January 29, 2015, 10:06:48 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 5 ... 96
31
Yes, I feel bad for you, you poor sop.   :P

Here are a few things to consider...   :)

...

Actually, I have to reshoot those pics, as I've added a MAnfrotto Combi Boom (which is a great stand that converst to a boom), a few more of those orange weights, some more Honl snoots/gobos, another couple of muslin backdrops and some white paper.

+1.  You might start with a few lightstands and a softbox or two, but will find yourself with much more as time progresses.  I started with a few Monfotto 1052 BAC stands, 026 swivel adapter and added the softboxes.  That works pretty well, but you will add more as your try to light different situations.  I've since added other pieces, and I have plan on getting the combi boom next and another flash next.

32
Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 15, 2014, 10:55:25 AM »
Depends on what other lenses you have.  If you have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, then that lens will handle all the action shots and most of those at f/2.8 and smaller.  The 85L II would then be a specialist portrait lens, a role that it excels at.  And if you have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, is there really that big a difference between f/2 and f/2.8?  Are you going to swap lenses for 1 stop when the 70-200 focuses faster and is more resistant to purple-fringing?

If you do a lot of or want to get into portrait photography, then the 85L II is a great choice.  If you want a general purpose 85mm prime, then there are better options.

33
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: December 12, 2014, 08:02:35 AM »
Just curious for people who put a big tele on the camera and have the pancake in the pocket. When you switch the pancake on to the camera where do you put the tele lens now? It won't fit it the pocket would it  :o?

It's hanging on a strap (i.e. BlackRapid) connected to the lens foot or on the tripod. 

34
Lenses / Re: 85 1.2 Clipped Bokeh
« on: December 09, 2014, 08:11:35 PM »
A couple comments.  The more elliptical shape of the light blurs as you out from the image center is due to the cats eye effect.  The light that enters the center of the lens sees a circular aperture, but those that come in at more oblique angle will see a narrowed aperture (cats eye).  Stopping down will reduce this effect.  The truncated circles or cats eye are due to the shape of the light source.  They are partially blocked by parts of the tree.  Try taking a defocused picture of a single circular light source (i.e. single Christmas tree light from the top) -- it will be circular.

35
Technical Support / Re: What kind of photo printer do you use?
« on: December 09, 2014, 10:42:19 AM »
I don't.  Years ago, used to have a couple injets, but the quality wasn't great and it wasn't cost effective, so when they died, we didn't replace them.  Usually use Costco for basic prints and use AdoramaPix when something more basic is required.  Printer color management will be a lot more involved than monitor calibration, etc.

The wife and I used to use a company, Creative Memories, to make digital scrapbooks and to have it printed.  Creative Memories went out of business but much of it has been taken up by Panstoria.  You design the layout or use prepackaged ones, and add digital paper/embellishments as you'd like.  So we design the scrapbook in Panstoria software, export the pages as 12x12 jpegs, and then drop them into the AdoramaPix album tool.  We just printed a 12x12 album at AdoramaPix and were happy with the quality.

36
Yes. B+W clear MRC XS-Pro

+1, especially if you intend to get more lenses.  I started with a couple regular thickness filters, and later found out that they vignetted when used on ultrawides.  If you have all xs-pros, then you can swap filters and not worry which filter can't be used on which lens.

37
Perhaps a dumb question but here goes anyway.  How much of a handicap would you experienced guys consider not taking the 24-70 F4 but going with the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F2.8.  From my limited experience I seem to be at 24 a lot very often wishing for wider on landscapes and then sometimes at 70.  Otherwise I'm with longer lenses shooting wildlife.  I don't relish carrying too many lenses on mountain hikes especially when I've included my 300 F2.8.

Jack

Not too much, if you don't think you'll use it much on your hikes.   Weight restrictions (travel, hiking or otherwise) will force you to miss some shots but you pick the lenses that will get you the most important shots.  I'd bring a fast 50 if the weight allowed, just so I can use it in low light conditions, etc.

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Second body for Wedding
« on: December 05, 2014, 07:51:45 AM »
So why buy now?  Wait until May and decide.  If something is announced but is not yet out in sufficient quantities, then rent what you need for the specific job.

39
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 03, 2014, 09:06:28 PM »
Do you guys really feel like you need all of that RAM. I have 16 GB and I rarely ever have to hit a scratch disk and my files can be pretty big. My PS efficiency score rarely drops below 100% and my scan files are far bigger than standard DSLR files. The more ram thing was definitely true when RAM sticks were measure in MB's but 64GB sounds like an awful lot. Just curious .

You will hit it much sooner if you run virtual machines on it.

40
Had the 16-35 f/2.8 II but replaced it with the 16-35 f/4 IS and still have the 24-70 II.  Most of the pics I take have people as subjects, so IS is a lot less necessary at these focal lengths than for the 70-200.  The f/2.8 is nice for trying to blur out a busy background, but with such short FLs as the 16-35, that's hard to do anyway.  I would prefer a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as good wide open as the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that's not available now.  I prefer having the option of an additional stop rather than IS.  You can lose a bit of editing latitude going from ISO 5000 to 10000, even though it is only a stop.  And for crop cameras, having faster glass matters even more...

41
Technical Support / Re: 24mm f1.4 II L focus issues
« on: November 26, 2014, 10:28:19 AM »
Canon gave you sound advice.  You should AFMA first.  If you find it accurate a f/2.8 and not at f/1.4 then it's probable that you need AFMA and that stopping down caused the DOF to include the misfocused point.

My 24L II had an issue where it would not focus accurately at all even at f/5.6.  I sent in a few test pictures f/1.4 to f/5.6 and they confirmed there was an issue and they recalibrated the focusing board.  It's worked fine ever since.

42
Does anyone remember any time in the past there was a discount on a lens even before it started shipping?

CanonUSA did mess up when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced.  It was offered directly with a 10% discount for a short period of time.  I thought Canon would cancel my preorder because it was a mistake, but they honored it.

2200 seems a bit high for a lens that is not a primary lens for a lot of people.  And given the effective price reduction of the 24-70 f/2.8 II, 24-70 f/4 IS ($1500 at launch, really?) and 16-35 f/4 IS, people have caught on that there is a large premium for the early adopter.  And how does it compare versus the Tamron 150-600 and the new Sigmas?  I'm waiting for the reviews, but even the Canon comes out favorably, I'll probably wait for a year for the price to settle a bit.

43
Lenses / Re: Buying from Lens Rentals/Lens Authority
« on: November 25, 2014, 12:44:15 PM »
Read the descriptions carefully -- it's accurate.  You won't get a pristine lens unless it's rated that way, but at least they optically check their lenses.  I bought a 100-400 from them last year during the black friday sale.  It was in great optical shape, but some of the paint had come off from the tripod ring, where renters had scuffed it up mounting/unmounting it.  Do your homework so you know what you're getting for your money, and if the price is right, then go for it.

44
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 01:02:39 PM »
+1.  35 f/2 IS:  great optics, affordable price.  Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."

Not the same. Bags of what? Oh, a few bags full of those 35mm lenses ... disposable, then? Also, an f/3.5 can be even smaller, 'cause note I said "travel lens".

Why bother?  Just buy yourself a 40 f/2.8 and be done with it.  The size can't be beat.  yes, get a few bags/covers for the rain.  Given the low price of the 40 f/2.8, I'm sure you can afford some if you're willing to pay L prices.  Want IS, the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS are small.  The 35 f/2 is a bit fatter, but it's not a big lens.

45
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 24, 2014, 09:33:31 AM »
This lens is over-kill for me. I'd have preferred it being f/3.5, weather-sealed and possibly with IS ... unless the latter significantly increases the size. It being an L-grade lens goes without saying, but just for clarification: L, of course. Such a lens, with great optics, would be the ideal travel lens with a "full-frame" camera.

It's called 2470 f4 L IS or 17-40 or 16-35.

Why 35 f/3.5 when there is an 35 f/2 IS already in existence? The point of a prime lens is speed*. No use owning a f/3.5 prime L when there are f/2.8 L zooms kicking about.

Edit - *exception TS 24mm f/3.5 L

+1.  35 f/2 IS:  great optics, affordable price.  Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 96