September 23, 2014, 04:55:48 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 - Chuck Alaimo

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 65
331
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: About to drop some $$$ again...lol
« on: September 16, 2013, 01:17:43 PM »
Ty...and yeah, so far the bag kicks butt.  Got to put it to the test at a wedding and at an engagement shoot.  Even on moist grass it rolled just fine.  It really made the day go smoother, and working out of it was a joy.

I am aware that if i get to a point where I am flying, yeah, this bag may be too large.  But - for now i am doing zero flying, so, I'll cross that bridge when i get to it.

Also - I did end up going with the 100mm 2.8  (not the L one) - so far so good with that purchase too.

332
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 15, 2013, 09:34:10 PM »
I have to admit that I have never done any true macro (at least 1:1) photography in my close to sixty years of practicing this hobby.  But I have been thinking I might have some fun with it.  Currently I own no prime lenses (loaned my 50mm 1.8 to grand-daughter, doubtful I will see it again).  I have an EFS 17-55 2.8 (which I love), a 70-200 2.8L II, a 100-400L, and several other lesser quality mid-range zooms (between the wife and I we have three bodies, 30D-hers, 40D and 7D-mine).  Due to a lengthy fall vacation (I'm retired, what am I vacationing from?) where we will visit four National Parks and one National Monument plus a day trip into Canada and a planned mission trip in November to a third world nation, my budget is a little strained. 

Finally to the question.  What do I need?  Would it be wiser to wait until I could afford something like the 100 2.8L Macro ( or other lens suggestion) or should I pop for a set of extension tubes such as the Canon extension tubes (or should I go for something cheaper in the tubes).

Thanks for any advice from those much wiser than I.

Dear Sarge.
I agree with one of our friend  about--First Try the Cheapest Thing , buy The Tube( $ 20 US Dollars) , and try first---And see do you like Macro Photography or not, If Yes, Save your Money and Buy the Used  EF 100mm. Macro First.
Yes, I am the  super/ crazy Geek of my Hobby Photography, When I see a great Macro Picture, past 8 years, I just go to buy Canon EF 100 mm., EF 100 mm L  IS, Ef 180 MM L Macro and MP-E 65 mm. F 2.8 1-5X Macro----Yes, I get a great Macro Photos from Them, The Great Lenses----But, All of my Lenses/ Macro are sit in the Dried Box, and I just use them 1-2 times per months---Such Weste of the Money.
Yes, Just try the  equipment as Less money first, And Learn that You like the Macro Photography or not.
Good Luck.
Surapon

Are you using a star point filter on the jewelry shots?  If yes, I may have to snag one...

Dear Chuck.
No, I do not try to use Star filter on my  Macro Photos yet, But I set The camera at F = 16 for get some star effect from the reflection, Plus I use Photoshop 5.5 to Paint 4 Point star on the Original point of the Real Star.
Yes, Sir, Might be a great Idea to use the star filters for Macro, I have 6 Point stars filter, 9 Point Star filter and Just Order the Tiffen 82 mm. North Star filter for my TS-E 24 mm.  F 3.5 L MK II + the Filter Reducers too.
Yes, I will try and report back to you.
Nice to talk to you.
Surapon

TY for sure man, I think that may add that extra bit of wow to ring and jewelry shots...

333
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 15, 2013, 03:01:09 PM »
I have to admit that I have never done any true macro (at least 1:1) photography in my close to sixty years of practicing this hobby.  But I have been thinking I might have some fun with it.  Currently I own no prime lenses (loaned my 50mm 1.8 to grand-daughter, doubtful I will see it again).  I have an EFS 17-55 2.8 (which I love), a 70-200 2.8L II, a 100-400L, and several other lesser quality mid-range zooms (between the wife and I we have three bodies, 30D-hers, 40D and 7D-mine).  Due to a lengthy fall vacation (I'm retired, what am I vacationing from?) where we will visit four National Parks and one National Monument plus a day trip into Canada and a planned mission trip in November to a third world nation, my budget is a little strained. 

Finally to the question.  What do I need?  Would it be wiser to wait until I could afford something like the 100 2.8L Macro ( or other lens suggestion) or should I pop for a set of extension tubes such as the Canon extension tubes (or should I go for something cheaper in the tubes).

Thanks for any advice from those much wiser than I.

Dear Sarge.
I agree with one of our friend  about--First Try the Cheapest Thing , buy The Tube( $ 20 US Dollars) , and try first---And see do you like Macro Photography or not, If Yes, Save your Money and Buy the Used  EF 100mm. Macro First.
Yes, I am the  super/ crazy Geek of my Hobby Photography, When I see a great Macro Picture, past 8 years, I just go to buy Canon EF 100 mm., EF 100 mm L  IS, Ef 180 MM L Macro and MP-E 65 mm. F 2.8 1-5X Macro----Yes, I get a great Macro Photos from Them, The Great Lenses----But, All of my Lenses/ Macro are sit in the Dried Box, and I just use them 1-2 times per months---Such Weste of the Money.
Yes, Just try the  equipment as Less money first, And Learn that You like the Macro Photography or not.
Good Luck.
Surapon

Are you using a star point filter on the jewelry shots?  If yes, I may have to snag one...

334
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro Photography
« on: September 15, 2013, 02:59:27 PM »
just got my first macro lens in friday.   I went with the 100mm 2.8 --- not the L one, found it used for $439.  For what I do and my style of photography, I just couldn't justify the L version (although, yeah, upon buying the used one I was fully prepared to return it if it didn't work out).  Primary use would be for weddings - for all the little details.  Which also means, working with not the best light most of the time.  Lighting macro shots is not easy, and I need to learn my way around that (with the lens so close to the subject, and using at least f10 I find myself relying on ISO to save the day).  I definitely feel the need to overshoot with it to make sure I get a crisp shot.  Maybe this will pass when I get more used to using it. 

Here's some samples

335
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: September 15, 2013, 01:30:21 AM »
one from a todays wedding --

336
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 15, 2013, 01:17:54 AM »
this one can go in 2 sections.  Here's a ring shot - 6d with the newest lens in the kit...the 100mm macro 2.8 (not the L one!)

337
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: September 14, 2013, 01:29:47 PM »
This really is a fun lens! So far I have managed to not use a tripod with it, as mainly it will be used at weddings, so I am just teaching myself to go handheld steady steady steady hands!!!!

Here's a few more test shots i did this morning!

338
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: September 14, 2013, 02:23:56 AM »
I just snagged this lens today, here's some first day use results...

339
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon goes Medium Format?
« on: September 12, 2013, 05:22:36 PM »


The 6D does not have less buttons because it's full frame.

I didn't imply that ---the 6d has less buttons...nothing at all on the left side (look at the 5d or 7d, and as an owner of both the 6d and the mk3, yeah, I do sometimes wish i had those buttons on the 6d)).  the body is scaled down, but with a FF sensor and a large preview screen - scale he body down and you end up with less real estate to place other buttons and controls.. or you end up putting tiny buttons on the camera which would be a problem for most with normal human sized fingers...lol

And --

"The point of the mirror was to be able to frame your subject without switching the back plate, saving a lot of time and hassle. With digital sensors and live view the whole SLR concept is kind of a moot point (except in action shots where the small amount of delay is detrimental).
I'm pretty sure a lot of people would appreciate not having to haul around something the size of a small microwave oven if they don't have to. Even professionals (especially professionals? The people who would use it most)."

I think there's more to it than just that.  With most lenses, the most stable position is with the camera up to the eye.  Live view is useful for tripod shooting, but for actual shooting...I don't want to be hand holding anything 1 foot in front of me staring at an LCD screen.  I get it and understand it for video, but for stills, the most stable position is not handheld live view....

And again, the view from an EVF just looks disgusting IMO - I kind of hated the few moments I had with one of the sony models...its the same feeling i get when doing cell phone shots too... EVF is trying its best to give you a reproduction of the real world...where a mirror simply reflects the real world back up through the viewfinder...

this is not to say EVF tech won't improve, but at least for right now...EVF is vastly inferior to OVF...

another issue to bring up...and another area for tech to catch up -- battery capacity, battery drain and battery life ---EVF and live view suck down power like there's no tomorrow.  I can shoot all day at a wedding and use a negligible amount of battery power.  I go out for an hour at night using live for only for manual focusing...i come home with a dead battery.  Yes, EVF uses less power than live view, but still...it's an issue

340
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon goes Medium Format?
« on: September 12, 2013, 04:32:06 PM »
The photography world is not going to abandon FF for MF. Yes, bigger sensor makes for better quality images, but the size of everything grows to the point where it becomes unwieldy for many uses. Studio work... Yes. Weddings.... Yes. Architecture and landscape, yes. But for wildlife photography, sports, and anything else requiring long lenses, forget it.

MF is probably a viable market...  FF will remain a viable market... But APSC?  Right now, APSC offers two advantages, price and reach. As ability to make larger sensors at a reasonable price improves, the cost advantage disappears. As pixel counts grow, FF. sensors could put the same number of pixels on target as a crop camera, and destroy the reach advantage. I thing they will be around for several more years, but ten years down the road Many FF shooters will be MF, rebels will be FF,  and there will still be high end FF cameras.

I hope they make the new MF cameras mirrorless. If they were you would have no size increase from current SLR cameras, and using on-sensor focusing would get rid of faulty AF issues, and it would mean wide angle lenses wouldn't need to be retrofocusing.
It would be cool to see if they started with both SLR and mirrorless cameras and an equal set of lenses for both, then the market could decide which system is better.

Others have said other things regarding this, but I will take the other road of --- while the tech surrounding EVF is getting better, it's a night and day difference between OVF.  The few mirrorless camera's I have tried out, the EVF is horrid.  I would much rather stick with the classic mirror!

size - no way around it, when push comes to shove if you want access to everything, the size will go up.  The 6d is a good example of what happens when you cram a large sensor in a small body, you loose a lot of buttons!  So, unless you want a gimped body, then the overall size and weight will increase...

The photography world is not going to abandon FF for MF. Yes, bigger sensor makes for better quality images, but the size of everything grows to the point where it becomes unwieldy for many uses. Studio work... Yes. Weddings.... Yes. Architecture and landscape, yes. But for wildlife photography, sports, and anything else requiring long lenses, forget it.

MF is probably a viable market...  FF will remain a viable market... But APSC?  Right now, APSC offers two advantages, price and reach. As ability to make larger sensors at a reasonable price improves, the cost advantage disappears. As pixel counts grow, FF. sensors could put the same number of pixels on target as a crop camera, and destroy the reach advantage. I thing they will be around for several more years, but ten years down the road Many FF shooters will be MF, rebels will be FF,  and there will still be high end FF cameras.

I agree on most points, but, for wedding work, i don't see MF taking off in the wedding world until a few things get retooled:

1) processors need to be faster and more robust - because the current burst rate for MF bodies is like 1 shot every second.  With a larger sensor, you get a larger mirror, and I'd say it may be a while before we get full MF with decent MP's that can do any kind of burst mode...

2) related to the above, buffer size.  Even if you can squeeze out 2 fps...each image is going to be huge - For a wedding shooter this may be an issue

3) ISO range - most MF rigs cap out at ISO 1600, and most of what I have read says that you really don't want to go past ISO 400.  both Canon and Nikon would probably be interested in pushing the ISO's and processors and buffer limits - but I am betting on a slower progression because ---if the quality falls off after iso 800 then wouldn't it just be more sensible to use a 35mm?

summing it up IMO - I can really only see high end wedding photographers snagging a full digital MF rig.  Shot in the dark guess at cost would be in the 10-20K range (*and who knows what the cost of the glass would be).  All that $$$$ for a body that is pretty much going to sit in the bag for 90% of the day.  I think the tech surrounding the sensor has a lot of catching up to do to take on more than the posed formal shots of weddings.   For ceremonies, you need more ISO (most ceremony venues don't allow flash, so your depending on aperture and ISO).  For receptions, you need more ISO, or, your using way more external light that you should to keep any of the ambient lighting in play.  this would just be an unfeasible investment for the majority of wedding photographers.  The high end ones, the ones whose packages start at 10K, the ones who draw in clients that want huge canvas prints and are willing to shell out the dough for it --- those guys can justify the cost.  If your average wedding is 2k, with maybe $300-600 in print sales, then MF makes absolutely no sense - that $$$ is better spent in advertising, taking courses, etc, etc....

341
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon goes Medium Format?
« on: September 12, 2013, 10:50:08 AM »
Jaguar Landrover basically survived by cutting out the bottom end of the market totally and only catering for the Luxury market. It's the way forward.

That's a pretty good example. I believe this is what will happen in a similar way to the photography market. The only way forward is for Canon and Nikon to put some serious distance between themselves and smart phone vendors catering to the mass market. Basically the traditional vendors need to give up on the point-and-shoot consumer market, which promises only minimum margins in sales revenue. Even in the mirrorless market net margins in sales are not counting so much toward profitability as the fate of Nikon's 1 system has shown in a pretty ghastly picture. Nikon calculated with higher prices to get back their investment in R&D, but now the system has failed, so they go down to low prices to cut their losses. Canon can look forward to a brighter future with their EOS-M-system, at least after their success with the 70D's autofocus.

agreed....cell phones are for sure killing the P&S markets.  And to make a P&S that really stands out from cell phones, one that people would buy and remember to take with them when they go out...it's too much R&D for a product that can charge at max $500 for.  I would have no issues with both Canon and Nikon phasing out the bulk of the P&S lines and pushing those resources to 35mm...i guess MF is alright too, but unless they are going to put out a pentaxlike MF rig, the price point will be too high for most of us....

342
6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D
« on: September 11, 2013, 06:18:16 PM »
Bone Doc - just be careful at those type of events!

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/05/how-to-ruin-your-gear-in-5-minutes-without-water

Good to know.  Thanks Dustin.  FWIW, this was my 3rd Color Run.  The first 2, I used the 24-70 MkII.  I protect it by putting it in a ziploc bag, and tape the opening of the bag to the UV filter.  So at the end of the day, there was almost no dust on my lens / camera combo.  I have to think that some of these people who did this didn't care as much about sealing their camera as they are using someone else's. 

This last one (from which the pictures were taken), I made sure that I didn't get much at all on my Tamron when I pass, and then shoot from a pretty safe distance :).

but all the color dust would look so much nicer on a 5d3 (like, on it...not the images....lol)

343
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: About to drop some $$$ again...lol
« on: September 11, 2013, 10:51:47 AM »
If you like your ThinkTank bag (I have it and its the first backpack I rellay like!), what about a roller from Thinktank?
Some of them are really big, and some of them can be carried with straps, if necessary.

originally I wanted to stay with thinktank, but the layout was not to my liking...it would fit as much stuff, but i wanted something that could hold 2 bodies with lenses attached, then a ton o other stuff.... it's combo haul a lo and have it in an easy to access way...the lowepro edged it out...plus, i do rather like how you can pull the backpack section out and use the main case as a luggage bag, and your gear is now in the backback

344
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: About to drop some $$$ again...lol
« on: September 11, 2013, 01:50:16 AM »
well, this got mostly settled...

bag wise, going lowepro pro roller x300.

lenses -

just sprung for the used 100 macro 2.8 (the non L).. read so many reviews that said don't even try to use it handheld, but, hell, lets see how it goes...I can give it a good test as a second shooter this weekend.

As for the 24 1.4...renting one for 8 days...from the 17th-25th.  8 days, 1 wedding, and a vermont trip...that should tell me what i need to know about that lens.

345
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: About to drop some $$$ again...lol
« on: September 10, 2013, 04:57:29 PM »
Or pick up the 24L and the 100 non-L macro, if your budget can stretch a little.  $150 for a rental would make a significant chunk of the price 100 macro, especially if you can get it used.  Then upgrade to the 100L later, if you think it'll improve your product.

I am rethinking this whole things now... given what I want to use the macro for, and what the expectation is...maybe I don't need to go L.  I see the non-L on b&h used now for $419....hmmmmmm




(Oh, I ended up going with the lowepro bag...the tamrac is huge, but in the end I think it's overkill.)


Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 65