August 31, 2014, 06:22:58 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 - risc32

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 31
286
Lenses / Re: Rockwell on the 24-70v2, "holy cow, it's awesome."
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:44:28 AM »
if you guys ever bothered to read much of his stuff you'd learn that he usually recommends you not to buy the more expensive product. it's at the bottom of his reviews on things, under "recommendations". he'll usually tell you to either make do with what you have or go buy some much less expensive, usually older, model. 

287
Roger is in a unique position of having many copies of so many lens. They all see a good bit of use, and he bench tests them all. I'm with you guys, his blog is very interesting and provides info that no other reviewer can obtain. The sort of info only Canon themselves would have in the past.

289
Lenses / Re: Which to get next: 35 f/1.4L or 16-35 f/2.8L...?
« on: September 20, 2012, 09:09:25 AM »
i would recommend the 16-35mm. the 35 is probably very nice, but you have that range well covered, so it'd basically just be what you have, 35mm, only faster. I really don't know why people talk about out of focus areas and 35mm at the same time. your 50mm, and 70-200mm are far better at throwing things out of focus than any 35mm. heck, you're 24-105 might do more as well. the 16-35mm will get you things you can't possibly get with your current gear. not just the same basic look with better IQ(the 35mm), but entirely different things.

actually though, if my main concern was trips, portraits and assisting weddings/events i probably wouldn't recommend anything given what you already have. you look good to me.

290
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II
« on: September 19, 2012, 08:34:26 PM »
since when is it canon't job to make it's products work well with third party accessories?

291
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sync speed only 1/180s?
« on: September 19, 2012, 12:52:39 PM »
Some of the early model DSLR's got there, and some of the Nikon's can do even better(the older ones).

Many of those were not FF.  With a FF sensor, the curtains have further to traverse.

Some of the early model DSLR's got there, and some of the Nikon's can do even better(the older ones). i have a leaf shutter 6x9 rangefinder that will go to 1/500th, it's from the 80's and probably mostly designed in the 70's. It doesn't even take batteries. why on earth are we not doing better now?

Leaf shutter ≠ focal plane shutter.

Not to sound like an ass, but I know all that, and i don't care. we can put a man on the moon, but we can't figure out how to get a faster synch speed? I take it you are some sort of doctor or at least a very well educated man. That is great and we are glad you hang here, but surely there is a way to get this done. I see  impossible things get done all the time.

bdunbar- HSS will get you the "correct" exposure at whatever f stop shutter speed you need, and it's very handy, but it has limits.  i shoot weddings and most of the time i'm standing outside in the sun trying to light a large group of people. say you get an exposure of iso 100 f5.6 at 1/800th. with a camera that has a synch speed of 1/200 i'd be 2 stops over that. when the HSS synch fires it doesn't fire one blast(let's ignore TTL preflash here) when the shutter is completely open, it fires over and over again, at a lower level, each time draining the batteries. After a large shot like that your batteries are strained, and the flash't range is limited more and more as you move past that 1/200th limit. you want to light a group with a larger light source than a direct flash? well, that eats light power. want them all lit with roughly the same amount of light, that means back the light up, and that eats power. that's just for fill. you want to overpower the sun a bit, as i usually do? now your in big trouble. you shutter has to be open for 1/200. the sun is beaming down for 1/200 onto your target. you can't go faster to limit the sun, so you stop down. maybe to f16. cool, now your unflash lit areas are looking nicey nice. Now you just bring up the flash to the level you like. I hope you have some power, as now you are shooting into an f16 sized hole for only 1/200. i use a 580,550,2x430's. most of the time i borrow my helpers 580 and i gang it with my 550/430's as a super "a"channel(gaffer's taped together, really!). when that doesn't work, and i expected it not to work, i haul out my big black box of sun, a speedotron 2400ws powerpack. but it's really a pain to use in the field and the thought of dying or killing someone with it's high voltage isn't nice.  if this all seems to be crap. go outside mid sunny day. shoot a target from 10-15ft away with your flash at full power(manual)and full synch speed. then see what you get with hss at 1/250-1/500. if your target is small and you are close(with your light) you will be fine. otherwise....  actually, i've been typing for so long i might even be starting to confuse myself, i hope this is of some use.

292
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Sync speed only 1/180s?
« on: September 19, 2012, 09:19:49 AM »
1/180 sucks and so does 1/200th. 1/250 should be the bare minimum but it really sucks also. I have a good understanding of the importance of all this, but a vague understanding as to why we don't have 1/500th or better synch speeds. Some of the early model DSLR's got there, and some of the Nikon's can do even better(the older ones). i have a leaf shutter 6x9 rangefinder that will go to 1/500th, it's from the 80's and probably mostly designed in the 70's. It doesn't even take batteries. why on earth are we not doing better now? YOu might say, yeah, but your rangefinder only goes as fast as 1/500, synch or not. well, i don't care. I don't want to hear it can't be done, do it. either with mechanics, electronics or both.  I say we officially end the MP race and heat up the synch speed race!

  BTW- this little rant wasn't brought on with the 6d, it's been building for a few years.

293
Lenses / Re: Patent: EF 14mm f/2.8 With a New Coating
« on: September 19, 2012, 07:33:22 AM »
"could not wipe, sex or bad Mentenasu". i don't have a clue what that means, but i think it's awesome and i wish all my lenses had it ;)

294
Software & Accessories / Re: GPS, does anyone really use this???
« on: September 18, 2012, 08:50:24 AM »
don't need it or want it. but then i don't like the idea of being tracked, some do.

295
Lenses / Re: 24-70 vs 24-70 II Outdoors Test! WHOOAAA!!!b
« on: September 16, 2012, 04:26:22 PM »
I can't fault your work, it's very nice. But, i don't know about your numbers. 10% brighter does not = 2 stops. 10% brighter is nothing. and iso 640to iso 400 is not 2 stops either. these numbers just don't make any sense but again, your photos are very good, so who cares about math anyway?

296
Lenses / Re: Zoom-walking, Walk-zooming
« on: September 14, 2012, 10:36:42 PM »
this let your feet do the zooming is just purist nonsense. I actually don't even like saying that because i consider myself a bit of a purist but make no mistake, zooming with your feet is not the same as zooming with your lens. I'm not saying one is better or worse(actually zooming with your feet is sometimes just not possible) they are just different. I wonder if anyone who would disagree has spent anytime with a wide angle lens. an inch either way, a degree up or down and change everything. I'd love to take a good stab at this for you, but i have to hit the hay. big day tomorrow. There are a number of guys here who won't have any problem breaking this all down. i'm sure they'll be along, if not i'll have a proper go at it.

297
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Kodak 620X ISO performance vs now?
« on: September 13, 2012, 07:34:49 PM »
i think you're both wrong. that image stinks. for 2000 it doesn't but today stuff is much much better. even a crappy camera phone beats that all to hell. that wasn't a 100% crop, that was it, and it didn't look that great. again, good for 2000. not even close to anything now. Big pixels = better iso is also just funny business. Certainly, everyone knows that's why the d800 sucks so bad. I don't think anything is being held back. not in the sense that they have something waiting in the wings for future. Sure, Nikon was holding back when canon was eating their lunch during the first many years of digital(until the D3). they liked losing market share.

298
1D X Sample Images / Re: Who is this idiot??
« on: September 09, 2012, 09:57:07 PM »
I'm just here to make sure it's not a photo of me doing something silly. Now that I see it is not me I'll exit, please carry on.

299
This is what i would have liked canon to have offered us with their mirrorless design. Honestly, i don't even remember anything about what they did offer or if it's since been released. Yeah, the spec sheet must have got me very excited. it must have been a "me too" product.

300
Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 09, 2012, 08:38:55 PM »
not that i'm discounting your searching, i have no idea why i didn't do it myself(sometimes i do forget the near limitless info i can get from my keyboard). Maybe i'm just being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but i'm not buying it. Or perhaps i am, nikon/canon a force behind that international prohibition? I mean, besides canon/nikon who are the big guns? They all happen to be from where? Or, where aren't they from(japan)?    now i'm getting all x-files...  makes sense to me, but then so does making your own yogurt in your slow cooker.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 31