April 20, 2014, 12:52:20 PM

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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 107
496
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III rear joystick came off?!
« on: January 27, 2014, 12:05:55 PM »
I've had them come off 1Ds MkIII's too, no biggie, they just push back on. With the 1Ds MkIII the rubber boot is normally damaged if the joystick was rubbed hard enough to pull it off.

497
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:41:11 PM »
Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins.

Seriously? Perhaps you can provide some solid proof that many Nikon users used the 14-24 as a general purose zoom lens.

I once saw the photos by an amateur wedding photographer who shot an entire wedding with his ultrawide lens (in this case, the Canon EF-S 10-22 or 16-35 lens in 35 mm equivalent) cos that was all he had. I can tell you many of the photos were bad, really really bad... perspective distortion is simply awful.

Well I used to work with two, but if you want internet proof then go look at Joe McNally's site and see some of the amazing work, including portraits, he has put out with his 14-24.

498
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:08:22 PM »
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?


An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

Your troll's job is done. You can go away now and Neuro can take this one.
He can debate how appalling the 24mm f/1.4 II is for you.

The 24 f1.4 MkII is a superb lens, but it has zero functional advantage over the 24-70 f2,8 IS as a landscape shooting lens, zero, none, nada. For somebody wanting a dedicated 24mm LANDSCAPE lens suggesting the f1.4 is pretty terrible advice, even worse considering Canon actually make probably the best 24 mm LANDSCAPE orientated lens in the world, the 24 TS-E MkII.

P.S. I am no troll, and I don't suffer fools or their "advice" easily.

499
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 11:49:49 AM »
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?


An appalling choice?
Maybe we should all switch to Nikons high MP camera, then things like vignetting and distortion wouldn't even exist.

Anybody that sees another 135 format as a "better" choice is so divorced from my understanding I am glad Neuro has taken this one. By your logic we should all be shooting 8"X10" and drum scanning.

500
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 26, 2014, 11:43:56 AM »
The FF lens that Canon really needs to equal or best is the 14-24 f2.8. An 11-24 f4, is not, in my opinion, it.

That is solely YOUR opinion.

Of course, I am the only person I can and want to speak for. Having said that I am one of the very few posters here that ever constrains their input by saying " personally" or " in my opinion" I even did it several times in this thread, do you?

501
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 26, 2014, 10:07:04 AM »
You might not, I do.

Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins. You might, I don't.
The Nikon is a 14-24. There is a pretty massive difference going from 14mm to 11mm.

+1 I thought the Nikon 12-24 was dx?

You are both right, in my disappointment I was mentally mixing the two Nikon lenses, my apologies.

The FF lens that Canon really needs to equal or best is the 14-24 f2.8. An 11-24 f4, is not, in my opinion, it. Having used many stitched 17 TS-E images the projection distortion at 11mm is not worth using, though an old mentor of mine swore by the Sigma 12-24 that was 100% tripod work and only used at 12 in very tight spaces.

502
Canon General / Re: Shop in Orlando or nearby
« on: January 26, 2014, 09:51:32 AM »
Glad it was a help, interesting about B&H shipping to hotels now too. Hope you had fun in Central Florida.

503
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:58:39 AM »
The 24 f1.4 is an appalling choice for a 24 mm dedicated landscape lens. The TS-E24 MkII is probably the best current 24mm 135 format lens available, and it is uniquely orientated towards landscape work. How many landscapes are you going to shoot between f1.4 and f3.5?

504
Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:53:38 AM »
Vignetting and distortion at those levels are complete non sequiturs with the mp cameras we have and the vast majority of output scenarios.

505
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 08:55:03 PM »
You might not, I do.

Many, many, Nikon users use the 12-24 f2.8 as a general purpose ultra wide zoom, I don't see that Canon users, who have gotten so used to lackluster ultrawide zooms of mediocre performance and length, should be unable to utilize a single millimeter of extra width below our Nikon cousins. You might, I don't.

506
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 08:00:57 PM »
F4 sucks, well it does for me personally. Sure I use the 17 TS-E, an f4, a lot, but it is specialised and no real issue as an f4. As a general purpose ultrawide upgrade to the 16-35 f2.8 the focal length is very interesting, but f4 kills it for too many situations. Iso performance does not replace aperture, neither does IS, I want all three.

507
A follow up to my last post.

The AF assist of the YN is one set pattern and quite bright in comparison to the 600-EX-RT, also being a fixed projection pattern the height of that pattern varies in the viewfinder with subject distance such that at close distances you might find the pattern too high for lower AF points. As the subject distance increases the pattern goes lower in the viewfinder.

The 600-EX-RT has a much broader pattern, or set of lines, depending on what AF point you have selected, the output is also dimmer and less distracting, but obviously bright enough as it works very well.

Using my 50 f1.4 I'd say the 600 AF assist pattern enables faster AF in very dark situations than the YN does, there isn't much to it but along with the variable pattern from the 600 that is tuned to your actual AF point I'd say there is an observable advantage to the Canon. The YN AF assist works very well though.

508
I'll compare it with the 600 later, but by itself with my 50 f1.4 in no light (completely dark room) AF is practically instant with every focus point I have played with with my 1Ds MkIII's.

The YN-E3-RT is a bargain when compared to the ST-E3-RT, the only negatives for it are the slightly lower build quality and the fact that it doesn't fire the flashes in Remote Shooting Mode, but it seems I am the only person who uses that feature cos nobody else has mentioned it. But the positives far outweigh those two, the AF assist works well and the Group Mode for pre 2012 cameras is fantastic, I'd pay a lot more for that feature alone.

509
Software & Accessories / Re: Macro and Tripods and offset
« on: January 25, 2014, 11:19:39 AM »
My suggestions are normally based on the sweet spot of cost and functionality. Hence the 190/055 even though you said you'd rather not get a new tripod.

It is very easy to lose sight of the overall cost of things when you just keep adding another piece or two, far better to look at an end goal and work out the best way of getting there with a clean slate, you might even be able to sell the tripod you have to offset the cost of a more suitable one for your interests.

510
EOS Bodies / Re: "Honey, I'vs never seen it this hard before..."
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:58:17 AM »
Spend $2,000 on a 1Ds MkIII. AF up the wazoo, but limited high iso performance. It will focus off center at 1.4 in low light all day long though.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 107