January 31, 2015, 06:50:19 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 - Quasimodo

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 65
481
Software & Accessories / Re: Pixma Pro 9000 II prints are dark
« on: April 09, 2013, 05:19:16 AM »
Very interesting thread. I have the pro 1 myself, but also struggle with the luminocity, even after callibrating with my x-rite i1 Display Pro. As with the OP it always get darker, and I will try to wing it on gefuhl :)

482
Software & Accessories / Re: Bag while I am a "tourist"
« on: April 09, 2013, 03:38:36 AM »
With all that gear I would recommend Gura gear bataflae 26l, used it myself not to long ago on a trip to Thailand and I was very pleased with it.

http://www.guragear.com/bataflae-26l-black/

Thanks, I could not have been happier with it. They even enclose a sort of protective 'fat' to be worked into the material, so that it is more weather resistant. Well, it was put into a unforseen test when I was on a job and it rained quite heavily. The gear was still dry :)

Originally I wanted this English bag, Billingham, but had a hard time convincing my wife that I really needed such an expensive bag, lol. What I like also about it is that it does not look like a photobag, thus you are less exposed from both attention and risk.

483
Software & Accessories / Re: Bag while I am a "tourist"
« on: April 09, 2013, 02:27:27 AM »
Hi

I have been a member of the bag of the month and a closet full of bags showing my excellent standing in the club.  I dropped out of the club about a year ago and need to add to my collection (yes I will sell unused bags).

What I don't have is a shoulder bag (showing my bias) or some sort solution for carrying gear while I am a tourist or doing the limited amount of street photography.  [NB most of my photography is wildlife with big equipment for which a back pack works well]. 

Wonder what recommendation people have, not sure I want to go with a belt system as I envision using the bag/system while touring with my wife.  I hope to carry 5D/6D, 14, 16-35, 24-105/24-70, possibly 70-200 F4 or 70-300 (not the 70-200 F2.8), possibly 100 macro, and flash.  Is this too much?  I could see taking either the 14 or 16-35 but not both.   Thoughts?

Thanks

I love my bag! I bought the Domke F2 Ruggedwear. It is inconspicious (mine is in brown), and it can hold most of the equipment I need for most shooting assignment. It is made of some special material (in my eyes it looks like oilskin). I can hold two pro-bodies, Four or five lenses, three flashes and a st-e2, or reduce the flashes from the side pockets and have more lenses. The strap is comfortable, and it has some type of rubber inside for better grip on your shoulder. Living in Norway it is quite expensive, but I bought it through e-bay from the US for a reasonable price. I also have a backpack for cameragear, but I seldom use it when out shooting.

484
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: April 08, 2013, 03:37:42 AM »
Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can.  ;D
Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.

Is there a fixed agreed-upon trinity for primes and zooms?

Zoom trinity is 16-35 II, 24-70 II and 70-200II

Prime trinity is 35, 85, 135 L lenses.

Actually, it's a matter of preference.

The classical trinity is 35 / 50 / 85.

The classical alternate trinity is 24 / 50 / 100.

But any mix-and-match of wide, normal, and telephoto that works for you is your own personal holy trinity.

Cheers,

b&

I also vote for 35 85 and 135 for prime trinity :D although sigmas take the first 2 spots in mine

Ok, nice to know. I am basically there already in focal lenght, except the 24-70 II, but untill that, the 24-105 will do :)

485
Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom
« on: April 07, 2013, 03:21:04 AM »
Having the trinity for both zooms and primes is the way to go, if you can.  ;D
Zooms for versatility and convenience, and fast primes to get those magical shots.

Is there a fixed agreed-upon trinity for primes and zooms?

486
Canon General / Re: print on acrylic or on metal?
« on: March 08, 2013, 05:48:27 PM »
There are many different types of metal to print on. Depends on the picture, but I favour a metal with a somewhat rough finish/texture.

487
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Art Tool or Art Object?
« on: March 07, 2013, 05:12:41 AM »
.
Thanks for the Latour tip, Quas. Looks interesting.

I'm stuck in the past with Jacques Ellul and "The Technological System" kind of thing.

I briefly encountered him while I had my reading of several works on propaganda, but would not say that I know well of his works.

488
Sports / Re: Rowing in from the sun
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:31:35 AM »
The first one is a stunning image! Love the composition, her body posture, and the light!

489
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 05, 2013, 11:15:26 AM »
While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews.

How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses?


You make a fair point.  From the reviews I've read, it appears that each site has strengths and weaknesses:

Roger at LR is king of sharpness data from my perspective, b/c he tests all of LRs stock of the same lens (in some cases, dozens of the same lens).  That trumps most everyone out there for data, but he's not the thoughtful tips/feedback/insights guy that Bryan Carnathan is.  Roger also has (IMHO) massive street cred on being a camera nerd first and a fanboy last.  He'll blow any design out of the water if it underperforms.

TDP -- Carnathan does test multiple copies but not a huge number.  He brings up copy to copy variation when something odd occurs and obtains new glass to verify odd findings.  See his Tamron 24-70 IS and new Mk II 24-70 reviews -- fishy stuff came up and he itemized the differences.

Further, his site is more of a broad read of useability and his personal (though admittedly expert) take on things.  His site excels at fun image-level comparisons of all the lenses taking the same shot (or test page) from a tripod, and then allowing you to mouseover to see what's going on:  L vs. non-L vs. Sigma, aperture, ISO, etc.

I read his site fairly religiously for all-around reasons.  It's thoughtful, useful commentary from a knowledgable user.  But his is a world of insight and adjectives -- it's not a lab-like mountain of details.

Photozone has the most nicely broken down sharpness data that I can read easily.  They have middle/border/extreme resolution data for many focal lengths on a zoom, and they report it for most common apertures selected.  Very helpful.  This is a site opens your mind a bit as you tend to comparison shop.  At a site like this, you see non-L glass punching its weight brilliantly against L glass if you stop it down just a shade.  Big limitation?  I believe it's only one lens they test.

DXOs interesting angle is having combinatorial data of bodies + lenses.  No idea how many lenses they actually test.   I don't read this site much as DXO has (groan) their own metrics on their own hardware that I haven't bothered to learn how to read.  I still don't understand their data fully.

I don't read DPreview reviews as they require a dozen page turns to get ad views.  Fail.  They are wasting my time versus their competitors.

I don't read Ken Rockwell much, but my goodness, if you want a fine detail about metal vs. plastic, if the front element rotates during focusing, how many points on the sunstar created when stopping down, etc. then he's your guy.  Absurd little details for the nerdy camera lover.  TDP has some of this, too, but it's inconsistently reported from review to review.

For me, I trust:

  • TDP for everything but data -- it's just there, easy to find, and thoughtfully explained.
  • Roger at LR for hard sharpness numbers.  End of story.
  • Photozone for quick, easy comparison of two lenses I might be considering

- A

Thank you for answering the question, and in such an informed manner. :)

G

490
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 05, 2013, 02:15:05 AM »
While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews.

How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses?

For me personally I like my 24-105 and my copy delivers sharp pictures and is a great lens (apart from a sliding movement of the inner barrel when carrying it around (easily fixed by strapping on a plastic/rubber ring that girls wear around their arms, bought in accesorize)). I also believe that the F4 vs. F2.8 is somewhat less of a showstopper now that the latest cameras have had great improvements in ISO, which also speaks for the new 24-70 IS. To me, the incrimental improvement in sharpness vs. the one I know and like is too small to justify such an investment. If the 24-70 II were to drop in price.....

491
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:55:14 PM »
Not a wholly unflattering portrait of a lens. Yes price seems a little high for what you get but I am sure the little Japanese guys at canons advertising and marketing department know more than I do so they obviously think there is a market for this lens. I also assume the 24-105 will soon go the way of the dinosaurs or well see an update to that lens (I'd actually be really interested in that) probably at a much higher price point. Fwiw there seems to be little reason to buy this lens unless you have red ring envy or really care about weight, the tamron is cheaper, faster, and also has IS.

+1

492
Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
« on: March 04, 2013, 01:53:53 PM »
I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.  ;)

Well... Residual Spherical abborations, focus shift, soft @ F 4, and a not so compelling price.. I'll hold on to my 24-105 for a while longer. A lens that continue to deliver. ;)

494
Lenses / Re: Lens purchase strategy
« on: March 03, 2013, 06:08:43 PM »
While I do appreciate your thoughts and position, there is something inherent pragmatist in your reasoning. Did I really need the 8-15 or the Siggy 35 that I bought this Christmas??... Probably not, but I have to feed the dreamer within, and thus great pleasure in lying awake at night mentally constructing the great shot I hope to take. I not only have what I need, but what I might potentially need; if I was a better photographer than what I am! :)

Dreaming is key and I will not gainsay its importance in any creative endeavor. We will still be etching reliefs on the walls of caves if we didn't dream.

My comments were just directed at those who go after artificial marketing gimmicks that say "you need to have this cohesive grouping of UWA lenses" or this “trinity” of portrait lenses or this  be-all-end-all zoom for sports and everything else under the sun (yes, I am looking at you 70-200 f2.8 II fanboys ;)).

I hear you.

Fetischism (not sure about the spelling here, but understood in a Marxist way) is a part of all serious debates, whether it is photo, guns, cooking or... The secret is balance.. I convinced myself once that I HAD to have the 17mm TS, but today I would rather have had the 14L II. But who knows. Maybe one day I might use it, apart from the obligotary use now ;)

495
Lenses / Re: Lens purchase strategy
« on: March 03, 2013, 04:12:53 PM »
There is a "completionist" mentality amongst some of us...where we want most of the red rings even if our shooting style does not support the lusted-after purchases. Canon of course will gladly take our money; I think Canon has some of the best marketing strategist working for them.

I bitterly complain about weight here in the forum...being mostly a people photographer, someone like me even lusting after the 600L is just plain silly... And I don't. My shooting style doesn't require it, even if I could afford it, it is highly unlikely I would be able to carry it, or appreciate its full worth. It is clearly a superb product, but it is best left in the hands of those who will use it to it fullest extent.

I would be a completionist if I wanted the supertele just to have this range "covered"...how often have we heard similar refrains in so many guises?  "Oh I need the ultra wide range covered...don't have a sharp lens there"...

 The fact some of us shoot landscapes now and then does not make us a landscape specialist who needs to lust after the 14-24 L that doesn't even exist yet! The fact we took a semi acceptable picture of the tufted titmouse that visited our bird feeder doesn't make us a bird photographer who needs to lust after the 400 f/2.8 IS II.

Completion-ism also drives us to collect or strive toward artificial groupings like Canon's "holy trinity"...if you choose 35L as a standard then there is perhaps a case to be made for getting the 85L and 135L.... There is enough spacing between them. But say if you truly loved your 50mm as your standard?  Then the 35L is not that far, so most chose either it or the 50L. But here is the kicker...in this case, some recommend that you add the 24L instead to complete an alternate "trinity" along with the 85 or perhaps the 135L.

Onerous as the original holy trinity concept is, at least it losely encompassed the classic portrait lenses... yes, even the wider 35mm. But how applicable is 24L on a routine basis to people photography? You could argue that you take street shots with 24L, and surely 14L can take pictures of people...but that is not the most common use for these wide-angle lenses. This alternate grouping straddles disparate styles of photography unlike the original somewhat "cohesive", albeit still artificial grouping.

And why stop at a trinity? Why not a "penta-perfect?" or "super-six?". Or instead of the holy trinity...I'll make something up here...how about we stop at the "divine duality?" Say, 50L and 135L? ;)

So "completionism" makes us invent artificial grouping; like a hapless magpie, it goads us to collect things we do not need, use frequently, or employ to their fullest ability.

Stop the madness and look at your shooting style first; get the best lens you can afford in that range. Strive or dream about updating to the highest quality lens in that range as finances allow over time. Dump the idea you need an L in every single focal range that ever existed.

While I do appreciate your thoughts and position, there is something inherent pragmatist in your reasoning. Did I really need the 8-15 or the Siggy 35 that I bought this Christmas??... Probably not, but I have to feed the dreamer within, and thus great pleasure in lying awake at night mentally constructing the great shot I hope to take. I not only have what I need, but what I might potentially need; if I was a better photographer than what I am! :)

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 65