September 22, 2014, 06:35:48 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 - agierke

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 24
166
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dc a good option?
« on: March 24, 2013, 11:31:47 PM »
Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ff option does bring out more vignetting which isn't the biggest problem in the world, but it can turn a good ef lens on a aps-c  into a pain to edit on a ff.

correcting vignetting is a 1 click piece of cake in post...if you even find it unpleasant. for wedding work it can often add to the look of the shot.

Quote
The 5dc... some people love it and it is cheap, but I think there is a real challenge in getting really nice photos from that body.

in good light the camera is still really good. in really low light (like what you would find at a ceremony and reception of a wedding) it is almost unusable compared to 5D2. i can't tell you how utterly frustrating it was to try to pull shots off with my 5Dc w/out flash during ceremonies. if you aren't equipped with 1.8 or faster glass you are in store for some serious frustration.....i've been there.

if you really just can't afford the 5D2 then rent it for this wedding. i can't see anyone who shoots weddings and is familiar with both those cameras advising you to go with the classic over the 2.

167
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dc a good option?
« on: March 24, 2013, 02:23:06 PM »
the 5Dc is severely hampered in low light situations. the usable ISO caps around 1600 but. the Mrk2 you can push to 3200 or slightly more if absolutely necessary.

i own both and shoot weddings. during ceremonies i try not to use the 5Dc at all...the Mrk2 is just so much better in those situations. in daylight i use both simultaneously. at receptions i favor the Mrk2 but with my flash and room strobe the 5Dc does fine.

at this point in camera evolution i would not waste any money at all on a 5Dc. 

168
Lenses / Re: naked eye equivalent?
« on: March 24, 2013, 10:55:32 AM »
the field of view of the human eye is near impossible to replicate without introducing change in perspective and compression/expansion of space. the way a camera "sees" vs the way the human eye "sees" is remarkably different.

there is a neat little trick to find a focal length on a particular camera that replicates the "way you see" without consideration to field of view (which is unfair to try to compare). using a mid level zoom, place your camera in a vertical position and look through the viewfinder so that your other eye is not blocked. with both eyes open, zoom the lens in and out until what you see through the lens matches what your other eye sees. take note of what the final focal length was on the zoom. that is the focal length that matches your vision on that particular camera.

 i have seen this number vary depending on the camera system used but it can fall between 45mm and 55mm. on my Mrk2 w 24-70mm attached it falls on 55mm. granted its a narrower field of view than human vision but so are most focal lengths depending on how you frame the argument. this method will match how we see spatial relationship of a scene though.

169
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Studio shoot, 5D MarkII or MarkIII
« on: March 24, 2013, 10:38:04 AM »
the 5d3's focusing system could play a part depending on what you are shooting. if its still life then no big deal. if its people then the Mrk2's unreliable focus points off center could become frustrating. you can reliable use focus points off center on the 5d3.

also, after this workshop what kinds of uses will you be needing for this new camera? chances are, if your interests are diverse, the Mrk3 will be more versatile and useful in almost any circumstance. if you have the money...get the camera that offers you the most.


170
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Warning on low card space
« on: March 24, 2013, 10:29:13 AM »
i always check my card space a minute or two before i know an important moment is happening. just have to get into the habit of doing so.

171
Lenses / Re: EF 17-40 Indoor foto????
« on: March 23, 2013, 12:06:51 PM »
if people are going to be present in the shots and you want quality results of the people then you are really almost required to incorporate flash in the scenarios you describe. even at the high ISO capabilities of recent cameras, F4 is still pretty slow and F2.8 offers really shallow depth of field.

you need to be more specific about what it is you are hoping to do. is it primarily interiors you are interested in? if so you can forgo the flash but only a tripod will offer the guarantee that you will have successful results in low light situations of interior spaces. IS could help but as you can see from Sporgan's reply a tripod is by far the preferred method.

whatever may be the case for you, i personally would not bring an F4 lens into a shoot where i knew there would be extreme low light. F2.8 would be the minimum and i would probably want to have F1.4 glass preferably. especially if i knew that i could not use a tripod and i could not use a flash.

172
Portrait / Re: Colour help...please!
« on: March 22, 2013, 07:29:15 AM »
it looks as though you at least popped a bit of flash into the scene (bit of a catchlight in the heel of her shoe). was there another strobe source lighting her?

the reason i ask is that you can gel flashes/strobes with a straw colored gel to get better/healthier looking skin tones. she does look rather pink in the first shot but there is a bit of coolness to her skin tone that could use some warming up. fair skinned people often shoot like this and benefit greatly from a straw colored gel.

the 2nd shot she starts to look washed out. any chance you can link to some photos that you find the color pleasing so we have a better frame of reference?

nice shot regardless though. and your b&w interpretation is nice.

173
Quote
This quest for perfection at f/1.4 in a $649 camera is far beyond what the typical user of this camera expects.  Think f/5.6 at a soccer game, or f/3.5 at a birthday party.

+1

this conversation is hilarious. do you all really care that much about the Rebel line?

174
Quote
I never said tech advancements aren't welcome. I stated that technique will improve DR more than any sensor will. Understanding this you can determine how much DR is needed.

ugh...thank you for stating this. this entirely sums up my feelings towards the dynamic range discussion. i get the feeling that many (not all...dont jump on me) people argue for greater dynamic range so that they dont have to worry about problem solving "photographic" problems anymore. as if greater dynamic range would free them up to shoot in any kind of light (including the absolute worst nightmare impossible situation you can think of) and the camera would be able to turn it into something resembling a good photo in good light. forget finding better light, forget planning a shot out for optimal conditions, forget lighting....ie forget technique altogether.

i'm not against tech advancements either...but it seems as though some want to forgo 150+ years worth of technique so they can get the greatest shot ever in a single frame...anytime...anywhere...any conditions.


i'm with you RLPhoto.....

175
LR 3 started to have pretty good NR and i hear it got even better in LR 4. if i am batch processing in LR 3 then i just use the NR there. if i am dealing with a couple of images and am already in PS i use my Noiseware plugin.

both are very good.

176
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 08:57:20 AM »
as neuro stated...around 1/20th of a sec mirror lockup is really needed. the initial impact of the mirror opening and residual vibrations are enough of a percentage of exposure during that speed of shutter to have a significant effect. at even slower shutterspeeds (2 secs +) its its not as big of a concern because the initial moment of impact is far less of a percentage of overall exposure. 

177
i am mostly impressed that you got your wife to go with you to that nerdfest! my wife tolerates my nerdery at home but no way could i drag her to something like that! lol.

Quote
Shoot! Just downgraded myself from a Rebel to an Eos M

you could put that lens on an Eos M. people would think you are just carrying around a lens...new approach to stealthy photography.

178
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:03:52 AM »
did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

179
i can endorse Noiseware as well. very good program and pretty intuitive UI. Imagenomic also has a very good program in Portraiture for smoothing skin tones.

180
Lenses / Re: Bad 24-70mm?
« on: March 07, 2013, 11:35:15 PM »
sounds like there may have been impact damage upon shipping. there should never be an abrasive feel when zooming/focusing an L lens.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 24