September 01, 2014, 05:06:36 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 - Random Orbits

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 88
If you want to go with the 7D, get one refurbed or used.  A refurbed 7D on the site is currently 1020 + tax.  With the rest of the money, you could get a fast prime and/or a flash.  The 7D has AFMA, which is almost a necessity for getting the most out of fast primes.  The 7D's AF is nice when the baby becomes a toddler and starts running all over the place.  If you buy at 1000, then you won't lose much selling it in a couple years, if you decide to upgrade then.

A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more.  It is really up to you as to which format would be better given how you intend to use the equipment.

How large effect is the focus breathing on primes vs zooms?  I have heard it can be a problem with macro photography and focus stacking.

I tend to have more issues with wind/subject motion than focus breathing/macro rail displacement.  When focus stacking in PS, you can have the software try to align the source photos to each other before blending them together.  The software also scales the photos appropriately. 

Lenses / Re: Mid-Atlantic Macro Fest -- Cicadas!!
« on: April 06, 2013, 01:59:11 PM »
The 17-year Cicadas will be emerging this spring -- coming to a U.S. mid-Atlantic location near you!

If you're anywhere from Connecticut to Virginia, mount a macro next month and show us your bugs!!

I remember those from the 90s.  It was impossible to walk anywhere without hearing them crunching underfoot.  Not sure if I'd be looking forward to those again.

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?
« on: April 05, 2013, 10:24:17 AM »
With all due respect, this seems like a bit of a stretch.  Bryan did mention sample issues on several occasions.  The Tamron has been a pretty big 3rd party release that is a game changer in that particular arena because of adding a stabilizer and has a had a LOT of adopters - including professionals.  I would consider it and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 to be the most significant 3rd party releases in years.

Do I doubt that Bryan has a ton of work on his plate?  Absolutely not.  Do I think that he simply could not find the time to review the lens?  I'm sorry, I don't.  He has reviewed quite a few lenses that were released months later, and almost every other big review site has already reviewed the lens.  Of course, like you, this is all just my opinion, so take it for what it is worth.  But I'll tell you this, when you are in the field without a tripod, being able to get a shot like this at 1/15th second without a second thought is pretty fantastic!

And that is the biggest problem I have with this line of thought.  TDP is not beholden to anyone for which reviews it does, in what order it does it or how it schedules its reviews.  It is a free resource, and it's a good one.  Use other resources that have the reviews you want if you'd like.  It is the bolded paragraph that smacks of the increasing "entitlement" disease that seems to pervade the net these days....

Reviews / Re: Most Objective and Less Objective REVIEWER?
« on: April 04, 2013, 10:05:14 PM »
Bryan is my favorite overall reviewer (The Digital Picture).  I look forward to his reviews the most, but I must confess that this point is a sticking one for me.  There are always pretty severe caveats applied to third party lenses.  His general purpose zoom recommendations for this year includes the EF 28-135 but does not mention the Tamron 24-70 VC, which is absurd.  The only general purpose zoom that could claim to top the Tamron would be the new 24-70L MKII.

Well, he has yet to complete the Tamron 24-70 VC review.  Would it be fair for him to rank something he hasn't tested?

Lenses / Re: Migration from zooms to primes...your suggestions?
« on: April 04, 2013, 07:54:01 AM »
I've done what you're planning and it all depends. The initial reason I chose to switch to primes was because of light added, but completely fell in love with really shallow dof. The 35 L is an epic lens for me and my most used. The 24 I could never get rid of, VERY unique look with that wide angle and shallow dof .

Recently though the 1dx let's me shoot at MUCH higher iso's than my 400d with super clean images, so the need for faster apertures are way less now, along with I could use the flexibility of a zoom.

I just bought the 24-70 again and I can never sell it again, complete new life on the 1dx.

So don't choose either is my suggestion, keep your 24-70 and 70-200 and add a 35 L and architecture wise absolutely forget the 14mm, and if you want the best ( I know because I used to own it ) there's no way past the TS17, what a lens!

+1.  TS-E 17 and 24-70 II will make a killer combo and would replace your 16-35 II and 24-70.  The 70-200 IS II is also best-in-class, and you'd need to spend a LOT more money to beat it with primes over its focal range.  Add to that a fast prime in the 35, 50 or 85 mm range, and you'd be pretty much set.

Lenses / Re: Moving on from 20D
« on: April 04, 2013, 07:44:32 AM »
Congratulations on the upgrade!  I made the same move last year.

I agree with the others suggesting the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.  For portraits, a fast 50 or 85 prime would be nice.  A f/1.2 or f/1.4 at that focal length range will give you much more DOF options over the 24-105.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy
« on: April 03, 2013, 08:40:29 PM »
Thanks every one for your kind reply.
@ Random Orbits. I was thinking 200 2.8 II because most of the time with my 70-200 2.8 II L i always use 200mm focal length but i think i better get 2nd body as backup first. thanks for your kind reply.

@ charlesa. I have used 8-15mm many times before, i liked this lens but this is specialty lens as you mentioned i think it won't be very useful for me. 24 mm TS-E II is good option but i already have this focal and this lensis
best for architecture stuff and also out of my budget. Just for 14-24 focal length i don't wanna go to Nikon. i better have EF14 2.8 if i need 14mm focal length. thanks for your suggestion.

@ RGF. you have given really good advise. i think i never feel that i miss any focal length. i have focal length covered from 24mm to 300mm and it covers all my needs. I forgot to mentioned flash, i have 600EX RT and 270 EX II flashes and also have 2X III extender.

It also depends on whether or not you'd miss the IS on the 200L f/2.8 II.

Re: the Canon 18-55IS. I have to agree with you. Alot of people rave about how good it is for the money, but I think I just had a really bad copy. There was nothing to rave about with that lens. It consistently produced soft images, with quite a bit of CA. Compared to the 18-135mm IS (non STM) that I replaced it with, it was like night and day. And the non STM 18-135mm wasn't that great a lens either.

Have people noticed alot of variation with Canon lenses?

There are variations with lenses and bodies.  Does your body have AFMA?  If not, it might have been the tolerance stackup between the lens and the body.

The Canon 70-300mm L is not compatible with the Canon extenders, but is with the kenco.


Mostly true. The Canon fits the 70-300L at the longer focal lengths because the rear element group moves forward.  The kenko would be usable for the entire range, but if you've already got a Canon 1.4x then it might not be worth getting a kenko just for this lens...

I think it's normal.  I never noticed it before your post but mine does something similar.  With the 5DIII and a f/2.8 lens mounted, the point turns grayish with I point it toward a strong light source.  The effect is stronger when I tried a f/1.2 lens.  If I don't point it towards a strong light source, it is darker.  Either way, I have no problems seeing the AF point, unless trying to AF under very dark conditions.  Probably has to do with the large aperture and amount of oblique light getting around the LCD layer to make it less black, so I don't think it is something that can be improved easily.  It never bothered me before and won't bother me in the future.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens to buy
« on: April 03, 2013, 08:16:25 AM »
I'd skip the 200 2.8 II because you already have the 70-200 II.  Unless you know you are going to be using a prime of specific length, the bag full of primes will take up space and weight similar to the 70-200L II.

I'd suggest getting a second body first, then an ultrawide for landscapes. 

Lenses / Re: Is the upcoming 50mm F/2 IS USM for me?
« on: April 03, 2013, 07:06:19 AM »
It's not faith, it's a certainty based on all common sense, even for a nutty decision-making company like Canon:

  • A 50 prime (that general length) is an 'essential' photographic tool.  Demand for a 50mm is high.
  • Canon does not have a single best 50 prime lens -- to this day, many folks prefer the non-L f/1.4 to the  F/1.2L for sharpness reasons.
  • That F/1.4 lens is 20 years old, and lacks obvious modernities like IS, internal focusing, fast USM focusing, sharper corners, better build, etc.
  • Other lenses with a far less loyal following (24mm non-L prime? 28mm anything?) have gotten A+ refreshes of late.
  • Canon loves comically pricey lenses, and with the F/1.2L costing $1500 and the non-L F/1.4 costing $400, this is a glorious chance to sneak in between those two price points.
  • It's a great value proposition as the comparative L primes lenses (a) are not necessarily sharper than the new stuff and (b) has no threat of new versions coming soon (Canon isn't refreshing its wider L primes right now.  It's been all long glass and zooms of late.  The last new L prime under 300mm was... what?  T/S glass 4 years ago?)

I just think the 50mm is a hammerlock to occur, and nearly as much so for the 85mm.

- A

I don't doubt that 50 and 85 IS versions will be coming in the future.  However, it might have to wait for a killer 50L f/1.2 first.

Depends how much quickly you can save to another big purchase.  If it is within the year, I'd opt for the 5DIII.  Perhaps you might be able to afford it with the kit lens, 24-105?  Barring that, I'd opt for the 5DIII now and a fast prime.

One of the advantages of full frame is thinner DOF, which needs good AF points.  After using the 5DII, it's nice being able to select an outer point, and still nail focus with a fast lens.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Nik Collection Bundle for $126.65
« on: March 31, 2013, 03:47:18 PM »
I use Nik quite a lot in my workflow. It's great for adding a little punch to a photo. It integrates very well into CS6 and Lightroom. Silver Efex Pro and Viveza are the ones I use the most. Usually for messing with the Sky. The u-point makes it very easy to make local adjustments without complicated work with Layers. I'd say its a bargain . The downside is lots more people will use it which makes the effects less special and more common. What was a hidden secret (especially Silver Efex Pro) will now be commonly used

Hi, since you use it, maybe you can answer my question I had just before your post.
Working with these NIK plugins....are you doing this to RAW files non-destructively...or does using each one of these plug ins (not the HDR one)...output like a TIFF file....

Just wondering if these fit into workwith with RAW all the way through, and then outputting TIFF or Jpeg at the end...or if these plugins put out TIFF/jpeg, and you should only use them at the end of the workflow?



Works OK with LR work flow.  When you open a file to edit with Nik products, it produces a virtual copy (tiff) that you can edit to your heart's content.  The original RAW is preserved as its own file.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 88