March 04, 2015, 10:49:47 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 - madspihl

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Software & Accessories / Re: Which iMac
« on: January 31, 2013, 09:12:13 PM »
I am running a 2012 8GB RAM 256SSD 2Ghz i7 Macbook Air and a thunderbolt display at home - which is my way of having a 27" iMac that I can downsize to my pocket when I go on the road. (The TB display is chained to an 8TB Thunderbolt G-Raid drive for home storage). The Air sits in a BookArc on the bookshelf.

Up until a month ago I used a 17" MBPro, 8GB 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo machine.

I do lots of Photoshop and Illustrator work with both apps open at the same time, and often more than one PSD file in the process, and with Bridge running, as well as a webbrowser or two - and the Air is just so stupendously much faster than the 2009 MBPro. I mean... saving 500MB PSD files is about... well... 10 times as fast, if not more, in CS6.

I know you're looking for a desktop solutions - I just wanted to let you know that the Air + TB setup will get you very far in terms of desktop+mobility. Even into pretty heavy film editing as far as I understand:

CS6 Macbook Air (Photoshop and After Effects)

Lenses / Re: How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?
« on: January 11, 2013, 08:04:56 AM »
Actually I'll be going to the post office in 5 minutes to send back my new Sigma 35mm 1.4 because it can't lock focus properly (changes between front, back, and no proper focus at all), and AMFA seems to be unable to correct the irregular focus (obviously since the lens can never decide what to do). But I am definitely getting a new copy and not just making a return - the shots I did manage to get were amazing, and the lens holds a lot of promise.

Btw - that was my first Sigma lens in a lineup of Canon and Tokina lenses - none of which have ever had to be returned.

(But judging from the general comments all over the place I got a very rare lemon).

@Bob Howland - that's true, the built-in 1.4TC on the 200-400 plus the likely much better optical quality is probably going to be worth a lot more money... still... 11k. Yikes :)

Obviously we're not seeing any tests with this lens yet, but if it performs well with a 1.4x TC I could see this standing in as my poor-man's 200-400mm-ish (168-420mm FF) type of lens for some of that distant action and animal stuff that I.... never do :)

Anyway - I MIGHT do more of that, and with the Canon 200-400 rumored around 11k I can only hope for the Sigma to deliver decent quality and sharpness - even with a 1.4TC. (The point being that I often work in environments where trying to change lenses is not just a hassle but close to stupid, and so with a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and this Sigma on two FF bodies I could cover a good range of distant subjects with very little focal distance overlap).

But... yeah well. Let's see about that once we get some tests (now get us some tests, already!).


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Snow tubing with 5D III + 24-70 II
« on: December 31, 2012, 09:50:20 PM »
I wouldn't worry about that at all. We have 7 months of winter and a month before and after of freezing-melting waves, and I shoot in all conditions. That body-lens combo is weather sealed.

Granted, there's hardly any humidity here, but I still have to consider bringing the camera out in the cold and then back inside on many days - but as long as I let the camera warm back up and dry out before I turn it on, I have never had problems no matter how cold it has been (as cold as -36 celsius).

Canon General / Re: Record Spending Into Camera Gear - HIGHEST
« on: December 30, 2012, 09:58:21 PM »
I struck a deal with my wife (which is probably overplaying my part in the final agreement) about a year ago that all cameragear I were to buy from that point onwards was to come from the extra income I have doing a few photo- and web-related jobs for locals here in town.

Turns out I spent every cent on the stuff below - organized more or less chronologically starting around January 10, 2012, where I sold my Nikon D90 with a Tamron 18-270 lens (man, I hated that lens):

5D Mark II
16-35L II f/2.8
50 f/1.4
70-200L f/2.8 IS II
85 f/1.8
100L Macro f/2.8
24-105 L f/4
40 f/2.8
Rokinon Fisheye
300L f/4 IS
Fuji X-Pro1
Fuji 35 f/1.4
Fuji 18 f/2
5D Mark III
85L f/1.2 II
Sigma 35 1.4 (in the mail right now)

- plus a couple of tripods, flashes, bags and cases, and all that peripheral stuff.

...actually. Writing out this list makes me think I might not need that kind of spending spree in 2013... (Think again).


2003 - Canon G3
2006 - Sony DSC-N1
2009 - Nikon D90
2011 - Canon 7D
2012 - Canon 5D Mark II
2012 - Fuji X-pro1
2012 - Canon 5D Mark III

Lenses / Re: 16-35L or related primes
« on: December 10, 2012, 07:59:11 AM »
Thanks for all the feedback, guys :)

I might just, as one of you suggested, hold on to the 16-35L II for now to keep the wider end of the range covered (even if not at 14mm), and then move into the 24L 1.4 and the Sigma 35 1.4 to begin with, while I consider the 14mm options.

My challenge in all this is that I have no access to testing/renting lenses, since I live in a tiny town above the Arctic Circle in Greenland and rarely get to go to Europe or the States (about once a year to Europe - where the lens prices are just ridiculous anyway compared to shipping options from the US).

So I am having to rely on stuff like your great feedback - thanks!

Lenses / Re: 16-35L or related primes
« on: December 09, 2012, 08:34:12 PM »
If wide your thing is mainly landscapes and the night sky I would switch to the 24mm f/1.4L or the TS-E.
You will get better image quality and control and be giving up the zoom range. It is the way I would go, but if you need the range you might think differently.

Actually it's more:

Either the one wide zoom or the full combo of the 14, 24, and 35 primes (not just one of them). That's why I also would like to know how people feel about juggling more lenses versus a slower zoom.

At the 24 and 35 lengths I also do the odd street, sports, and environmental portrait stuff.

Lenses / 16-35L or related primes
« on: December 09, 2012, 08:04:10 PM »
I own the Canon 16-35L (and a bunch of other lenses for that matter), and basically I'd love som feedback on a choice I feel I'd like to make.


1) keep the 16-35 and be happy with a really good all-round wide zoom which is quite sharp, has fast autofocus, and is often stuck on one of my camerabodies (mostly the 5D Mark II),

or 2) Sell the 16-35 and buy the following setup:

  • Canon 14L 2.8 / Zeiss 15 2.8 / Rokinon(Samyang) 14 2.8 (autofocus not a must for me at this focal length)
  • Canon 24L 1.4
  • Sigma 35 1.4 (decided I prefer to get this one over the Canon 35L after reading reviews and seeing samples of image quality on FF

Setup is for full frame. Currently the 5D Mark II and III.

Keep the price out of this equation. I have just decided that if photography is what I want to do as much as I can, even if it's purely as a hobby, why not invest more in fast lenses, since I love the aperture versatility of 1.4s (and 1.2s for that matter).

Also, in theory I don't mind having more lenses to swap between in the 16-35 range if it means better glass and more possibilities in terms of lens speed. But what's your take on the combo of faster-glass-but-more-lenses-to-swap versus the walk-around-wide-zoom?

Has anyone else gone through this process, and do you have thoughts about making a change like this?

I am not going to keep the 16-35 . It doesn't make sense to me to have it if I buy the primes - even if it has a nice walk-around kind of versatility. I just have a feeling I wont use it with the primes hanging around.

Oh - and at these wider focal lengths I shoot mainly landscapes, night skies, and some action sports (snowmobiling, bmx).



Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens
« on: December 04, 2012, 09:39:47 AM »
Well - my real-life dream lens is the 200-400 f/4 1.4 ext.

And if it were physically possible to produce a 14-35 f/1.4 (is it? - is it just not produced because it would kill the primes?) which was optically at least as good as the best prime in that range, prime-sharp and fast to autofocus I'd be pretty happy not to worry about the four primes in that range.  :)

Canon 24 1.4
Sigma 35 1.4
Canon 24-70 2.8 II
Canon 135 f/2
Canon 200-400 f/4 IS 1.4ext (yeah, Mads, as if that's gonna happen...)

I mean... I have plenty of glass to keep me occupied already, so this is more like a "filling some gaps and adding some extreme luxuries" thing.

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: November 24, 2012, 07:05:14 PM »
Russell Glacier, an active finger of the Ice Cap, somewhat down the trail from where I live here in Greenland. August morning around 6 or 7 AM.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS $749
« on: November 02, 2012, 05:36:27 AM »
Anyone else find it strange the first half of this thread is talking about what looks like a price drop in the 5D III, and not this lens? lol

For some reason the "deal" post on the lens carried the comments from the "deal" post on the mark iii over into a new thread. Kinda weird - and my original post about the mark iii suddenly fell out of context. so I deleted that.

But agreed - it can cause confusion.

Lenses / Re: What lenses do you own?
« on: October 02, 2012, 05:31:55 AM »
1) Canon 16-35L 2.8 II
2) Canon 50 1.4
3) Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II
4) Canon 300L 4 IS
5) Canon 100L macro 2.8 IS
6) Canon 85 1.8
7) The shorty forty

Body: 5D Mark II (+ and hoping to add the Mark III next year)

Well. I am just a happy amateur who went a little more serious within the last two years, so it's not like my family survival depends on the photography income - but I dont buy gear I cannot sponsor with the extra income.

Of the lenses in my kit I would never go anywhere without the first three. The rest are for more specialized stuff, but the first three, and especially the 70-200 are my best friends. There's no denying that the 70-200 is insanely sharp, has incredible contrasts and takes an insane amount of abuse.

Oh - and the 100L will never let you down for that crossover portrait and macro work. so crisp and fantastic.

But to be honest, the lens that hugs the body on most days is the 16-35 as I do a lot of landscape and adventure travel experience stuff.

(For street stuff I use the X-Pro1 with the 35 1.4).

Pages: 1 [2] 3