October 02, 2014, 06:27:32 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 - jebrady03

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17
46
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 70D Deals at B&H Photo
« on: February 03, 2014, 05:00:43 PM »
Odd that this is making the rounds and not the deal that was available on B&H just a few days ago (it was available for several weeks and I'm not sure but might have even been left over from the holidays).  The 70D + 18-135 STM + Pixma Pro 100 + 50 sheets of photo paper + 16 GB class 10 Transcend memory card + Canon camera bag all for $1249 after $400 MIR.  That's $50 less than the current deal for the camera and same lens but you also got a memory card, printer, paper, and a camera bag.
So again, I think it's odd that this deal is getting pointed out.

47
I'm thinking many of the guys in this forum are not married.

Pretty simple, if your wife wants the 70D, you buy the damn 70D.

Happy wife, happy life.

48
Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2 IS v Canon 40 2.8 pancake
« on: January 24, 2014, 12:55:21 PM »
To me, it makes sense to ditch the 28 and 40 as the 35mm IS is going to do everything better than either of those and the focal lengths are SO close it doesn't really warrant keeping them.

Having said that, if you think the size of the 40 will come in handy, it's worth it to keep it.  You'll only get $125-140 on the used market (if you're lucky) and while that can certainly help to offset the cost of the new lens, it's certainly not a substantial sum.

As soon as I get the 35mm IS, my plan is to sell the 40 as well.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 18-40 Pancake
« on: January 19, 2014, 09:17:04 PM »
I think some are missing the point of the M system altogether. I'll spell it out for you...

S M A L L - S I Z E!!!

50
EOS Bodies / Re: The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]
« on: January 16, 2014, 10:48:15 PM »
How does it get more "entry level" than the 100D?

51
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Microadjustment Automated
« on: January 13, 2014, 04:00:25 AM »
Having 1 value for a lens does not fix much.

I didn't read the patent so I don't know for sure but, does it say it only uses one value?  Or does it say multiple values are not possible?

52
Now Sigma offers a $900 version of a 50mm, which is much less affordable than four of Canon's offerings.

Where have you found pricing info?  I've checked (what I thought was) everywhere and can't find it.

53
Lenses / Re: New lenses ($6800 budget)
« on: January 06, 2014, 03:15:57 AM »
If I were spending your money and rewriting your lens collection, I'd sell your current lenses except the 50/1.8 (18-135 NON-STM, and 70-300 NON-L) and put that $350-400 towards the overall budget, making it $7200-ish.

Enough people have done exactly what you asked them NOT to do and talked about the CAMERA, so I'll just focus on the lenses (with one exception)...

Here goes my list...
Lens 1:
A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

You mentioned that you use your 50mm/1.8 for portraits and some macro but that it's not ideal for macro - in my opinion, the 50mm field is a situation of picking the least of various evils.  The 50/1.2 is expensive and no better than the Canon 50/1.4 at equivalent apertures so you're paying a $1000 premium for a fraction of a stop and being able to say that the bokeh is "dreamy" (and sharpness is non-existent) at f/1.2.  That's a lot of coin for crappy bragging rights, IMO.  The Sigma 50/1.4 is better than the Canon 50/1.4, but there seem to be some reliability issues among users when it comes to focus accuracy - so you may play the lens lottery which is a P.I.T.A.  The 50/1.8 is crap until f/2.8 so... what's the point?  Well, you said f/2.8 is fine - so keep it and use it there.  My recommendation?  85/1.2 LII.  You wanted sharp... this is $2000 worth of SUPER SHARP!  If you want to replace your 50/1.8 then the new Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 is a RIDICULOUS lens when it comes to sharpness.  You said you didn't mind manual focusing - this is a non-AF lens and is sharper than anything else you'll find, but it's half your budget.  Personally, I say stick with the 50/1.8, use it at 2.8, and add the Canon 85/1.2 LII.

Cost: $2,000

Lens 2:
A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Since you're keeping your 50mm/1.8, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 constant zoom lens is a REAL option.  Really sharp and REALLY  fast!  If it's turns out not to be then the obvious choice is the Canon 17-55/2.8 as it's sharp, covers a great range, and has IS.  The 50mm f/1.8 at 2.8 is roughly equal to the 17-55 at 50mm at f/2.8 in terms of sharpness - but the bokeh is better on the 17-55 and you get IS.  Should you go with the 17-55, sell the 50/1.8.

Cost: $800 +/- depending on which lens you purchase.  Maybe as low as $700 when you factor in that you can sell the 50/1.8 if you go with the 17-55.

Lens 3:
A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.

Either of Canon's 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses are perfect here.  If you want weather sealing and/or hybrid IS, go with the L.  If not, go with the non-L.  Optically, they're very similar.

Cost: $550-$850 depending on the lens chosen

Lens 4:
I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Yup!  The NEW 18-135 STM.  But, you're well covered with the lenses above in terms of sharpness.  Either skip the large range zoom OR, buy the NEW 18-135mm STM lens.  The glass has been updated and it's a much sharper lens than the old 18-135 lens.  As a bonus, it'll work like a CHAMP for video with your 70D.  The STM lenses have focusing motors and IS systems that are made specifically for video - they're SILENT :) 

Cost: $300

Lens 5:
A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.

BEYOND 300 without a teleconverter leaves only a few options.  The Canon 100-400 is an obvious option.  Tamron just announced a very large lens, the 150-600 that seems to test well.  There's also a 70-200 or 70-300 plus 2x teleconverter.  Too many options here to list - homework time :)

Now... one place you're missing some critical range (for some people) and that's the UWA end.  In my opinion, when you're using an UWA, you're usually out walking around a LOT.  That means, LIGHT WEIGHT is GOOD!  The Canon  EOS M + 11-22mm IS lens is an obvious choice for this scenario, IMO.  The cost is roughly the same as the Canon 10-22 and the lens is BETTER except for the max aperture and 10 vs 11mm.

Cost: $600-650.  Another possible use for this money is lighting like an external flash (or 2, or 3), etc.

Total cost of all options above except the telephoto zoom = max of $4600 (before taxes) unless you buy the 55mm Zeiss.  It could be $400 less if you go with the Canon 17-55 as opposed to the Sigma 18-35 and the non-L 100mm macro.  That leaves you $2600-$3000 for your telephoto solution (because remember, you sold your 18-135 and 70-300 in my scenario).  That's enough for the top of the line Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($2500) and 2x teleconverter! :)

That's some INCREDIBLE gear!
85mm f/1.2 L II
18-35 f/1.8 OR 17-55 f/2.8 IS
100mm f/2.8 macro (L or not)
EF-S 18-135 STM (for convenience and video - sharpness isn't bad)
Any one of several telephoto zooms + teleconverter
EOS M + 11-22mm IS

With this setup, you're covered with FANTASTIC image quality from FF equivalent of 17-660mm!  AND, you have IS as an option the entire way.

That's how I personally would spend the money!  Except I'd find a way to add the 35mm f/2 IS ($500-600).

54
Lenses / Re: Strange Lens Flare (Sigma 35mm + MRC filter)
« on: January 03, 2014, 10:22:44 AM »
To avoid taking the filter off, indoors, in your own home, because you're fearful of damaging the front element is a bit paranoid, don't you think?  Just take it off and retest.  This will determine if your (mostly useless and possibly problematic) UV filter (you're using at night) is the problem.

55
Portrait / Re: Girl and Horse
« on: December 22, 2013, 04:11:14 PM »
This photo was also printed on canvas and is currently hanging on a wall :)

Good for you!  :)  Just the way it should be :)

56
Portrait / Re: Girl and Horse
« on: December 22, 2013, 04:00:19 PM »


Original source: blog.erikhammar.se

I like it. I think it works because it appears more candid them some of the other post pictures.  Although technically, it may not be as sound, it conveys the mood very well. In the end, that is what matters. :)

If I may make a slight suggestion, if she kisses the horse closer to the front of the mouth, then there will be less shadow on her face, and you can see her lips better.

I agree!  Every other image in this post looks posed and not in the least bit natural - despite the attempt by using natural settings.  The original image appears as a serendipitous capture of a moment we were all lucky enough to witness.  For that reason, I find it to be superior to every other image in this thread - even if it's not technically "flawless" by others' definition.  I think it's pretty close to perfect myself.

I'd rather see a true "moment" in the most artificial setting than a completely artificial moment in natural setting.

Regarding the horse in the original image, sure a greater depth of field capturing the horses eyes in perfect clarity would have been great, but as-is works as well as with the horse's eyes closed because it really draws attention to the kiss which is where the actual focus point seems to be which draws even more attention there.  Again - a GREAT capture of a beautiful moment.

57
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:20:05 AM »
.... but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

So, window light, studio light, off camera Speedlite or on camera Speedlite?

I guess I should have been more specific, using flash outdoors bothers me.
For this image, I'm guessing something other than ambient window light.  Although it's obvious that IF something other than window light was used, it was dialed back in intensity. 

Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.

Of course.  I'd just wait for better light.  Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.

This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

Yep, true. This shot was certain time of day, so either couldn't shoot down towards the water or use flash.

As you have said the time of the day and the angle of the sun you had to make the choice of taking the shot and use flash or do not get the shot at all. I shall always go for getting the shot.

Just one thing, the "obviousness" of the flash is basicaly due to couple of areas on the skin (and the rim of the glasses) with localized highlights/reflections which would not be there if flash is not used, and a bit of extra (cannot say overexposure) exposure on the entire body. It is upto your taste and liking - but you may want to thing about reducing that over exposure slightly and eliminating those highlights. My guess is that will give a more "natural look". Of course depending on your liking you may disagree.

I agree that dialing in some flash exposure compensation would have been ideal here.

58
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 22, 2013, 12:46:47 AM »
Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.

Of course.  I'd just wait for better light.  Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.

This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it.  I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it.  Until then, I prefer natural lighting.

59
Portrait / Re: Girl and Horse
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:14:33 PM »
Harsh shadow over her face... but maybe others disagree.

Based on the position of the sun, I would find it EXTREMELY odd if there were no shadow on her face.

60
Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: December 21, 2013, 08:13:23 PM »


This is an example where I think using flash (or a reflector, or whatever) has made the image look worse.  It's obvious based on the shadow on the ground that this is a back-lit scene, yet there's no shadow on her body indicating this.  It screws with my head and just ruins the image for me.  My brain tells me that there SHOULD be shadows and it WANTS to see shadows, but there are none.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 17