March 05, 2015, 03:26:53 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 - FunPhotons

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 27
I have no problem with people that "see things differently," ... How can anyone read something like "pro don't use mid-range zooms" and still take this guy seriously?

One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter.

What he says isn't controversial. It's jut ill-informed and ignorant ... I've never come across anyone who produces such underwhelming work that tries to speak so authoritatively on any subject matter.

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm L f/4-5.6 colors washed out?
« on: April 07, 2012, 11:23:23 AM »
I guess this is going nowhere unless you grab your friend's 5d2 and take the exact same shots with the same aperture/iso on the 70-300L and 70-200L.

What? My friend doesn't have a 5DMKII - he has some kind of Rebel.

What I said was I put it on my 5D MKII, with my color corrections and workflow, and tried to eliminate variables. I still get washed out pictures. Further I've seen shots taken with the lens online, and sure with all the variables of monitors, JPGs, workflows, etc, they still look washed - generally. I have seen a few that look OK.

Any shot taken with my 70-200 or 24-105 has wonderful colors, but I can't do the same with the 70-300 in the time I've taken with it. Has anybody else seen this?

Lenses / 70-300mm L f/4-5.6 colors washed out?
« on: April 07, 2012, 10:42:39 AM »
   A buddy got a 70-300mm and I've it on my 5DMKII and shot with it. I can't keep seeing the shots as washed out with pale colors, especially compared to the 70-200/2.8 II that I have. I've got camera color calibration and have used a ColorChecker to correct the shots (WB not full colors yet) and I'm still seeing pale. Finally, on at least a few shots online I've seen it seems the like they're washed too.

   My imagination? Not sure what to make of it.

You guys entirely have the wrong idea. You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else. Maybe you only use a little of what he says, maybe nothing, but maybe it gets you to think differently and see photography from a different viewpoint for a while.

For example, last week I came across his articles about wide angle lenses and tripods. First on tripods, since then I've been really thinking - why do I carry a tripod around? Is it really necessary? Am I over using it, under using it? On wide angles - which I've always preferred - these are the first articles that I've found which talked the same reasons about why I like them.

People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.

I was looking at the page here, under the specifications tab:

That's a puzzle, I can't explain it.

Syl Arena, who got a pre-release ST-E3-RT and 3 600-RTs, has said on several occasions that second curtain sync still isn't available, and he seemed to throughly have tested it. My guess its an oversight.

One question that I had that I wanted someone with an STE3 to confirm is, can you really set second curtain sync on a remote flash triggered from the STE3 or is that incorrect in the documentation?

What page does it say that? As far as I can see 2nd curtain isn't mentioned at all.

Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: April 06, 2012, 06:34:34 AM »
I'd prefer primes but for the following reasons ...

  • Canon puts most of their R&D into zooms
  • Primes require more lens changes and hassle

I've been using zooms long enough now (converted over seven years ago) that I'm pretty much used to them and OK. Bigger, heavier, but they do have more flexibility.

Given that, I do have a fantasy of having a all Zeiss prime kit.

Lighting / Re: 580ex II or 600EX-RT
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:28:10 AM »
On using legacy flashes with the 600, check out Syl Arena who found a workaround. Since we're using wireless, you can use a cheap optical trigger to get your 580's to play with the 600. I'm debating whether to sell the 580EXII and 480 to fund a fourth 600, or just do this option.

If you have the money, I highly recommend the 600. Simple, clean, easy system, I'm really liking it.

Lighting / Re: 600EX-RT
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:25:30 AM »
Hey guys!

There is not all that much info out there on the new flash/trigger combination yet so I thought I'd post a link to a first impressions video from photographer Dan Carr. He gives some interisting thought about the two way radio signal not being used to full potential.

Here you go:

Initial Thoughts on Canon's New 600EX RT Flash & ST-E3 Radio Transmitter


Good post. I don't think his detractions are all that big. This flash is a big jump forward, and in any R&D development you have to draw the line and cut possible features out, it seems to me that Canon really gave us a lot (I work in similar kind of development)

  • Remote flashes don't comunicate gels back to the master. I don't see this as a big deal, you really should be using a grey card or other for WB regardless and not hope that you can get it right with a generic settings
  • Remote control of zooming. Sure this would be cool, but on the other hand that's a physical change, like putting a modifier on the flash which means you have to physically be at the flash. Like I said they had to draw the line somewhere and I bet that this particular feature just got dropped off, and may be implemented in a future flash, meanwhile setting zoom on the unit isn't a biggie.
  • He likes setting the flash from the camera back, which I don't have on my 5DMKII, but it doesn't bother me a bit. I prefer using the dedicated, really nice LCD on the back of the flash instead of digging down into my camera menus which is slower
  • I agree Canon should have provided more gels

I did keep the ST-E3-RT order through B&H. Nobody has one, but B&H has it for $319 (IIRC) while Amazon has it for $470 for some reason. I'm really looking forward to flash without having to have a big heavy unit on to of the camera. I'll just keep it there all the time (assuming I can find a bag to accommodate it).

Meanwhile the three units I've got so far are a treat. Simple, integrated, really well done execution. Not to mention the extra goodies like the gel holder. I've held off buying a gel solution as they were all hodge podge involving tape, or at best, velcro.

I canceled my B&H order and did it through Amazon which has plenty of stock.

They look very good for DSLR astro photos. I'm not much into DSLR astrophotography, because the captures look blobby, low res with washed out colors compared to a good CCD with color wheels. But its an easy way to get a picture without having to spend $10k and mess with the filters. If you're into it then this looks like a step up.

Makes me wonder, by the time you get a decent mount, 'scope, etc, and spend the time to set up and the hour(s) to take the shot, why bother putting a substandard imager on there?

It also says that with a pre 2012 camera you have to use a flash sync speed 1 increment slower and high speed sync is not available. Again minimal testing, but I'm using HSS successfully, and am not compensating by a stop.

Do you mean via RF control of slaves?  IIRC, the 1-stop lower sync speed and no HSS applies to RF control of off-camera strobes with cameras older than the 5DIII (and 1D X).

Correct, thanks for the clarification. Again I haven't noticed problems so far, even though its warning me. Maybe the 5DMKII is OK.

RF is set up and controlled from the flash LCD, the back of the camera can't deal with it. No problem for me, I prefer using the flash LCD to control, well the flash, anyhow.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / 600-RT compatibility information
« on: April 03, 2012, 07:42:41 PM »
Got my three flashes and the manual. Seems to be working fine (very basic testing) with a 5DmkII

In the manual it states that E-TTL is not possible with the older cameras, such as the 1D, 1Ds, 1V, Elan, 50, Rebel 2000, etc.

It also says that with a pre 2012 camera you have to use a flash sync speed 1 increment slower and high speed sync is not available. Again minimal testing, but I'm using HSS successfully, and am not compensating by a stop. Even though I'm getting the !Tv warning (occasionally) they said I would get.


EOS Bodies / Re: Thoughts of Gizmodo today - pretty balanced
« on: April 03, 2012, 12:02:33 PM »
I thought Kai's DigitalRev review of the D800 seemed to implicitly state this, namely that the D800 files are so large that it is not entirely practical as a walk around camera.  The Ryan Brenizer review effectively stated the same thing because he takes 250K pictures per year, which is not feasible with 70MB file sizes.

I have to say, I don't really buy this at all. I've been handling 70Mb files out of my Nikon (sorry) negative scanner for years, and I don't exactly have the latest gear, IT wise. Just a pretty regular laptop running Windows XP until a year ago, and more recently Windows 7 (32 bit). I use Lightroom 2,3 and most recently 4 on these files, with no issues whatsoever. I've digitised my entire back-catalogue of negatives, which amount to around 10,000 images. This fits just fine alongside the circa 10,000 RAWs from more recent times, onto a 1 terabyte USB drive, no issues.

250,000 snaps a year is obviously a very high total, but two points: 1. if each of these files is professional, which it must be at this volume, then clearly a professional level of storage network array is called for. 2. Not that I know beans about being professional, but doesn't 250,000 images a year sound a bit snap happy? That's over 1,000 each and every working day, and around 140 an hour, every single working hour of the day. Call me naive or old fashioned, but I'd have thought slowing down and thinking about what you are doing more carefully might be a useful strategy...

Agree on all of this. In this day and age worrying about storage is the last thing we should have on our minds in photography. Storage has followed an exponential curve like all other technology. Seems to me that people are looking for a reason - some reason, ANY reason - to not like a (circa 2012) high megapixel camera.

And thanks for the analysis on number of shots, when I first heard that number I thought thats got to be a little padded (me, he-man, me take lots of pictures)    :)

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 27