November 26, 2014, 03:15:12 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 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 35
331
you like to take photos of moving targets. zoom. no doubt. i have this lens, and whatever IQ advantage the 200mm prime may have is gone once you have to start cropping. Obviously, with a zoom you are doing all or at least nearly doing all your framing at the time of exposure, so you're always working with max resolution. not to mention when things get closer than you expected you'll still get a shot because you can go wider. Honestly, i think something might be wrong with you guys who would recommend a 200mm f2.8 prime over a 70-200mmf2.8 for action.  some sort of prime sickness i guess.


- i just read your last post, and i'm trying to still give you solid advise, while thinking of your racist statement. that and other things like a makeshift monopod? man, a decent monopod is not an expensive item ..... why... forget it. i think you need a 24mmTS.

332
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 25, 2012, 05:38:18 PM »
I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more.  stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.

It's actually a fallacy that Adobe vs sRGB is only about the greens. People base that on a single 2D slice of the 3D gamuts and all they see is a giant chunk of green added.

Crazy saturated intense greens are actually somewhat rarer to come across in nature so it's actually reds, purples, oranges, yellows that are where you'd see the most difference between say ProphotoRGB and sRGB viewing on a wide gamut monitor. Try to make a deep red rose or deep purple petunia look realistic in sRGB and it just can't be done, same for many flowers, use prophotorgb and a wide gamut monitor and suddenly they look vastly more like real life. Shoot a sunset and in sRGB some bright saturated cloud bands disappear but pop back right out at you on a wide gamut.

No, it's not. Look at the 3d colorspace map and then look at a CIE chart and understand it. Besides, i never said it was ALL about the green, just that green shows the most improvement, and that any green improvement would be the most noticeable anyway because the human eye is far and away most sensitive to green. It's theorized that it'd due to us looking at, and hiding in foliage from predators since the dawn of man. But that is another topic all together. This is one of those simple matters that can be solved with 5 dollars worth of prints, but nobody wants to do it.   Also, could you do me a solid and stop posting 3-4 times in a row.

333
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM II
« on: September 24, 2012, 11:12:53 PM »
from what i've read, it suffers alot from field curvature. that is, the plane of focus isn't flat. You might be like me and think, well how far out of focus can things get at 12mm f4.5 anyway? from what i've read, quite a bit. BUT, it goes to 12mm!!!!! that's got to be worth quite a bit. The guy over at the excellent "juzaphoto" uses one on his 7d, and loves it. He really gets very good results.

334
Again, I'm not a video guy, but while i see the blown out stuff here and the crushed stuff there in the 5d image, this BM image looks hdr artificial to me. It's almost all mid-tones. Is that the end target, or from that they can make something really nice? because if that's it, i'm not so sure i'd take the BM over the 5d in this shot. Can't they just put a wicked tone curve on the the 5d and get something pretty close. again, just a photo guy here, so try and take it easy on me :D





THIS^ is a lot of difference canon has to catch up with.

335
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 24, 2012, 10:54:59 PM »
I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more.  stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.

336
Portrait / Re: Speedlight for perfect night portraits
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:50:51 PM »
like was said above, use manual for the utmost control of the ambient(background) and flash light balance. But if you don't have time for that use "P" mode, and bounce the flash. if you have nothing to bounce against, and you always do indoors, use a bounce card. "Av" mode can work(i'm not going to add what might be confusing info) but i don't recommend to to you because the shutter speed will be far to long and you'll get lots of motion blur, form the camera and living subjects.

337
Lenses / Re: Vintage Lenses: Any Advise?
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:49:16 AM »
I don't have any frist hand exp, but i would imagine some older F mounts might be a good idea. If that's not trick enough, you could get some Leica R mounts.

338
Lenses / another 24-70mmv2 review
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:47:03 AM »
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/09/comparison-canon-24-70-f28l-ii-vs-24.html

complete with comparisons to the 24-105. a lens i just bought, and now i'm wondering if that was such a great idea. well, i think i'm still good. with the money saved over the 24-70v2 i could still add the 35mm1.4 or 50mm1.2, or 24mm1.4, or...  so yeah, still okay i think. It's just i like to keep my amount of gear to a minimum. so I'd rather have one super lens than two very good lenses, but they all have different strengths, so what's a guy to do?

anyway, another review.

339
Lenses / Re: Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up
« on: September 23, 2012, 10:10:58 PM »
Just had to look it up myself. the position of the zoom/focus rings are swapped from the normal orientation, but they operate in the same direction.  it's the direction that would drive me nuts, i bet i can get over their positions being swapped. Reminds me how i swapped my gear shifting direction lever on my bike. 1 down 5 up, or 1 up 5 down. no big deal, but one time when i got in a bit too hot i did go the wrong way. i guess i was overloaded, but i worked it out. anyhow, continue the 24-70 doubting.... ;D

340
I'm not a video guy, but i've been taking little clips of my kids in the backyard, and at their sports, and they look pretty darn good. I must be missing something, as the 5d's video quality in these videos looks pretty bad.  When shown in this fashion every little thing is noticeable(as should be done) but that seems to be a bridge to far. I mean, that 5d footage REALLY sucks compared to the BM.

341
picked up a 24-105.

342
Lenses / Re: Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up
« on: September 23, 2012, 08:45:51 PM »
What? The 70-300L has a reversed focus/zoom direction? Really?

343
Lenses / Re: Drop in Filter for EF 500 or 600 f/4L IS II USM
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:06:58 PM »
I have the 300mm Is v1 and i had to search high and low for a long while to get my hands on the canon filter holder so i could use regular screw in style filters. I got it so i could use ND filters, real glass ND filters, and not fool with gels. I put gels on my flashes, not lenses(but i would if need be).  I hope you have an easier time than i did. really, i was searching B&H, Adorama, KEH, and others, some in the UK(i'm in the states), for this new or used.

344
Lenses / Re: Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up
« on: September 22, 2012, 02:32:29 PM »
personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?

345
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. 

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 35