January 29, 2015, 01:51:49 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 96
EOS Bodies / Re: 2015 wishlist
« on: January 09, 2015, 12:10:51 PM »
I have full insurance to cover all my gear. But still it would be pita if I lost stuff. On my FB circles I see occasionally people posting about stolen gear. Wouldn't it be nice if those would go away?

Acutance has good point about 3rd party. But I'm not sure if they would dare to do that.

They'd have to figure out how to accomodate the used gear market though.  Seller sells gear but did not "deregister" it first.  Now buyer can't use it because it's registered by someone else.  And if the seller wasn't the user of the gear (i.e. estate sale) and knows the account passwords then it gets more complicated.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III Replacement Talk [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2015, 12:06:22 PM »
I agree the naming is important as the 5 series is the sacred cow. But I dont think Canon ever makes a model badged the 90D.  Sounds way to much like the old Nikon D90.

What happens after the 90D?  Suddenly Canon mid-tier camera is 3 digits, the realm of lower end cameras.

Numerical naming can be tricky - especially long term.

How about A0D?  Just kidding.  Naming the Rebels Txi in the US was a smart move on Canon's part although having the SL1 known as the 100D wasn't such a good move...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Preparing for the switch
« on: January 09, 2015, 12:01:33 PM »
I prefer and have the 24-70 f/2.8 II.  I take pictures of people and I generally need faster shutter speeds than 1/30s (absolute slowest) to get the shots I want, so IS isn't as important.  Are there times I could have used it?  Absolutely, but the number of those instances are a lot fewer than times that I preferred having f/2.8 rather than a maximum of f/4.

EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 11:53:49 AM »
I used it for a hike with the 11-22 and sometimes I use it with the 70-200 with a 2x, but my wife uses it more.  She uses it for taking pics of our kids at school events because she is not willing to bring the DSLR.

I use it more as a video cam now.  It is a better videocam than our dedicated 1st generation HD videocam HV20 (sp?  and it recorded to DV tapes) that we got when our first child was born.  I'll use the DSLR for pictures and put the M on a monopod/tripod to take videos of the kids performances.  I've used the 24-70 on the M with the adaptor to record video while having the 70-200 on the DSLR.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang/Rokinon vs. straight lines.
« on: January 08, 2015, 09:03:03 AM »
Take a look at Dustin's review.  He likes it.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: Do you need 1/8000s shutter speed?
« on: January 07, 2015, 08:47:38 AM »
I wish the 6d had it.if you want to shoot the 50l wide open (that's the reason you buy it) in bright daylight  you have to use a nd filter.

But then again, just having one stop faster shutter wouldn't save you and you'd have to use a nd filter anyway?

Many times it is just enough.  I did a similar thing at the beach, and I had to put on the CP and drop the ISO to 50 to get it into min shutter time of the camera.  Sometimes the highlights are still blown slightly, but it's better than blowing out the midtones.

Lenses / Re: Canon 28-300L 'super-zoom'
« on: January 07, 2015, 08:12:13 AM »
I'd only consider the 28-300L if you really can't change lenses where you intend to use it and need the focal length range.  If you're considering covering that range with the fewest lenses possible, you might consider a 24-70 f/4 IS or 24-105 f/4 IS paired with a 70-300L.  The combo will cost less, weigh less and provide better IQ.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: POLL: Do you need 1/8000s shutter speed?
« on: January 06, 2015, 09:00:05 PM »
For 2013 and 2014, I've used 1/8000 0.7% of the time.  Combined 1/4000 + 1/5000 + 1/8000 is about 3% of the time.  I almost always shoot using Av, so I'm setting up for freezing action for subjects in the shade, and then shoot something under direct sun, the shutter speed will get up there.  Most popular ISO that it happens at is 400, although it still happens quite a bit at ISO 100, especially with fast lenses.

I'd bring the 6D + 16-35 f/4 IS + 50 f/1.8.  Unless you know you'll need the tripod for a specific shot, you might consider leaving that at home as well.  If you're staying in the cities, then the wider focal lengths will be more useful than the longer ones.  In cities, I tend to favor the 16-35 over the 70-xxx range.  The 50 f/1.8 is nice for available light, indoor scenarios, etc.

I have a "standard" travel kit of 16-35/50/70-xxx, but "standard" doesn't apply very often.  It's the starting point to figure out what to bring but is rarely brought.  The ultrawide zoom or telezoom might be dropped, but I almost always bring a fast prime either for more artistic shots or for low light.

Whatever you do, insure the gear that would be costly to replace (i.e. 6D, 16-35 f/4 IS).  The peace of mind far outweighs the insurance cost.

The IQ differences are not big enough to be a prime differentiator between the three lenses, so you're looking at cost, focal length range, weight and constant maximum aperture.  I have the 70-300L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and for outdoor travel, the 70-300L is a good choice.  It is about 0.5 lb heavier (about the weight of 1.4x III) than the the 70-200 lenses you're considering, but it goes to 300mm.  What you get with the 70-300L is very good IQ in a compact size that handles well.  It's fatter but shorter than the 70-200 lenses, which may make it easier to pack depending on what type of bag you're using (vertical storage vs. horizontal).  So, if you intend to use the 200-300mm range much, then the 70-300L makes more sense than the 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x.  The 70-300L will weigh about the same, handle easier (more compact at shorter FLs), be easier to pack, and would not require fiddling with extenders.

Lenses / Re: buying advice: get a 135mm f2, or use existing 70-200mm f2.8?
« on: December 25, 2014, 10:16:24 PM »
For sports and general use, I choose the 70-200 f/2.8 over the 135.  The convenience of the focal length range wins out.  For portraits or for low light events (if the focal length suits the venue), the 135 will be chosen.  The 70-200 is is one my two most use lenses, the 135 is not.  The 135 has better bokeh (smoother, less nervous) and the extra stop can be helpful.  But really what it comes down to, is whether your money would be better spent on a 135 or the next piece of kit that you'd be interested in.  For most, getting a lens that expands the focal length range is more useful that a more specialized lens that would get periodic use, but it really depends on you.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom and DXO OpticsPro workflow question
« on: December 22, 2014, 10:50:27 AM »
After playing with it on about 100 pics over the weekend, I like some of the things that OpticsPro does, but I'd still rather do most of the editing in LR.  Where is shines is denoising (Prime) and then lifting the shadows locally in LR.  I don't like the preview in Optics Pro.  The pics look flat The denoising preview was a bit different than what it produced, so it took a while to play with the settings to get what I was looking for, and since it takes about 2 minutes to process a file, it took a while.  In batch, the average time drops because it processes multiple files at once.  I guess I'll use it for processing high ISO pics esp. those that require lifting the exposure or subrange quite a bit.

I have yet to play with the volumetric correction using wide angle lenses.

Software & Accessories / Lightroom and DXO OpticsPro workflow question
« on: December 20, 2014, 12:42:07 AM »
I've used LR for a few years, and I've gotten used to how ACR renders RAWs.  However, I've always wanted better noise removal performance at higher ISOs, so I downloaded the trial copy of OpticsPro 10 to test out.  I like how OpticsPro's prime noise removal seems to do a better job than LR, and some of the distortion tools seem to be better as well, but I like LR's local adjustments and other tools better.  How do users that use both these programs do it?

Is the best way to weed out/catalog in LR, denoise and apply lens profile in DXO OP, and the do all other adjustments in LR (crop, brushes, etc.)?

Lenses / Re: What would you choose to compliment a 50mm prime?
« on: December 17, 2014, 09:58:41 AM »
16-35mm, 50mm, 70-200mm f/4 combo made the perfect travel setup for me. You don't need exact coverage in between the 50mm and you get a a lot more width with the UW.

+1.  Used a similar combo before 24-70 II was available.  Gives good focal length range and low light capability.

Software & Accessories / Re: i folded and bought CC :(
« on: December 16, 2014, 10:40:15 AM »
good move. it;s a great deal *if* you use it regularly.  I was one of those outraged bashers when Adobe went w/the subscription model.  The price was simply too high for me as it is not a business expense but a serious hobby.

9.99 a month for CC, LR, etc? no brainer.  THose you are complaining that you don't own it... What good is "owning it" when "it" changes every two years and you have to buy "it" again???

I spend over 120.00 a month for cable TV/internet access.  that;'s another story, I always reconsider it, but "need" it where I live.  What makes my life better? my cable or CC for 120.00/year??? duh...   

so enjoy your  CC subscription.  All the noise about alternatives is just noise. Nothing comes close.

I'm waiting for the next significant LR update.  I had purchased PS6 (on sale) and LR before they announced CC, so it doesn't make sense because I don't need other CC features.  Once I buy lenses/camera body that is no longer supported by my LR and need to upgrade, then I'll probably switch over to CC.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 96