Messages

16

Portrait / Re: Bikini girl in my studio with my first scenic bacground

« on: March 10, 2013, 10:50:58 AM »

I like this picture. I agree the background looks fake and the girl looks plastic but so what. I strongly believe the creator's main objective wasn't to make it "real" It was a look he was after and he did it very well. The background was done on purpose to look fake, it is after a "fake" scene. It's like telling a painter his painting looks fake..I believe the same applies here..if the creator meant to make it believable, then he failed, but if he meant for it to be in this certain "style" then he succeeded. Not every photo has to be realistic, just as not every painting need to be like a photograph..that's the whole point of both being an art form.

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sell canon 5d3 and return new macbook pro retina to buy the 1d x

« on: March 09, 2013, 07:45:42 PM »

Personally for me, if I had to sell so many things just to get what I want, it just means that thing is beyond my means and I should not get it.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk 3 2 quick questions

« on: February 23, 2013, 08:39:43 AM »

With 61 AF points, do you really need re-comp?

Actually yes sometimes,  because i personally only use spot focusing so either i manually move the focus point, or i'll recompose..

19

Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?

« on: February 22, 2013, 09:24:39 PM »

Reikan is a hit and miss for me but it's still a fantastic software to use.

it works really well on my 5D3 with any lens i put on it. I use Focal to calibrate all my lenses and it does help a little...However, on a Nikon D7k, somehow the software will not get a good result on it..Keeps giving me errors in inconsistency..I'm not sure if it's the camera or the software because NO lens will work on it...

20

EOS Bodies / Re: Best way to clean dust off focusing screen of 5D3?

« on: February 19, 2013, 08:24:00 AM »

I have the same thing on the upper left..
I even tried using the jet air guns to spray it…actually, that's what i do after every shoot..i know i'm not supposed to use compressed air to spray into the sensor, but i do…still can't get rid of that speck…it's in the viewfinder..which mean i can only hope one day it will drop on its own

21

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]

« on: February 19, 2013, 08:21:27 AM »

The spec list make the 5D3 look "inferior"…other than the sensor…
And this makes the 6D look pointless..
Isn't the smaller the number the higher end the camera?
These are features that should've been in their flagship FF cameras from day 1.

22

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS vs. Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS vs. Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II

« on: February 15, 2013, 07:26:25 AM »

I own both the 24-105 and 24-70II
I bought the 24-70II even though i own the 24-105 for 1 reason, sharpness at f2.8. That's also a big reason why many other buy this lens isn't it?
Depending on what you shoot, for me, it's 90% portraits, 10% events and for both, i don't need IS.
What i need is a sharp lens.
If possible, most times i'll use my primes but there are situations where a good zoom is essential and this is where the 24-70II really shines..it's almost as sharp as my primes for portraitures..

23

Lenses / Re: what's the best UV filter for Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II lens?

« on: February 02, 2013, 01:11:28 AM »

You won't go wrong with b+w. I only use b+w because I once dropped my lens and if not for the filter I'd be buying a new lens instead..the filter broke into pieces but my lens front element was safe.
Yes, you don't need uv in the digital era..but mrc coating is useful.
Get the regular clear f-pro is enough.
I'm using xs-pro in all my lenses just because where I am, the price difference is a few bucks so might as well get the best

24

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

« on: January 31, 2013, 07:31:39 AM »

basically having a wide aperture available is like a condom
its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

I hear it feels better without so does that mean not having an f2.8 lens feels better too?


just brilliant!!

25

Lenses / Re: Please explain the need for f2.8 zooms

« on: January 30, 2013, 09:30:53 PM »

Well, if you're shooting a wedding for a paying customer and with your reputation at stake, wouldn't you want to make sure you have the best of the best gears in the event you really need it?

The 24-70 and 70-200 are the best zooms in the market…and if you were to get the best, you'll get those.

Having an f2.8 zoom doesn't mean you'll shoot them at 2.8 all the time.. but it's there when you need it.

With flashes, maybe the f2.8 isn't that important..
BUT, there are many instances where flashes are NOT allowed, like in a church…that's where the 2.8 comes in handy…

26

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 29, 2013, 01:44:39 AM »

For me it was the opposite.
I had both the Canon f1.4 and the sigma f1.4. I've done many tests both in the real world and test charts and maybe my Canon is a great copy but the sigma is anyways significantly less sharp when zoomed in.

I've already sent the sigma together with my body to sigma for calibrations twice, even did my own Focal calibrations at home and no matter what I do, the sigma can't hold up with the Canon.

Granted the sigma has much nicer bokeh but I'd rather it be sharper. In the end I sold the sigma

27

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer

« on: January 28, 2013, 11:16:31 AM »

Wow, i had no idea it cost that much in Norway or Sweden..
That's really high tax..
I got it under USD2.3k for a local set but i'm in Asia so i guess it's still cheaper to buy here than overseas

28

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer

« on: January 28, 2013, 08:24:56 AM »

It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it

Why so much? It doesn't cost that much..

But yes, this is the only zoom lens that i would actually use without thinking twice...it really is that good and i actually stopped using my primes for shoots because of this...i only touch my 85 now becuase that is still better than this

29

Lenses / Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?

« on: January 24, 2013, 11:48:34 AM »

Personally, i do own the 17-40 but i also own the 24-70 II, and comparing both lenses at 24/35/40 at f8 and above, the 17-40 just doesn't keep up with the 24-70…even at f2.8, it's sharper than the 17-40 at f8.

i find the only real benefit is having the 17-23 range and almost all the time you can get away with that by moving back a little.

Before i had the 24-70, i used the 17-40 alot, not only for landscapes but also for street…but now, i've not touched it in a long time..

So if someone had the $ to burn for a 16-35, i would say why not just go for the 24-70II instead…it's definately going to be sharper and better..IF you can live without the UWA range..i'm personally finding i'm not missing the below 24mm range…i would rather trade that for a better overall lens

30

Lenses / Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Other L and non-L Canon Primes

« on: January 21, 2013, 02:50:36 AM »

. . .  And my Sigma needed 0 AFMA

Who has had to use AFMA on Canon 85mm f/1.8,  Sigma 85 f/1.4, or 100mm f/2?

I have to use afma on all my lenses..even the L lenses.
It's just a matter of how much. The sigma is a -4 whereas L lenses usually is within +-2..but I've not had one lens other than the 40mm stm that had a 0