August 01, 2014, 12:15:44 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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 35
361
Liked the last one a whole lot-it has a very fun "mood," as you put it.

Photo no. 2 is very orange.  If you are making it orange on purpose in post processing, and that is a color cast you want in there, then disregard this.  It's just that "orange" pictures are so commonly produced UNintentionally that I thought I'd ask.  You get orange pictures very easily when shooting indoors due to a white balance issue with incandescent lights, or a color cast problem from colored walls.  Obviously you could fix that in post-processing with just about any software you are using.

362
EOS Bodies / Re: LightRoom...HELP!
« on: June 24, 2012, 03:48:14 PM »
Import your RAWs in the library tab.

Develop in the develop tab.

Right click and export your RAWs as any file you'd like.

Simple enough?

And that's helpful how?  I'm pretty sure there's more to the "develop" part unless I've been doing something completely wrong all these years.

I'm absolute that you would know that it is that simple. Import, develop and export? What else? Make a cup of coffee tab?

You're right.  Just hit the develop button and out pops a perfect photo.  So simple.

I don't question a persons developing methods. Lightroom works in import, develop, and export. Yes, its that simple.

Very simple, and also inspiring.  I feel quite confident now that I can fly a plane.  Only 3 steps to quickly memorize:  Get in plane, fly to where you want to go without crashing, land plane and get out. :)

363
Interest comment earlier about replacing the 7D with the 5DIII for sports.

Anyone else got thoughts on that? Apart from the 2fps are there other disadvantages? Or should I keep saving for the 1DX?

Price of a 300mm f/2.8 lens:  $7,250.00 
(needed with a full-frame camera, just to get you back to what you used to see --in a 2.8 aperature-- with a 70-200 f/2.8 on your old 1.6x crop camera)

364
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: June 17, 2012, 02:28:38 PM »
Shot with my new 70-200 2.8 mk2.  Loving this lens so far.

Posted this in the lens gallery rather than in "Birds" because I didn't have to work very hard to get the shot there, in the aviary and all.  This could have stood a little flash to get the ISO down, but they don't like people blasting their birds off the branches with speedlights.


365
1.)  Assuming that a manufacturer wanted to make them work, and was not hoping instead to sell 2x as many lenses (or to make a smaller body), is there any reason a mirrorless camera body couldn't use everyone's nice, expensive, existing "L" glass?  I mean, is there any basic mechanical/operational difference necessary for a mirrorless lens vs. a traditional lens? 

2.)  If there is no difference, do you think Canon will nevertheless choose to make new mirrorless bodies incompatible with EF lenses?


366
EOS Bodies / Re: The Last Flagship DSLRs
« on: June 13, 2012, 04:24:55 PM »
people seem to be forgetting ergonomics completely in all of this the DSLR form factor has evolved over time for comfort of use too, and any extended shooting you need to be comfortable as cramps in you hands are a nightmare, could imagine trying to shoot a wedding with sony nex or pens, way too small and fiddly

even if they go evil i bet the form factor of the pro bodies are not going to shrink for this reason

(also big camera have more cred than little ones :P)

Yes.  Miniaturization is only desirable so long as it helps, and does not hinder, natural functional ergonomics.  The technology to make tiny shovels has been around for thousands of years, yet 9 out of 10 shovel-users today still prefer a 4-foot-long model over one 4 inches long....

367
Finally an opportunity to see some FF smuggery turn sheepish; a sensor bigger and more expensive than their FF. :o :o :o

And presumably a new opportunity for Canon to sell more of its 600mm lenses, which would be a wide angle or walk-around lens on some goliath frame camera.  ;)

368
Maybe it is just me, but it seems like the spammers are plaguing CR a little more lately than before. 

You notice them when they make the Homepage as a forum headline.  I guess that is because so many people are reporting the spam, that the spam post is, for a while, one of the most talked about posts on the site?

And what spammer in their right mind would think they can drum up business for their unrelated garbage on a photo site?  Especially when it just ticks everyone off?

369
Sports / Re: Wrestling Shots
« on: June 10, 2012, 09:42:12 PM »
Agree with everything Pancake Man said.  There is not enough light in the gym, so to compensate the camera (or its operator) is lowering the shutter speed (creating motion blur), and/or raising the ISO light sensitivity (making it grainy).

He could try a monopod, which helps avoid camera-shake blur, but that won't help subject motion blur.  At very least, the monopod will be useful shooting other (outside) sports in the daytime.  Just remember to turn off the IS image stabilization on the lens, or put it in "panning" mode if the lens has it, or else the IS will fight the monopod and make things worse.
 
He can shoot a wider aperature (lower f/number like f/2.8 or f/3.5) to let more light in, but if you open your 50mm all the way up to f/1.8, the depth of field in focus will be paper thin and unforgiving, so you will find it hard to shoot moving subjects (wrestlers) in-focus.

It would help to get RIGHT UP CLOSE, rather than sitting back at a comfortable distance using the zoom/telephoto.  That eliminates some of the blur the old-fashioned way.

You just need more light, when you get right down to it.  Is flash allowed in the gym?  That would make a WORLD of difference.  You don't have to (or really want to) aim the flash right at the wrestlers.  Plug a speedlight flash into the hotshoe, and aim it at the ceiling, so it bounces back down softly on the scene.  It won't be in anyone's eyes, and it will also prevent ugly direct-flash shadows.  With the added light, you can shoot the fast shutter to freeze the action without having to up the ISO above 400 or so, which will prevent the grainy-ness.

Good luck!

370
Just picked mine up today.  We tried it on a 600, pretty snug fit.

Haven't ordered one yet.  Just curious if you think it is too tight or if it is acceptable?   I felt the one for the 580EX when used on the 580EX II  was too tight so I took a Dremel tool and ground it down some.

I'm kind of surprised that Canon doesn't offer one as an accessory since they decided to get in the gell market.  Of course we all know the price would be much higher.


Seriously.  If they can get 45 bucks for a Canon-branded lens hood, surely they could suck in some big bucks for a little Canon-branded diffuser.

371
I'll bet Nikon doesn't have a bag like this.  I hear Nikon bag zippers are very noisy, the bags are hard to see in low light, and their strap-to-shoulder interface is not very intuitive.  Sure, each one has 40 pockets, but everyone knows that more than 18 or 24 or pockets is just pandering to the uninformed consumers and the "pocket-peepers".

372
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.
« on: June 09, 2012, 03:48:52 PM »
Only L Lenses come with hoods.

I don't know if Canon is doing themselves a favor by skipping tripod mounts on $1400 tele lenses (70-300L) and hoods on all non-L lenses, inc. $800 parts. They could include the luxury gold-plated hoods with the L lenses, but a standard hood costs a few cents in production - they're just building up a "customer rip-off" image with this.

SHHHHHH!  You mustn't anger Canon!  If you make them mad they might shut down the "free lens cap" gravy train...

373
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still trying to figure out the POINT of the OP's post here?  Looking for a reaction, what?  I'm lost.

The OP just wants to impress on everyone listening that when he is looking to grip his rig, he requires something big and substantial, with some heft and girth to get both hands around. 

374
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Information.
« on: June 08, 2012, 11:38:21 PM »
@neuroanatomist

Let me apologise for wasting your extremely valuable time. I mistakenly quoted the wrong post in my original post.

I was of course referring to the new 40mm f2.8 lens, not to the 50mm f1.8. (Actually, my daughter purchased that particular lens recently for significantly less than the price Amazon UK are offering it, but thanks for the heads up anyway).

I have just received an email which states that UK availabilty (for the 40mm f2.8) is expected from 15 June and the RRP is £229.99 (approx $355), and this appears to be the price the specialist photographic suppliers here in the UK are offering it. I would add that usually these specialist outlets seem to offer the best (i.e. lowest) prices for official imports.


"EF 40mm f2.8 STM
This lens is slim and light, measuring only 22.8mm in length and weighing in at 130g. This pancake-style lens is the thinnest and lightest lens in the EF range and is ideal for portraits.

The EF 40mm f2.8 STM is expected to be available from 15 June for £229.99 RRP."


However, as it appears the price quoted for this lens in the US appears to be $199 (perhaps that could be confirmed), my original whinge about the price disparity between the US and the UK remains.

Also the new 650D has a rrp of £699 ($1078). How does that compare with US prices?

Good god.  I'd like to announce that I (resident of the US) am embarking on a new second career; camera and lens shipper to the UK.  I'll purchase items and sell same to UK purchasers for cost + 20%, with shipping free.  Your items will be in original box, but the box may be enclosed within a sack labeled "coffee", and the all-natural packing material (coffee beans) are included free in the bargain.  God save the Queen.

375
Lenses / Re: He tells me: Compare these lenses and keep any you like!
« on: June 08, 2012, 04:37:37 PM »
Yes-you should be able to make it work with microfocus adjustment unless it is WAY off and a total dud.  Not sure if this is really necessary.

If I did take him up on the offer to buy "pairs" of each lens, I would only do ONE PAIR AT A TIME, not all 3 pairs at once.  That way you have bought only 2 lenses from him, not 6.

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 35