April 20, 2014, 03:27:31 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 - TAF

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
61
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 14, 2013, 07:08:30 PM »
I want a lens that does not yet exist. I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS. Preferably less than 800 grams; black, not white; and using a 77mm filter.

That would be my perfect walkabout lens (the the perfect kit lens).  The 24-105L is really nice, but I wish it were faster.  I've finally come to appreciate the advantage of the faster lens with the 5D3 AF system.

I also like the idea of a modest-range walkaround lens. Longer reach than 70mm, but not going crazy like the 28-300mm to reduce distortion and keep size/weight reasonable. However, I think this one sabotages its chances in two key areas:

1) I'd be shocked to see a zoom with that kind of range open up to f1.4. Even f2.0 would probably be fantasy. Consider the 28-300mm which has f3.5-5.6, or the 28-135mm which also has f3.5-5.6. I think we'd be lucky to get f2.8-3.5 over a 24-135mm range. Throw in IS and there goes your weight criteria.

2) If they sold a great-quality lens in that range, we'd have no need to buy any other bright primes or even the 24-70mm f2.8 ii! The kings of marketing and product-differentiation would never allow it. That reasoning explains the good-but-not-great IQ of the 24-105mm.

But as long as we're dreaming... count me in for one also!  :)

RE Point 1: You might very well be right about the 1.4; so let's just say a lens that's 2.8 at the long end, and whatever it ends up being (faster of course) at the wide end, so it can take full advantage of the X AF points in the 5D3.  As for the weight, OK, maybe a little more, but not much!

RE Point 2: Yes, I suppose it might reduce the sale of some of their other lenses  ;)  But it might also reduce the sales of competitors lenses.  Might be a fair trade.

On the other hand, perhaps Sigma or Tamron might like to step up to bat?

I can dream, can't I?


62
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 11:07:06 PM »
People please!  You never owned software, what you always bought was a license with only a time limited assurance of support, bug fixes, etc.  Then you upgrade to the next version at semi-regular intervals and so it goes on for eternity.

No, I bought that software and I expect it to function as purchased FOREVER - on my stand-alone machine that has no connectivity to the outside world.

Support, bug fixes, etc. are options I can chose to forgo, or pay for, my choice.

The real problem is that when Adobe goes bankrupt in 5 years and the license servers go off line, every one of their subscribers is SOL.  It's happened before, it will happen again.

Which is why the cloud subscription model is a loser for anyone who cares about what they are using/doing/counting on.  A business person (eg: professional photographer) who uses Adobe is rolling the dice with their livelihood.  Bad move.  You're not a secured creditor, they owe you nothing when they fail, and your customers are not going to be amused when you tell them that all those photos you were going to have for them aren't going to show up.

Onward and upward?  More like downward to the netherworld.

Oh bollocks!

The software that you currently own WILL work forever on your machine.  No one is forcing you to upgrade to CC.

You want choice... that was part of my original point, people are resistant to change, don't like new models, demand choice, demand control over everything.

Adobe goes bankrupt?  It could, but you images are not lost, your RAW files are not lost.  You have to back them all up just like you do now.  No difference there.  Ok, so you Adobe software stops working after a while but even under the current perpetual license versions you'd eventually (and within a relatively short time) have to move to another product to stay current with features etc.   And besides, when companies fail they don't go poof in the middle of the night... you'd have some warning... you're not going to suddenly have to tell your customers their photos have been lost forever in a black hole.

Boy oh boy, THE SKY IS FALLING!

True, your raw images are still there.  And all the work you did that you saved as jpegs or tiffs are still there.  But your entire workflow, all the modifications you made, and which require their software to retrace and modify, are gone.

And no, you won't have any warning they are going away, unless you are an insider.  They DO go poof in the middle of the night.

Meaning that if you take your photography business seriously, you have to freeze your baseline right here, and can no longer rely on their products beyond where we are at.  So there will be no updates, no new RAW converters.  That is the fast track to the grave for Adobe.  Self fulfilling prophecy.

Although I imagine that most of the younger folks will be seduced by the latest and greatest.  Until they get burned, that is.  But then, I was in the personal computer industry back when the 8080 was the latest and greatest, and Bill Gates was still in knickers.  So I've already been burned, and won't trust any of these companies.

The Cloud - a mainframe (even if it is made up of distributed elements) by any other name is still something outside your control.  Do you really want to go back there?  What's next - punch cards?

63
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 06, 2013, 10:20:44 PM »
People please!  You never owned software, what you always bought was a license with only a time limited assurance of support, bug fixes, etc.  Then you upgrade to the next version at semi-regular intervals and so it goes on for eternity.

No, I bought that software and I expect it to function as purchased FOREVER - on my stand-alone machine that has no connectivity to the outside world.

Support, bug fixes, etc. are options I can chose to forgo, or pay for, my choice.

The real problem is that when Adobe goes bankrupt in 5 years and the license servers go off line, every one of their subscribers is SOL.  It's happened before, it will happen again.

Which is why the cloud subscription model is a loser for anyone who cares about what they are using/doing/counting on.  A business person (eg: professional photographer) who uses Adobe is rolling the dice with their livelihood.  Bad move.  You're not a secured creditor, they owe you nothing when they fail, and your customers are not going to be amused when you tell them that all those photos you were going to have for them aren't going to show up.

Onward and upward?  More like downward to the netherworld.

64
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 06, 2013, 09:26:42 PM »
I want a lens that does not yet exist.

I would like a 24-135 f1.4-f2.8 L with IS.

Preferably less than 800 grams; black, not white; and using a 77mm filter.

That would be my perfect walkabout lens (the the perfect kit lens).  The 24-105L is really nice, but I wish it were faster.  I've finally come to appreciate the advantage of the faster lens with the 5D3 AF system.


65
EOS Bodies / Re: Why no crop mode on 5d mkiii 1dx
« on: May 05, 2013, 11:27:26 AM »
It's utter absurd they didn't offer zebra stripes too or focus peaking.
At least ML can add that.
But I fear it is up to Canon to deliver crop mode.
I just don't get how short-sighted they are. There marketing department is killing them. For no reason.

The "problem" is, it ISN'T killing them.

Until it begins to affect the bottom line ($), they will continue to do such things.

When it finally does begin to obviously have an adverse effect, it will be close to too late to save themselves.

On the specific issue here, for me, a crop mode which yields high speed capability would be greatly appreciated, and would be a major selling point.  Look at the prices for the Casio EX-F1 used (wish I had bought one when I had the chance).  Canon is missing a major potential revenue stream that they haven't tapped, and which none of their super expensive cameras does either - so no cannibalization.

I've been a Canon user for 35 years.  Why did I chose Canon initially back in the late 70's?  They were 25% cheaper than Nikon, just as well made, and had the same accessory set.  Now look at who is 25% cheaper, and offers more features.  The storm clouds could be gathering...

66
Lenses / Re: One lens for vacation
« on: April 17, 2013, 09:18:17 PM »
May I suggest a 24-105 F/4 L IS, it's the best general purpose lens I can think of on FF (and the basis of my vacation lens set, I usually also bring a 50 mm f/1.8 MkI, a17-40 F/4 L and a tamron 70-300 USD. Wide open the 24-105 is sharp enough, and in the longer focal lengths you can get enough bokeh when needed :) High iso's and IS make up for low-light use.

+1 for the 24-105L.

I would also recommend (as others have) getting the 40mm pancake as a small (in your pocket) spare, just in case.


67
Lenses / Re: A 4000$ budget for Lenses on 5D3... need suggestions
« on: April 15, 2013, 11:13:14 PM »
My recommendations:

1. 24-105L
2. 70-200L or 70-300L (with IS in either case)
3. Zeiss 50 f1.4
4. Short 40
5. 17-40L

(I have 1-4, and am saving for 5)

68
I take it your pleased with the result based on your response, but I can tell you used a high shutter speed here and it seems to have affected the motion blur.  Whether or not the effect is positive is subjective, but I personally don't like it.  Doesn't look bad or anything just not great IMO, then again 60P is kind of the bare minimum for slowmo so you can only expect so much out of it.  I'm sure the client is elated and that's what matters in the end.


I thought the results were outstanding; I like the way each frame is crystal clear (to each his own, I suppose).  Now that I know the 'why', I plan on experimenting with high shutter speed video.

To the OP, thank you for posting that.

69

  • Sell the 17-55 making a 6d with the 24-105 kit lens in my price range


That is the approach I would take.  You'll never regret going FF; the 6D is an excellent camera with great low light capability (think of all the birthday parties), and the 24-105L is a fine lens.

Since you understand that this is likely the only camera upgrade for a very long time, make the most of it.


70
EOS Bodies / Re: What's the normal battery drain for a 5D3 that's off?
« on: March 30, 2013, 04:18:38 PM »
jm977:  The absolute accuracy of the cameras battery reading isn't that good.  If it dropped from 100% to 90% in a day, I would be concerned.  100% to 99% is well within measurement error.

Garfield - Thank you very much for that data!

Based on Garfield's data, the "OFF" power drain is little more than the self discharge rate for the Li batteries.  So even with the battery sitting in your camera bag by itself, it's going to discharge eventually.  Unless you plan on putting the camera away for a year, I wouldn't worry about it.

Personally, I charge both my batteries before a shoot, and when things are quiet (usually meaning the day job is too busy to enjoy much photography, although there is always a photo or two during a normal day with my cats...), I swap the battery in the camera once a month or so (charging the one that has been in the camera).  I've not found the in camera battery down more than 20% or so.


71
In all the years I've been taking photos out and about, I have only once had someone come up in a belligerent manner.

Fortunately, I saw him approaching, guessed at his intentions, and when he got close, I politely asked him to please step aside so I could get a clear shot of the building I was photographing.  The obvious anger disappeared from his face, and he stepped aside.  And I took the picture.

One thing to keep in mind if the situation really goes to h*ll - your 5D3 with 70-300L weighs 2 kgs (4.4 pounds), and is on the end of a 3 foot tether.  In cave man days, that would have been all you needed to feed the family...or deter a saber tooth tiger.

The likely damage to the camera is probably not covered by the warranty.

Oh, and after dark, a full power flash from any decent unit will temporarily blind anyone close.  My Vivitar 283 saved me once or twice on trips to Philly.

72
Lenses / Re: How's the 70-300L?
« on: March 16, 2013, 07:05:34 PM »
I have the 70-300L IS USM for use with my 5D3, and I find the images it provides excellent.

Build quality is outstanding, it seems to work decently in low light for me (never had any issues), and though I find the forward zoom ring a bit annoying, I adjust quickly enough.

But I will take issue with the folks who think it is "light".  Hardly.  It is sufficiently heavy that it gets used less than it might otherwise, in favor of the 24-105L and some "foot zoom".

However, it is great at air shows and the zoo - places where you can't adjust the framing by walking.

Very glad I didn't get the 28-300L (which I considered), as that lens is substantially heavier still.


73
Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?
« on: March 12, 2013, 11:22:42 PM »
What I saw was literally unbelievable. Staring right into my eyes, about 15 feet away, was what looked exactly like a black panther, weighing about 150 to 175 pounds, with some huge fangs showing in his open mouth! I was too freaked out for a moment to know what to do but stare. And, stare I did, until my autopilot idiot photo genes kicked in. I very slowly backed straight back a few steps and asked my assistant to hand me a camera loaded with ISO 400 film and an f/2.0 short lens to get a shot of this insane scene - black panthers are definitely not native to Michigan. I quickly got the camera, not taking my eyes off the big cat, and slooooowly walked forward to try to get a decent shot with the fast wide angle. For every step I took towards him, he backed up, making the distance between us constant. Finally, after about 20 steps in our mutual dance, he sidestepped behind a rock about 10 feet in diameter. When I slowly moved forward, afraid he might leaped around the rock at me at any moment, he had to have run straight back behind the rock, further into the dense woods, so that when I finally mustered the courage to peak around the rock, he was nowhere to be seen.

Just about then, the utter stupidity of my behavior dawned on me; there I was, actively invading the space of a very large predator cat, instead of trying to do the opposite. All of a sudden, my knees felt awful rubbery, and I hit myself on the forehead about twenty times, counting my naive blessings.



Actually, from what I have read, your instinct was actually the right one.  By advancing slowly on him, you left him with the impression that you were not prey, but an equal predator, and he retreated.

He might very well have attacked had you run.


74
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Medium Format Film
« on: March 12, 2013, 10:57:52 PM »


Thats very good advice, although ive never had any eyesight problems, and I think you're refering to using a prism finder on the hasselblad? because there are waist level finders easily avalable, is there a diffrence between them and on on a rolli tlr?
[/quote]

I did indeed find a distinct difference between the waist level finder on the Hassy and that on the Rollei TLR.

And I could never get a good view through the Hassy, while the Rollei always works for me.

Try one and see.  You might have no trouble at all...


75
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Medium Format Film
« on: March 12, 2013, 07:37:19 PM »
Anybody else here shoot medium format film cameras?
I recently started shooting with a fold out camera I aquired, and really enjoy using it, now im considering heading for one of the waist level slrs, likley not a hassie but im very interested in the old bronica line, mostly because I really like the 6x6 format and would like to stay that way, mamiya looks interesting but I dont like the fact that you focous with a knob on the side with bellows, and having to adjust for light fall off in stead of just being able to foucs the lens traditionsally, any one have any reccomendations for me?
I think I wont spen over £800 if I can, but ill see what come's up, Thanks!


I shoot MF from time to time.  I have several of the nice "pocket" folders in 6x9, and a couple of Rollei TLR's.

Note that I do not own any of the SLR variety, and my advice would be to try one before you buy one.

I found that with my glasses/eyesight, I simply could not see through the viewfinder on a Hassy.  I wanted one, and found several at tolerable price, but once I held it in my hand and looked through it, no sale.

Yet I have no problem with a TLR, or the waist level finder on the old Canon F-1 35mm, or a Right Angle Finder B on my 5D3.

Since the Mamiya (or the Rollei SL66) are very similar, it is quite possible I would have found the same problem (although I never tried).  Hence my advice.

It's like any tool, some fit the hand/work better for one person than another.


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10