March 03, 2015, 11:23:50 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 396
46
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Do you wide-screen frame/crop?
« on: February 22, 2015, 07:08:11 AM »
But i honestly never frame for a specific cropping right away During shooting.

For what I do, I find that this often doesn't work as a "cropped" 2:3 framing is too tight when cut down to 16:9, sometimes 16:10 works a bit better.

For example on the second sample shot with the foal and mare, for 2:3 cropping I held the camera higher so I've got more of a top-down view and less useless space on top and bottom.

PS. Please excuse my capitalisation, the Autocorrection of my Android Tablet drives me nuts.

And some people claim technology is there to simplify our lives :-> ... but I admit I'll never get as natural with iSomethings and Facebook as those youngsters seem to be. Thank the maker I'm old enough to be spared :-)


47
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 22, 2015, 06:24:02 AM »
In LR 6, I would like to see some new filters for star trails photography. Expecially "gap filling" function.

You're trying to discuss features - don't you realize no one cares? Can we please get back to ranting about the subscription model :-p ?

48
Photography Technique / POLL: Do you wide-screen frame/crop?
« on: February 22, 2015, 06:10:22 AM »
I know I have inquired about this before, but I'm still undecided - sorry for that. So I'm asking the regular two contributors :-p to this subforum for another input, it's about framing again. The problem is that imho you have to have this in mind when shooting, and cannot just casually crop around later - or can you?

The one current reason is that I can only think of so many possibilities to squeeze horsies into the viewfinder. Some scenes simply only have boring grassland or sky on top/bottom, and some shots profit from the enhanced sense of direction or space with wide screen framing.

The other reason is that with current displays, 16:9 (with small borders on 16:10) is full-screen and doesn't waste as much space, it's not like we print all shots, do we? And viewing 2:3 on widescreen somehow looks stupid, like trying to put a film into a dslr.

The question are:
  • Is 16:9 too amateurish because all clients/sites expect with 2:3 framing? And real photogs traditionally frame for the native res of their big 100% ff viewfinders?
  • If you frame for wide-screen, do you do additional shots/composures or simply post-crop if it happens to work out (see poll)?

Thanks for any input or discussion on this, after accumulating some 2:3 horsie shots and learning the basics of pressing the shutter button I feel like I need to advance in one direction or another. I even did some pano stiches when the animals were so helpful not to move for some seconds :-)





49
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon 85mm f/1.8
« on: February 22, 2015, 05:42:13 AM »
I know I can easily remove it during post-processing, but I don't wanna see it on the camera screen.

Um, on newer digic5 and later camera bodies there is the in-camera CA correction to take care of this, isn't it?

50
Lighting / Re: Color temperature and light source
« on: February 22, 2015, 05:41:40 AM »
It would be nice if I only have to calibrate for the light source once and then use this color temp for all my photos.

Color. Checker. Passport. DNG. Profile.

51
Lenses / Re: 70-300L mark II soon?
« on: February 22, 2015, 05:18:21 AM »
What's a Kenko?

I've researched it just for you, here's your answer: http://bit.ly/1B2q9SE

52
Lenses / Re: 70-300L mark II soon?
« on: February 22, 2015, 04:25:28 AM »
I've checked a mass of test sites and thinks that the 70-300L should upgraded soon, it's a ”L” after all.

Like the 34L2 :-> ... no, really, L lenses are about *not* being updated like Rebels unless there's a very good reason for it - Canon is rather reliable on protecting their customer's investment in premium gear.

Canon already have the more expensive 70-200L/2.8 and the new 100-400L2. That's one reason why I don't see a reason at all to "update" the 70-300L. If there are to be significant improvements, it would probably end up being bigger, heavier and certainly more expensive - so it would be losing the appeal it currently has.

The combo 70-200 plus TC seem to yield better results at aprox 300

So what? Did you check the price, weight and length of this combination? And you'll get better iq form a 300mm prime still.

The 70-300L is, as all lenses, a compromise - and it's an excellent one. It's not designed for tc use though, that's why Canon didn't even bother to make it compatible with their tcs (you have to use a Kenko 1.4x).

53
Lighting / Re: Color temperature and light source
« on: February 22, 2015, 02:12:33 AM »
Just a theoretical question: imagine a subject being lit by a single light source only in a completely dark room.

You're describing the sun and the earth?

In other words: does the 'correct' color temperature only depends on the light source or also on the (color of the) subject?

My layman's understanding: "yup". That doesn't mean that the color temperature seems subjectively correct or you get accurate color reproduction though (use a Color Checker Passport and dng profile for that).

54
Lenses / Re: so, where is the Canon 35 1.4 II??
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:50:23 AM »
The combined LCA and LOCA (exacerbated by field curvature) on the 35L can be at least 13micrometers towards the outer third of the image which equates to about 3x the pixel pitch of the 50.6MP bodies.

Interesting calculation - we'll see with real life samples of a 5ds and a 35L, if anyone dares to combine them. We might see a 50/1.8 though just for kicks :->

Regarding correction in post processing...  (from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration )

Do note that I didn't say that CA is a good thing(tm), but imho it can be worked around (not: removed or the detail recovered) that I doubt Canon will update a lens for this reason alone. We probably differ in our belief how important a good lineup of L lenses is for Canon and how much they're willing to invest for this, my argument is the lack of a 35L2 vs. the updated 24L2 all those years.

You clowns just don't get it, do you?  Read what privatebydesign wrote; he's one of the most intelligent and well educated members on this board.  What he said is true.

Pdb, do you have a second account :-> ?

55
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mark ii or 70d
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:41:30 AM »
Riiiiight, try tracking a running horse towards you with an outer (non-cross, f5.6 precision) point of the 6d or 5d2 with 4fps and buffer of a couple of seconds. Then we'll talk again on things that can be learned and things that simply won't work or with a keeper rate of 10% :-\
10% rate? Running horse? From experience I can tell you that is poor skill, I never had a keeper rate that low with the 5D II, even with birds.

No, birds is easy, it's the winter fur without contrast or reflections that the 6d refuses to focus on.

Stating from remote diagnosis that this is poor skill (nor camera settings) is of course your prerogative, but it's also presumptuously wrong as I can say in this one case. There is only so much skill you can have when holding an af point on horses' heads that moves towards you. And with this, the pixel-sharp(!) keeper rate is extremely low, the non-cross af system simply fails to pick up any pattern.

And I have to say, boy, I'd like to have your self-confidence, life has to be a lot easier with less doubts :-)

56
Lenses / Re: which telephoto for travel?
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:56:57 PM »
you can use it w/ or w/o the tripod collar.

Which is nice because for only €1300, you don't get a tripod collar with the lens from Canon ... but I won't bitch around, they did include the lens hood so there's good value for you :->

57
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mark ii or 70d
« on: February 21, 2015, 03:52:42 PM »
for anything else I am taking a different body and even the abysmal 5D II.

Riiiiight, try tracking a running horse towards you with an outer (non-cross, f5.6 precision) point of the 6d or 5d2 with 4fps and buffer of a couple of seconds. Then we'll talk again on things that can be learned and things that simply won't work or with a keeper rate of 10% :-\

Of course these 10% have a stellar iq and blow any crop sensor out of the water, but my observation is that people only look at the keepers and quickly forgot about all those shots that were lost due to mediocre equipment.

58
Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: February 21, 2015, 01:47:26 PM »
I and many others use the 100L at MFD handheld, so its not a fallacy.  Perhaps your IS is defective?  Its certainly not easy, you need to hold very still or use high shutter speeds, but it works.

Sure it works, but here's the thing: With the high shutter speed required and holding the lens veeeeeery still, turning IS on makes no or nearly no difference :-) ... but it's simplest to agree to disagree on this and recommend a tripod in any case.

About $130 at new retail separates the 60 from the non-L 100 and the L is almost $1k (plus the lens collar). Used/refurbished is always an option.

Good point there, I didn't look at the price difference - a lot of €€€ for more working distance. Just make sure not to get the lens wet or work outdoors near ground level, I broke my 100 non-L twice due to moisture :-\

59
Lenses / Re: which telephoto for travel?
« on: February 21, 2015, 12:53:47 PM »
Same sharpness as the 70-200f2.8, but black and much lighter.

BLACK!? How could I feel important and pro with a *black* lens?!?! :->

60
Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: February 21, 2015, 12:51:58 PM »
If you are worried about shaking, then you are trying to handhold a Macro shot??  IMHO, only the 100L allows you to consistently handhold the camera at near macro distances due to its hybrid IS.

Oh my, my favorite fallacy - my observation is that IS near 1:1 is next to useless, though it makes soothing sounds so you think it probably does something :-)

As for the non-L (I've got both): It's nearly as fine as the L, but not sealed and a more nervous bokeh which actually can be more interesting than the "boring" smooth L. As the non-L is rather expensive in comparison, I'd go for the L or get the non-L used.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 396