including the 1DX/1DC in "any Canon DSLR?"  Look the iPhone is great for what it is, but I don't know how you can say that it's better than "any Canon DSLR" with a straight face  In the Zacuto shootout it was painfully obvious which one was the iPhone, I mean the 7D didn't look that much better but definitely not as bad.

You got me on the 1DC. Never used the 1DX so I don't know about that one, either, but I'm guessing it's close based on footage I've seen.

All I said was it's sharper. Nothing about it being better overall... I implied the opposite pretty strongly.

205
EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?
« on: March 25, 2013, 02:03:30 PM »
I've shot my latest film on the 5D3, IMHO the video quality is noticeably better than the 5D2, particularly the noise when pushing the ISO past 800.

Judging video from a still is the wrong approach, also judging video that was shot incompetently vs. video which was properly lit and exposed  is also not a way to judge a camera's capabilities.

Lastly, noise in video is generally much more accepted by the public than noise in still photography. I watch so many DVD and Blu Ray big budget films which look pretty sad in the shadows and darker scenes noise-wise...yet I don't hear many people complaining about how bad the film looked.

Absolutely, but the Mark II and Mark III produce very similar footage (excepting aliasing issues) at low ISOs, with the Mark II arguably having the edge slightly for sharpness (due to false detail) and having a bit less read noise. At high ISOs the Mark III is far nicer, but this isn't that.

Again, the footage posted above is WAY worse than what the Mark III is capable of, and it's also under the conditions that are least impressive with the camera. But the crop taken from a still is better than the camera will ever produce for video.

206
EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?
« on: March 25, 2013, 11:56:01 AM »
When you look at a 2mp frame grab, its going to look bad.  That's true for all digital video cameras operating at 2K.
 
4K is much better, and with 8K, single frames are very nice.
 
Show a frame grab from video of your iphone.

Not true at all. Most cinemas project at 2k. The Alexa produces amazing 2k footage... This K stuff is nonsense.

If I find the time I'll shoot the same subject with my Mark III, C100, and iPhone 5 at similar focal lengths. But I already know what the results will be.

207
EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?
« on: March 25, 2013, 11:08:36 AM »
The video from the Mark III is pretty soft with some chunky noise but that second shot is unusually bad and was either shot or processed wrong to look like that. At best, Mark III footage won't look quite as good as the first frame grab, no matter what you do in post or on set. But it can get reasonably close. I don't know about the iPad but under ideal conditions the iPhone is sharper with better resolution than any Canon dSLR, but with less manual control and a worse "look" obviously. But for exterior video in low contrast light in wide shots in some cases it might produce the better image. I wouldn't count on it, though.

208
Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:52:29 PM »
Thanks. Maybe I'll have to pick one up next time they're on sale. But even $700 is a lot to spend to get slightly better IQ and an extra stop at one focal length I already have covered decently. But it does look like a much nicer lenses for what it does.

The 100mm f2.8 macro is my other most-wanted and it was in stock, too. Hmm.

I agree with your diminishing returns concern.  If you do not need to go the extra stop, I wouldn't do it.  I had to because I was shooting in unacceptable lighting for sports and had to f/2.2, just to keep ISO at 5000.  Only then did I discover how sharp the lens was.  However, that was sort of a by-product for what I was using it.  I agree the IQ gains may not be enough to warrant its purchase. 

The opposite is true on the lower end.  The new 24-70L II zoom lens is better than the 24L, 35L, and 50L stopped down, by what my eye detects to be quite signficant on my files.  In your case, not so dramatic.

The 135mm f2 does seem like a uniquely nice portrait lens, though. I mostly shoot video (with a C100) so I try to find lenses that are useful for both video and stills and both 1x and 1.5x crop sensors, but unfortunately leaning heavily on my video needs means I've amassed a lot of subpar lenses for stills (like the Samyangs, which are useless for stills, and their 24mm f1.4 is just poor optically). The 24-70mm II looks like the lens to have for stills, but for video it's not so nice.

Maybe I'll pick up a refurbished 50mm f1.4 to replace the 50mm f1.8 that has bokeh I can't stand when stopped down, though. Or splurge on the Sigma, which seems rather special. Choices...

209
Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:09:40 PM »
Thanks. Maybe I'll have to pick one up next time they're on sale. But even $700 is a lot to spend to get slightly better IQ and an extra stop at one focal length I already have covered decently. But it does look like a much nicer lenses for what it does.

The 100mm f2.8 macro is my other most-wanted and it was in stock, too. Hmm.

210
Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now
« on: March 24, 2013, 12:38:47 PM »
Passed on the 135 L but sort of regret it. Just for reference, how much better is this than the 70-200mm f2.8 L (non-IS) at 135mm? Is it much smaller? I dislike the weight of the zoom.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 31