July 30, 2014, 04:19:49 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 ... 140
496
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:09:48 AM »
Until you show me full size versions of those images you shared, which appear to be quite sharp to me, that prove they are soft and needed IS (vs. say better focus), I'm sorry but I have to disagree tat it is "completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous." I've shot enough with a 50/1.4 to know that my shutter speed is most often well above the 1/focalLength and even above the 1/focalLength*2 baselines to produce shake-free shots except in more extreme circumstances (such as your second photo, however that would usually be where you jack up the ISO to compensate.)

If we were talking about an 85mm f/4 or even f/2.8 lens, I would completely agree with you...but 85mm lenses are f/1.8 or faster, 50mm lenses are usually f/1.4, and most frequently used at their faster apertures. Additionally, with wider fields, it takes more camera movement to result in meaningful motion of image detail at the pixel level, so blur from camera shake becomes less and less likely the shorter the lens.

And what's with the hostility? Wrong side of the bed day today or something?

First off, no hostility at all, just a very strong disagreement with your untenable point of view. Calling something sh!t that is sh!t is not hostile. I'm just doing an Arthur Morris on you.

Second, you are now putting limits on aperture and iso for focal lengths, you can't do that. What if I want/need f8 and 1/4 at iso 400? Then IS would be good to have. Just because a prime lens might be between f1.2 and f2.8 doesn't mean that aperture is appropriate for the image to be taken, as per my second image example. Same with iso, I used 800 for the second image and ETTR'd because I didn't want to lose DR between the candle flame and the very dark wall detail, if I'd had IS I could have got more DR, and shadow detail, by going to 100iso.

Third, the size of the pixel and the arc of blur are completely unrelated, assuming you have enough resolution to resolve the arc of blur, as my two images with 2003 sized pixels clearly do, having more resolution would not make the blur better or worse, only reproduction size would. Same as diffraction limits and airy discs, more resolution is not worse, but it doesn't increase or decrease the diffraction.

Fourth, do you honestly think I would post an illustrative example that doesn't illustrate my point? I have posted hundreds of them!

Anyway, here are the 100% crops with zero sharpening or noise reduction on the best point of focus. They are both focused within this 700 x 700px square, the sharpness falls off as you go further away. They both show camera movement as can be evidenced by the shadow/ghost around the front of the monks face in image one, and the fact that the second image crop is the sharpest section of the frame, the point of focus and I were completely static (I was braced against a wall) and my camera is set to not take a picture without achieving focus.

497
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:26:19 PM »
@PBD, do you have any luck optically triggering flashes inside an Apollo-type softbox?

Indoors yes with both the ST-E2 and a Master flash, but consistency is not perfect and the flash is better than the ST-E2. Until my 600's I was using 550EX's and an ST-E2, but I also made a 50' (yes foot) ETTL cable with a Cat 6 cable and an off camera cord that I ran into the box and used as the "on camera" Master and controlled it via the camera flash menu, this works very well as the softbox flash with it's accompanying spread becomes the optical controller.

Outside, no luck at all!

498
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:08:44 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Um, dude, seriously...you did see that I used the word "WAS", right?

WAS true. Not IS true. WAS true.

Chill. Sheesh.

Well I am using a camera with the same pixel pitch as a 10D, so if it is true today with my camera it was true back in Feb 2003 when the 10D came out. Your comment is completely, patently, and demonstrably ridiculous.

499
Lighting / Re: How to tell when Eneloops are running dry in 600EXs?
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:05:07 PM »
I am using the same as you and I just go on the first missfire, though I find the ST-E3 kills its two AA's before the 600's kill their four.

The only reason I have had a missfire from the 600's (apart from with the Youngnuo YN-E3-RT) has been down to battery level, a change of battery has sorted it out.

500
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:01:37 PM »
Neuro and I seem to be the only ones who reply to threads like this  :)

I have both styles of speedlite softbox, the Apollo (umbrella) style where the flash points into the box, and the Lastolite (traditional) style where there is a hole in the back of the box and the flash fires forwards. There is no doubt in my mind that the Apollo style is much more efficient for speedlite use, not least because it is much easier to fit multiple lights inside almost any box, but also I find the evenness and diffusion much smoother with the Apollo style.

501
Lighting / Re: Cobra flash (edit:speedlite) softboxes for portraits
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:55:05 PM »
It depends on how realistic you are with regards iso and aperture.

Here is one 600-EX-RT in a 50" Westcott Apollo at full power, the room shot is f2.8 and iso 200, 1/160 and clearly overexposed at around 7 feet to the wall, the shot of the box illumination, which is remarkably even (the flash was zoomed to 20mm) is f10 at iso 200 and 1/160.

The 50" Apollo is a true 50" x 50" and can easily cover several full length subjects, it has a front screen but the beauty of its evenness is that it fires the flash into the box, not out of the box. I normally use it with three flashes on a triple clamp.

502
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:54:05 PM »
The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true.

What a load of pretentious, unmitigated, hypothetical sh!t.

Here are some perfect examples of why I don't give a damn that the 24-70 f2.8 MkII is sharper than the MkI, and why when they come out with an IS version I am in. They were both shot on a camera with 6.4┬Ám pixels.

First image: 24-70 f 2.8 MkI, 60mm f2.8 1/10 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have been considerably sharper.

Second image: 24-70 f2.8 MkI, 24mm f3.2 1/2 sec. If I had had IS this shot would have had better dof control.

Give me IS on a 16-35 now and I'll buy it.

503
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:41:13 AM »

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2


To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.


That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent ;): http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm


You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.

504
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 17, 2014, 10:02:57 AM »

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2


To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

505
I use the 1900mAh, it isn't a case of "getting away" with them, they are superb batteries that in my opinion offer the best results re longevity, recharge cycles, output and cost.

Been using them for years and have never looked back or wished I had gone for the higher capacity.

506
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:55:21 PM »
It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
What's the buffer depth in RAW?

I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.


You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,152
http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,312


As has been mentioned look at the overhead view, a massive difference in terms of depth between the cameras.

The reason the 645D is so much deeper than FF dispite the sensor not being THAT much larger is I'd say because its having to deal with the legacy flange distance of the old "full frame" 645 system than a whoping 70mm.

Compare the 645D's depth to the Leica S2...

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,391

The formers sensor might be a little taller but that's a pretty massive difference which I'd guess is down to Leica having a purpose made mount with a much smaller flange distance.


I take your point, a bit, but the cost of re-engineering everything would have moved this well out if the $8,500 realm. The Canon 1Ds back in 2002 cost $8,000, a new 1DX is over $6,000.

Anyway here are few numbers for the number crunchers.

Pentax 645Z - 6.1 x 4.6 x 4.8" / 15.5 x 11.7 x 12.2 cm  $8,500
Hasselblad H5D - 6.02 x 5.16 x 8.07" (15.3 x 13.1 x 20.5 cm) $13-44,000
Leica S - 6.3 x 3.1 x 4.7" / (16.0 x 8.0 x 12.0 cm) $22,000
Mamiya RZ22/33 - 6.5 x 6.1 x 5.2" (16.5 x 15.5 x 13.2 cm) $11-18,000

507
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:51:08 PM »
The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

"...super bokeh and shallow DoF..."

Let's consider the latter.  If you frame the subject the same, e.g. a full-body portrait at 2 m with the 50/1.2 or 12 m with the 300/2.8, the subject magnification is the same.  So, the f/1.2 aperture of the 50L will give a thinner DoF.  If the subject-to-background distance is less than ~9 m, the 50L will deliver a stronger background blur.

Obviously, that's OOF blur amount, which is distinct from bokeh.

I wondered how long it would be before somebody pointed that out. It would be interesting to know what the actual true focal length and aperture is with a 12mm tube on the 300mm f2.8.

But I digress, I, personally, prefer the combination of destroyed background, slightly deeper dof, and perspective you get from the 300, rather than the far busier background slightly shallower dof, and perspective from the short 1.2's. Though I fully understand it is all personal preference and in many cases limited by practicalities, I only ever used the 300 at one wedding but used the 50 f1.2 at lots!

P.S. The OOF blur might be more with the wider aperture, but we both know the elements of the background will be vastly bigger, and hence to the eye appear more blurred, with the 300.

508
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 09:30:50 PM »

I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?


Sure it will, and obviously perspective is a taste issue. Personally I like the look of 300mm portraits, I like the bokeh from 300 f2.8's even better, they really do embarrass the short 1.2's. For years Canon's sample image for the 300 f2.8 was a head and 3/4 portrait, I just checked and it still is, just a different one.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

509
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 08:42:02 PM »
The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

510
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: April 16, 2014, 07:32:48 PM »
I neither love nor hate it, and yes I have used it, indeed I owned an FD 50 1.2L for a long time.

Having said that my vote went for the nifty 50 as you didn't have a Canon 1.4 option. My copy of the Canon 1.4 gives very little away to either, I am not interested in super sharp corners and I don't find the 50, or indeed the 85 f1.2, very good focal lengths to give the background separation I like for that "dreamy bokeh" style portrait. The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 140