November 23, 2014, 06:17:13 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 35
Software & Accessories / Re: Shuttercount Now Available for Windows
« on: August 28, 2014, 08:13:22 PM »
so it's not just me. when i read the headline i thought how this would have been interesting and maybe useful in 2004, but i wouldn't think it would be now, but what do i know?

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D replacement: What is a "fine-detail" sensor
« on: August 27, 2014, 08:56:04 PM »
it means it's "NEW AND IMPROVED!!!"

i really shouldn't say as video isn't my thing, but those settings f-stops and shutter speeds look way out of line to me.  Do you really find that you need those values to maintain good focus? perhaps you are after the look given by those higher shutter speeds, and if so cool, but if that wasn't your goal, i would have thought something in the 1/60th range would be a more "normal" speed. 
  anyway, exposure isn't even what you are asking about, so i guess i'm no help. sorry, i'm sure people in the know will be along shortly.

i would be interested in seeing something slotted in between the 1.8 and 1.2 from Canon. give me a 1.4 with quick accurate AF, with good build quality priced somewhere between the 1.8 and 1.2 and i'd give it a serious look. the coming Sigma would come in to play though, and if any recent trends continue, the sigma would probably prove to be the IQ equal with good build for a fair bit less. it's just that AF tracking thing... 

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1/2L II and event photography?
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:03:11 PM »
as a photographer i've always been interested in the 1.2, but for now i run the 1.8. Sure I'd like to get my hands on one to play around with, but without the 1.8's AF speed it just wouldn't be able to fully replace the 1.8 in many conditions, and unlike most photogs i don't like collecting lenses. still, i can't say i'm totally pleased with the 1.8's AF accuracy( i can't recall anyone else saying that, so i don't know what to make of my findings, not that i would expect better of the 1.2) or purple fringing.

while i think that the ability to have defocused areas in photos is one of the main advantages of proper cameras. as has been stated i also think this OOF thing gets carried away sometimes. for me, as a wedding photographer, i would have deleted both of these posted shots. without hesitation.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: August 17, 2014, 09:33:32 PM »
I got mine at launch or nearly so, and i haven't had any issues at all. it performs like it did when new.
that must be one super 24-105mm you have there. i had one and we got along okay for a while, but it was replaced with by the sigma. when i got the sigma i did some rough test shots to compare them, and the 24-105 just had to go.

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 06:31:21 PM »
it's orange here on my crappy monitor, nice shot though.


this is what i use.well, not that model, but this system. it isn't inexpensive at all, but i find it works well, and looks good. in fact as it ages it only looks better, as opposed to most other things that get dirty and make you look like you are a member of the SWAT team. although you might look like an old school detective or something. anyway, i like it and get positive comments about it at most weddings i work.
BTW-it seems all photographers have a closet full of bags and straps that they never use for one reason or another. we should have a swap meet!!

i can say without any reservations it's not the lenses. whatever you use won't net you 100% keepers, but unless something silly is happening you should be getting something north of 80%. i also used to shoot sports and still do with my kids. clearly sporting events requirements vary, but i've never seen any sporting event like a wedding reception. it's good exp though, just different, like all the other niches in photography. in my exp i would say that if my 5dmk3 can get a lock on something at a wedding, it doesn't really lose it. i really only struggle when it's so dark i can't get anything out of it. then i switch to MF and shoot it up. sometimes it is just silly dark. i'd like to know what aperture values you were using, and maybe a rough estimate of shooting distance. either that was just to much of an ask, your 5d settings are funny, or it's defective. you liked what the 1dx could do, was that a wedding, or people running around on a sunny day?

i second what mt spokane said. i shoot wedding receptions often and i would like to ask if you were using your flash. if not, 1/200th might just be to slow. you were at iso 5000, hmmm.... well, i'm usually at iso 800, f2.8-f4, and somewhere between 1/50th-1/200th(sometimes much slower yet, but that's usually for effect), and i use flash + servo focus, "stock" standard AF setting. when i get a shot off before my flash recycles i can see that without it i really don't have anything, so the flash is building the whole thing. i miss some, but i keep most, plus i take plenty.

PowerShot / Re: Canon to Leave the Entry Level Point & Shoot Market?
« on: February 24, 2014, 05:36:17 PM »
Optical zoom will always outperform digital zoom, and there aren't yet many smartphones with optical zoom (and those that do look like the neighbor kid's toys on Toy Story), so smartphones haven't yet replaced, for example, the $90 Canon PowerShot A2200.

 no, the party's over. they called "last call" a couple years ago canon just hasn't noticed. They should also stop making what they are making with their other nonSLR cameras also. They stink. go big or go home. or what will more than likely happen, the market will send you home. i just hope they leave with a couple bucks in their pocket.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kent Rockwell on 1DX and 5D3
« on: September 09, 2013, 10:58:44 PM »
And that is your prerogative.

And in an ideal world you are correct, everything should be equal, this is not an ideal world.

As you say iso makes up one third of the exposure triangle, when was the last time you had your shutter adjusted or even tested? Back in the day we had to send our cameras in for CLA's pretty much annually, that would be a clean, lubricate, and adjust. The adjust part would be shutter timing, so does your shutter expose for 1/1127 sec or 1/963 sec when it is set to 1/1000? Your apertures, are they exactly where they should be, probably not as they rarely are, not to mention vignetting and the huge exposure variations that can induce. This is part of the reason top level cameras allow you to adjust for these metering differences.

So built into our exposure triangle are manufacturing tolerances for aperture and shutter speed, and the ISO allowable "rounding" for iso values, add in the confusion between 18% grey, you know the value everybody assumes is metered middle grey, and the fact that Canon meters (along with many others) at 12-13% grey +/- meter manufacturing tolerances, plus the fact that focal lengths are normally only close to accurate at infinity and you can see why, after 30 years, I am fairly dismissive of doing things by the numbers.

The point to my first post was don't sweat the numbers, your histogram, along with a knowledgeable interpretation of it, is the most powerful tool you have for getting your exposure where you want it to be.

i agree completely. cheers.

Lighting / Re: Thinking of buying a Light Meter
« on: September 09, 2013, 10:55:19 PM »
talking out my ass... hmm. well, i think you're talking out your ass. my shutter that's probably older than you are, probably 1.5X as old, doesn't have any hard stops for shutter speed, or aperture.  i'm sure it would work just fine somewhere in between for aperture values,( i doubt shutter speeds), but that's about as accurate as you'd be. somewhere in between one stop and another.
 i don't shoot much velvia, but i haven't had a problem with exposure when i do. i mostly run provia and astia.

seems the meter companies played their cards very well during the transition to digital, to bad kodak and many others didn't.

 anyone want to tell me i haven't watched BTS videos from true pros using all sorts of light meters all over a studio only to use a take an "instant" to see where they really are, only to find that they are way off. now days we should do this the other way around? ha!

Don Haines, thank you.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Kent Rockwell on 1DX and 5D3
« on: September 09, 2013, 08:37:27 AM »
i'm going to have to disagree with you there privatebydesign. i don't know what you mean by the ISO dictating the exposure compensation. sure it does,it all dictates the exposure.
 ISO values should match across formats and brands. Not saying they do, but they should. all canons used to run a bit higher than indicated ISO values, but i think they brought them within spec some time ago. I've never looked into the 5dmk3-vs-1dx exposure value thing, but it shouldn't be to hard to find some comparable test shots on the net. 1/2 a stop slower than indicated isn't earth shattering news, but that's not all together insignificant either. people pay big bucks for a 1 stop faster lens.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 09, 2013, 08:24:49 AM »
It's normal to see a vast improvement in IQ in a more expensive camera over a "stripped down" cam. the power of the penny? have you ever been to imagining-resource. com and used their comparometer? 1dmk4 better IQ than the 5dmk3? if you say so...

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 35