Messages

481

Lenses / Re: B+W Filters compared to Promaster Filters?

« on: May 19, 2012, 10:00:13 AM »

B&w are my Filters of choice. You buy them once for a lifetime.

I dot not trust my image quality to anything less than the Germans!

Interesting! I thought this was a Canon rumor site?

482

Lighting / Re: Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT - I'm impressed!

« on: May 17, 2012, 01:56:15 AM »

Really happy to hear that you all are impressed with the new flash, as I am getting mine on Friday:) The obstacle I was afraid of (given that I don't have the money now to switch all the previous gear (I have a 430 EX II, 580 EX II, and a ST-E2)) was that it could not be controlled by the st-e2. According to the people in Canon, and in the camera store that I have spoken to, it is not a problem for this flash to be controlled by the st-e2. This is great news for me, which gives me the opportunity to upgrade my gear at my leisure:)

Can't wait to get it.

Does anyone in here have a good tip for a lightweight and strong stick? monostick? (don't know the english word) to handhold a softbox or umbrella up high?

483

EOS Bodies / Re: Video-disabled Canon EOS - would you buy one, if offered?

« on: May 14, 2012, 06:45:09 PM »

From a marketing point of view I think the video capabilities are a product of the 90's convergence 'ideology'. I think that both the still and videocapabilities are brilliant. However, IMHO, there seems to be two different kinds of people who buy those cameras for different purposes. I know several people who bought the 5D II for filmproduction (and they never use it for stills, but were so impressed with its videocapabilities at the low price point. On the other hand, most of my friends, myself included only use the camera for stills. Speaking only for myself, the reason I do not shoot video with it (the 5D II) is because I am not good enough, and the lack of AF makes it hard, given that you must know where people are going to move and be positioned - to be able to use any fun apertures... I would be happy to have video capabilities if they could provide me with AF, thus giving me the opportunity to use all my expensive glass for other than stills.

484

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My first wedding Help!

« on: May 07, 2012, 05:52:51 PM »

with that kit i'd have the 50-150 on the camera all day...

+1
The 50-150. is going to be your bread and butter. It's really hard to catch a facial expression or feel close to the action with a 17-55mm. The only time I would use that is for large groups if you can't get far enough back or for a few establishing shots during the ceremony.

I have a 17-55, love it. But when I shoot weddings, it doesn't see much action.

Sorry, but this is really bad advice, you should be working mainly in the 50mm full frame range (around 30mm on your 60d).

I don't mean any offence, but most of the folks on here are not pro wedding photographers, you might be better asking this question on a forum that is aimed more at that sort of person.

More importantly, you need a spare body.

IMHO the people who has adviced here, myself included have not pretended to be something they are not:) I looked at your pictures, and they are great.

I think the case as it was with me, many people are short on money with all the expenses for a wedding, and in that situation they tend to ask friends who they know shoot pictures more or less well to do it as a favour. It is not because we want to do it, but rather out of an obligation to friends. Alcohol, food, music and other things are expensive, but soon forgotten, while the pictures who will live on is the place many unfortunately feel it's okay to save money...

485

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My first wedding Help!

« on: May 07, 2012, 01:24:18 PM »

just wanted to give an example of the kind of fill shots I talked about (I don't want to publish photos I took of people without their content, hence the food pic).

Another shot you might want to think about is during the speeches. In Norway it is not uncommon for both the groom and the bride to speak to eachother. In these shots you need to think about positioning of yourself, and aperture, so you get both the one speaking and the one being spoken to. If you get to catch this situation and the reaction the speech provokes to the listener, is in my opinion great, - although I had to climb over other guests to get it:)

486

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My first wedding Help!

« on: May 07, 2012, 09:32:08 AM »

Hi i am new to this forum and i was hopeing you guys/girls experianced in wedding photography could help me and share some of your advise. I have agread to do the photography at a friends wedding as they have a small budget, i was full of confidence to start with but as the day gets closer i am getting more worried about messing the hole thing up.

I have a 60d with grip, 17-55 f2.8, 50-150 f2.8 sigma & 50 f1.4, 430ex ii, 580ex ii.

I was going to use aperture priority with auto iso so i only had to worry about the aperture to use.

I would be realy great full if you guys would share what settings you would use for bride & groom shots and group shots etc, also what lenses would you use and when if you had my kit i.e 17-55 for candid shots of guests? 50mm for bride groom shots, 50-150 in the church etc etc.

Many thanks for your help in advance!!!

I was in the exact same situation as you are now a few weeks ago. They had a hired professional for the formal shots, but I took the rest. I was so nervous to not get the good shots, that I ended up with 48GB (shooting full jpg and Raw on my 5D II). After deleting the unsharp pictures, they were left with 1422 pictures to select from.

My tip is twofold; One, talk to them and ask them what shots are importent for them to be left with (do they want process shots, the bride dressing up, and such?), pictures of all the speeches?, and the list goes on.
Second, try to get the most important shots before you loose the light.. The better part of my unsharp pictures were the ones where I had to use a flash, but then again its hard to push for the wedding waltz before dinner because of your lighting situation;)

I also, not discussed with them before, took quite a bit of pictures that might provide a good fill in a wedding album (pictures of food, - for instance the waiters placed all the food on a big table before serving, so they can deliver fast. I took pictures of that) pictures of the roses or flowers, the rings on the invitation. The list goes on.

Hope this helps.
 

487

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 07, 2012, 08:49:34 AM »

I am about to buy a 85mm, and the 1.2 is out of the question due to the price, and also out of the question are the manual focus only lenses. The Photozone.de rates the Canon very highly, and the Sigma low, while the digital picture gives the Sigma a high score. Buying the Canon is much cheaper.

Has anyone tried both these lenses, and which would you go for?

My use will mainly be portrait on a 5D II.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer:) I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site.

The lab tests, specifically MTF tests have a lot to do with the real world, they don't tell the whole picture but they are fairly good. The best indication I've found is simply looking at the-digital-picture.com samples. The person running that site seems to have a huge budget and is willing to buy multiple copies of a lens. I have never been dissatisfied with their tests and the visual comparisons are the ultimate word in testing.

Other websites with lower budgets I've found have inaccuracies about 10%-20% of the time whether that be due to technique or getting a bad copy, which is why it's worth checking multiple reviews, especially for third party lenses. For a third party lens I check at least 3 review websites before I come to any conclusion.

I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

You could assume photozone thinks so. Realistically all 85mm lenses are very good. However, the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 just happen to be epic.

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had?

The Canon 85mm 1.2L has a unique corkscrew focus instead of a lever focus which is very very slow. It's supposed to be for shooting models who know how to pose and stand still.

The Sigma 1.4 focuses as fast as the Canon 1.8 but sufferes from calibration issues, if you can microadjust it properly it can do action just fine.

I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.

That lens has much better focus speed.

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?

You have to correct the raw file in DXO and then you can edit it freely. I don't have any experience using any other method.

Hope that helps.

Indeed it has:) The consensus seems to have been that they are all great, but If I could afford the Sigma, that it would offer the best value for money. I ordered it this morning, so I am looking forward to get to know it well:)

I always read the digitalpicture reviews, but because I am a shallow person;) I truly enjoy the star system of photozone, something the digpic does not have. That said, I do enjoy them too.

488

Macro / Re: Gross me out

« on: May 07, 2012, 08:40:14 AM »

I am adding another, taken with the same lens and camera. I doubt I would have had the guts to use a macrolens for this shot, had it not been for the protective glass between me and the snake:)

489

Macro / Re: Gross me out

« on: May 07, 2012, 08:37:08 AM »

I've been told by a few people that this gives them "the willies".



Shot this wolf spider with a 60D and 60mm macro.  No fancy focus stacking or anything like that.

EDIT: Looks like this forum downsizes pictures with no option to "click and see full size" (a little odd for a photography site) so here's a link to the 1200 pixel version http://www.deviantconstrictors.com/assets/galleries/328/IMG_3924.JPG

Brilliant:) I took my first shot of this kind yesterday. He or she was no bigger than 1/2 cm from tail to head. I shot it with a Canon 100 F2.8L HIS USM on my 5D II. The picture has been cropped quite a bit, but it is okay for webresolution I think:)

490

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 07, 2012, 05:00:56 AM »

Thank you all for your kind  and insightful input. I have now ordered the Sigma lens. I am looking forward to using it:)

491

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 06, 2012, 02:46:14 PM »

I am about to buy a 85mm, and the 1.2 is out of the question due to the price, and also out of the question are the manual focus only lenses. The Photozone.de rates the Canon very highly, and the Sigma low, while the digital picture gives the Sigma a high score. Buying the Canon is much cheaper.

Has anyone tried both these lenses, and which would you go for?

My use will mainly be portrait on a 5D II.

Photozone without question got a bad copy of the Sigma 1.4. They show the boarder and corner performance to be lower than almost any Canon lens out there, yet if you look at any of other comparison online it has fantastic corner performance. For example they show the Sigma has worse boarder performance than the 24-105mm yet it has substantially better performance.

The Sigma 1.4 is an earth shatteringly fantastic lens, it is unimaginably sharp and has some of the best bokeh out there. Also a big plus is that it has much lower purple fringing than the Canon 85mm 1.2 II L, on top of that it is noticably sharper wide open, and is sharper overall stopped down (mid frame sharpness) , and focuses noticably faster. The only downsides are slightly higher lateral CA and slightly worse extreme corners stopped down (though overall sharpness is better stopped down again), and vignette that creeps up slightly quicker, though the corner darkening is equal.

I got the Sigma 1.4 over the Canon 1.2 II - Purple fringing and wide open sharpness were the main motivations there. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is also better than the Canon 85mm 1.8 in every single little way except for focusing speed and some very minor additional lateral CA which is a non-issue.

Simply put the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is one of the best lenses out there and is on another level compared to the Canon 85mm 1.8, 1.2 or 1.2 II.

Also I highly recommend getting DxO's software to correct purple fringing, you have to turn the settings to maximum but this lens has just enough purple fringing to be corrected at maximum settings by the DxO software. The Canon 1.2 II had more than the maximum that DxO could correct.

I have seen some very significant copy varriation though but I got lucky with my first copy. Even if you have to return a few it's more than worth it though, this lens will impress you.

Thank you Radiating for your detailed answer:) I have seen after looking at some of the discussion in here where there are so many professional photographers, that the controlled laboratorie tests of photozone and the like might not bear enough resemblance to the field aquired knowledge of this community, hence my question and not following the rating of that site. I also was a bit surprised that they did not include the 1.8 into the discussion, but rather compared it to the much more expensive 1.2. That is also an indication that it is on a different level?

I borrowed the 1.2 for a couple of weeks, and I did not like it much. I think maybe that it might be the best lens for those who shoots with models in a studio, with experienced subjects who can be still. My experience was that the autofocus was too slow for my shooting style and situations. I also think that the AF was a tad nervous, in the sense that it was hunting; but again that might have been the copy I had? I also borrowed the 50 1.2 and I never had that issue, a lens I find brilliant, although I have the 1.4 myself.

If I get the DxO sofware (I am quite inexperienced with postprocessing of images, and slowly trying to get into photoshop), can it be used as a plug-in to CS5 or is it a standalone program. If the latter, will you first correct the raw in DxO, and then import it into CS?

492

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 06, 2012, 11:43:33 AM »

I have the 85 1.4 sigma and if its in your budget then Its a fantastic lens
It is my favourite portrait lens 9 circular aperture blades make for excellent bokeh and blur

I think I am ordering it tomorrow:) On the photozone.de page they write in the conclusion that: " The amount of bokeh fringing (LoCAs) is on the high side though so you may spot some colored out-of-focus halos in critical situations. ". Someone in here suggested that this might be solved by the use of a good UV filter. In your experience, would an expensive UV filter like one from B&W help with this? And finally, have you had any problem with this, and if so, is it an easy fix in photoshop? (I have the CS5 extended).

493

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 06, 2012, 02:15:16 AM »

I would love to be shadowed by a guy with all that gear while shooting a wedding

LOL, I hear you. I did not start shooting before the official photographer was done, and I actually had to make a point of it to the groom, pointing out that it would be rude to the professional if I kept shooting over their shoulders:)

Is it just me or is that sigma shot have nothing in focus? it's just that i'm on my laptop, and usually everything looks really great, even when it's not, yet that... 

I think that might have been the shooters; - me, fault.

494

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 04, 2012, 11:46:11 AM »

I guess the 5D3's CA lens correction thing really helps the 85m f1.8 then…
i personally don't use the 85mm much so i couldn't justufy getting the Sigma when i got the 1.8 at about USD300 used and even at 1.8 (which is use very often when i use the lens), i don't get the purple or green tint..I wouldn't say it's a super sharp lens but it's very worth the money and unless you are going to use 85mm alot..i don't see how spending so much more for the Sigma or the 1.2 makes monetary sense

I've also heard that the 5D III does correct for a lot in the camera. As far as monetary sense or not (this is not my occupation, but I do some small jobs now and then) I think for me all camera expenses are justified for my utter joy of taking pictures.  I was shooting a wedding (after the paid photographer had taken the official shots during the ceremony), and I did it as a favour to a friend (I was also a guest). I had brought my 135 F2.0, 70-200 F2.8 II, 16-35 F2.8 II, 24-70 F2.8, and finally my 50 F1.4. Everything was fine, but I sensed that the 135 was too long for many of the shots, and afterwards I felt that 85 would be a good range lens while moving between people.

495

Lenses / Re: Canon 85 1.8 vs. Sigma 85 1.4

« on: May 04, 2012, 11:37:46 AM »

Adding also a shot and a 100 percent crop with the Sigma of the guy in the store.