December 18, 2014, 07:32:21 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 - sootzzs

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Post Processing / Re: Fast editing of RAWs to "camera like" Jpegs
« on: October 08, 2014, 10:30:25 AM »
Thank you all for your time and advice, guys! I've really learned from this.

 I think I'll give a try to DPP (it is about time). I guess being an original Canon software cannot be bad to my JPEG conversions. Also, the profile change in LR sounds like a great advice. Never thought of it before.

Shooting in camera JPEGs can be great and fast, if you do it correctly of course, as helpful mentioned. But the possibility to to correct the some basic settings like WB and let the software to do the rest sound like and ultimate answer to me.

Thanks!


2
Post Processing / Re: Fast editing of RAWs to "camera like" Jpegs
« on: October 04, 2014, 07:06:55 AM »

 

Quote
When you shoot RAW and JPEG do you save them separately to two different cards?   And then load the RAWSs and JPEGs to two separate folders?


I'm shooting with 60D so unfortunately have only one SD card slot. While importing I think I just imported them both simultaneously into the same folder (it was long ago since I've tried it last time).

3
Post Processing / Fast editing of RAWs to "camera like" Jpegs
« on: October 04, 2014, 06:29:30 AM »
Hi all,

Not trying to start another RAW vs Jpeg debate here. We all know the advantages shooting RAW has over Jpeg.
However, as an amateur shooting solely for my and others pleasure I'm having more and more photos mostly stuck imported to my Lightroom and never getting out of it as I don't have the time to edit them and unedited RAWs rarely look better than in camera Jpegs.  Currently I shoot only RAW and was trying to find a way for creating a "decent looking" or as in camera looking Jpegs conveniently and quickly. I've tried to using the Sync in LR for multiple photos with similar shooting conditions, but most of the Sync'd photos just don't look good enough and need re-tweaking anyway. 

I know I can shoot both RAW+Jpeg and only edit the best photos from RAW while publishing the rest quickly. Maybe I will do it eventually, but it seems to be really cumbersome and taking a lot of space on card while shooting and quite some time and mess in LR while trying to separate the Jpegs from RAWs (maybe I'm doing it wrong though).

I guess a lot of us encountered the same problem with "volume shooting" and was wondering is there an easier way in LR (or maybe DPP which I never used before) just to push a button and get these "camera like" Jpegs without hassling around to much.

Please help me set my photos free :) !

Thanks!   

 

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 22, 2014, 05:56:35 PM »
Thanks for the input guys.
 
I've settled on working (hopefully) Super Ricohflex for the beginning. 40$+30$ shipping (the shipping from the US abroad is a bit crazy lately. a year ago it was around 15$ I think). From what I've read it should be a nice, basic and solid enough entry TLR. Hopefully it will be such in reality.

The Rolleis+ shipping were way about my limit unfortunately.


5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:57:51 PM »

Quote
I'll hit the shop on Saturday for more details and start the nego.

Now that we weren't able to dissuade you from buying the Rollei, I'm feeling a bit more comfortable to hijack this thread. Not only I didn't managed to dissuade you out of buying I got some severe GAS myself in the process :). I'm thinking of buying my first TLR. However, I cannot afford to spend more than around 100-120$ including shipping (which unfortunately in my case could mount to 50$ by itself).   I've read a bit for the last few days and figured out that my best chances are Super Ricohflex, Czech Flexarete, Yashica A or 635 and maybe with a bit of luck Yashica-mat (not the 124). Even these, for 60-80$ (after shipping deduction) are extremely hard to find in working condition.

Am I missing something here? Are there any "cheap" but reliable TLR's (not Lubitels or Seagulls of course). Or should I pass it for now? My intention is mostly to shoot landscapes and portraits on 120mm B&W film and develop it myself.

Thanks .       

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:27:20 AM »
Hi Grumbaki,

My guess is that answers to your question will change accordingly to the forum it is posted on. Try to write the same question on APUG or Manual photography forums and you will probably buy two of these. People here are more into practical photography and 2300$ could buy some nice new and shiny lens with a red ring around it. And they will be as right as you'll be if you buy the Flex. The question is what will bring YOU more joy??? Only you can answer it.

I'm kinda in the same pot (well more or less. My budget is a bit more modest, like Lubitel modest). I am new to any kind of photography (2 years with my 60D). In recent months I've started to have interest in vintage cameras and film photography. Why? No idea. I'm a child of the digital era so no "nostalgic GAS" here. It started with buying some vintage manual M42 glass to save some money. One of them came with a battered, broken light meter, Spotmatic SPII attached to. I thought: "why not to run a film through it and see how was it done in the old times. Moreover, it is the real Full Frame". Long story short, now I have about 10 different vintage cameras and I stopped counting the lenses. I developed my first B&W film last week and will try to digitize it soon, I am in the middle of my first cheap medium format film shot on my dirt cheap 1950 Agfa IsolaII and looking into buying Kiev-60TTL. Of-course I could have spent this money on my digital stuff, but would I enjoy the same? Will every good picture feel as special as the ones I get from time to time on film?  So again, it is a VERY subjective question.

On the more technical note: I'm sure that shooting limited number of frames with  film camera, without the possibility to see and correct on the spot the frame and without light meter most of the times (except my eyes ofcourse), already made me a better photographer even with my digital equipment.

PS.: As a side question: except of the obvious advantage of the Medium Format resolution (is it really equivalent to 60 Mega pixel picture?) is there any advantage to the film (35mm or other) over a full frame DSLR (which I can't compare to)?

7
I've fond these on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-45-Focusing-Screen-For-Canon-40D-50D-60D-Camera-/250805194814?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6527903e  .
 Also the 180 degree. Have no idea what is the meaning of it. Can anyone comment on the quality and usefulness of these? How about the Ef-D? Would it work for both purposes?

The eBay ones are split prism like old manual focus cameras - I think dual 45° is two splits in an 'X' (vs. a '+') and the 180° is a single horizontal line split. The Ef-D just adds a grid for composition aid to the Ef-A.

Have you considered a right angle attachment like Canon's Angle Finder C?  Makes on-the-ground shots easier, and I've found the 2.5x magnification helpful for manual focus through the VF for macro shooting.

It could be nice. I'll look into it. Thanks Neuro! I won't do too much of  an outside macro till next spring, so I guess my priority for now is more for portraits. My 5 months son mostly. I think I'll try one of the cheap Chinese ones. For the price (~20$) I guess it won't hurt. Also, the Magic Lantern will find a place in my camera sooner or later. Just need to find some spare time to read about it a bit.

8
Thanks for the awesome advice all (Neuro, great as always!)! Mostly I use old manual focusing lenses for two types of photography: Portrait (with lenses like 58mm 2.0 Helios-44 , 37 2.8 mm Mir 1, Sears 50mm 1.4...even Chinon 135 2.8) and Macro (with tubes and various enlargers). I guess that for Protrait work the Ef-S would be great with my lenses. But for general use and Macro it could become a pain as I do my casual photography with EF-S 15-85 (3.5-5.6) or EF-S 55-250 and macros need to be atleast at f8 for sufficient depth of field. Hmm... It is quite easy to change the screen (thank you Youtube), but still doen't looks like a healthy thing to do on a regular basis.

About Live view: I totally agree that it is the best tool when taking macros of still objects in controlled environment, but outside, with direct sunlight and moving bugs it not as easy and I tend to use the VF a lot more. A split prism like I have on my lovely Pentax Super ME (not a just Canon fanboy :) ) could be a great all purpose screen.   

I've fond these on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-45-Focusing-Screen-For-Canon-40D-50D-60D-Camera-/250805194814?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6527903e  .
 Also the 180 degree. Have no idea what is the meaning of it. Can anyone comment on the quality and usefulness of these? How about the Ef-D? Would it work for both purposes?

George, sorry for hijacking the topic a bit. Just didn't feel important enough to open a new one. 

9
Hi guys,
Very interesting topic! I have a 60D and use manual lenses a lot! I never thought it is possible to change the focusing screen! Great news.

Could anyone please recommend me a good focusing screen for manual photography. Especially for macro work. It would be of great help.

Thanks!

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:18:45 AM »

That said, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is 2/3 stops, so, it's a noticeable difference, but, I haven't had issues shooting at f/1.8 indoors at all. If you're in a place where f/1.8 and ISO 1600 don't cut it, you either need a flash or to get out of that cave.

I think either the 28mm f/1.8 or the new Sigma 30mm are your best options. Do you have a kit lens you can set to 30mm to see if that focal length works for you?

I've read some reviews on the Canon 28 1.8. It seems that most complaints are about the softness at 1.8-2.8. I don't want to buy a 450$ lens and use it at f2.8. I have good enough 28 vintages (MF) which shoot great at 2.8.


11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 13, 2013, 08:27:35 AM »
Thank you all for your replies and warm greetings!
I didn't thought in the direction of Canon 28 1.8. Thank you all for pointing it out. Sounds interesting. It is quite an old lens though. How does it fares against the new Sigma? Also, I;ve never used a f1.4 lens. Is significant over the 1.8 Canon? AF and bokeh mostly I guess.

I don't have a problem with MF. I use it quite often when doing macro on tubes or using vintage glass. That is why I still consider the Samyang 35 1.4. My top priority is image quality.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 12, 2013, 11:53:22 AM »
Hi friends,

I've become a father few weeks ago and looking for a new lens for my 60D to shoot my baby boy. I have a Canon 501.8II but feel it is to tight on my crop and the AF is too slow (babies seem to move a lot :) ).

So...my budget is no more than 500$ and I was pondering what is a better buy:

* Old Sigma 30 1.4 (cheap ~300$, nice but not great (?) pics, especially wide open).

* New Sigma 30 1.4 (not the new 35 Art); 500$, better build and picture quality than the old 30, better AF (?), sharp wide open (?).

* Samyang 35 1.4; ~450$, very good quality (both image and build), FF compatible (for the future). It is MF, which is generally is OK for me, but wide open in low light? How will it work?


To summarize:
1) I never used any of this and all the aforementioned is from the web. I would really appreciate first hand advice on these lenses. Do you think the new Sigma 30 is 200$ better than the old?

2) Generally, is 30-35mm (48-56mm on crop) is a good choice to shoot a baby indoors (or low light photos in general).


P.S I don't have the money for the 899$ 35 Art or Canon L glass ( :( ).


Thanks a lot!

13
Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 10, 2013, 06:53:03 AM »
Is it OK, then, to turn this into a Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 thread?  It'll likely be a mix of indoors, landscape, outdoor buildings, large group shots and experimenting.
Thanks again.


Hi Cory,
I am actually debating just the same exact question.  Sigma's UWAs also seem as a very good deal (and almost 40% cheaper, the 10-20 4-5.6 at least). In my case I have the EF-S 15-85 and wonder is it worth to spend extra money on UWA? Why not just stitch to pics with higher final resolution? For distortion: did you considered the Samyang 8mm? It is dirt cheap (less than 300$) and have really good reviews. I've seen some fabulous landscapes taken with it and at the right angle and composition you barely see the distortion of it.   

14
I can't afford a true macro right now, so this is what I use for now: 55mm of cheap Chinese tubes (6$) and 30$ russian Industar 50-2 f3.5 (which is the smallest 50 I've ever seen) and chiped m42-EOS adapter (9$).

~100% crop


shot at f16 with of camera flash, iso 200. Basic sharpening and PP in LR.
Don't know how it compares with real macro lens but for the price seems like a great deal to me.

15
Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: April 30, 2013, 12:10:16 PM »
7D and the 15-85 is my standard walk-around kit. It will cover virtually everything you are likely to encounter on a tour. I have the Tokina 11-16, but seldom pack it when traveling. The 24mm equivalent of the 15-85 is more than adequate for most situations.

If I think I might be going someplace where there will be critters to take pictures of, I'll pack the 70-300 L, but I'm guessing that on a tour group to Israel that won't be the case. If you want a cheap, light longer lens solution, look at the 55-250 EF-S. It is very sharp (better than any of the Non L 70-300 lenses) and weighs almost nothing.

Totally agree. I own both the 15-85 and the 55-250. I use them on 60D for 90% of my shots (75% them with 15-85). 55-250 is a great, very light and sharp zoom. A bit plasticky, but works great. Actually I do ponder should I buy the 11-16 tokina next. Will it get any use when I have 15-85?
I would add some fast wide prime to your kit though. Ancient cities and temples tend to be dark (old Jerusalem is for sure). The new Sigma 35 1.4 seems like a great lens in this respect (and many other).

Have a great trip and enjoy Israel! I would gladly answer your questions about it, if you have some.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4