March 01, 2015, 03:46:54 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 - Hector1970

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 26, 2014, 04:50:59 AM »
There was a mention earlier that Leaf Shutters had jumped the shark. I have the Fuji X100s and the best thing about it is it's Leaf Shutter. It's a big advantage for strobist work.
I'll be interested how this camera works out. Resolving power is what would interest me. The 5D Mark III is a great all rounder but I still crave more resolved detail.

Lenses / Re: buying advice: canon 85mm f1.2 II or f1.8?
« on: December 15, 2014, 06:18:54 AM »
I agree you'd only buy the 85mm 1.2 if you want to shoot at F1.2
It produces a pretty special photograph.
It's focussing is relatively slow and hunting for focus can be an issue.
It's very sharp stopped down. Bitingly sharp (not flattering at times , shows up every wrinkle, blemish and tooth decay ). It's given me a fright a few times.
It's very expensive for a limited use lens.
You ideally need you object stationary. f1.2 has such shallow depth of field that it's very easy to have nose in focus but eyes out of focus.
I've never used the F1.8 but my friend has it and really likes it. It's way cheaper and easier to manage .
So it's all about F1.2.
Is the creamy bokeh worth the price.
It's hard to live without once you first experience it.

Lenses / Re: Sigma or Canon (50mm 1.4)
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:24:17 PM »
I like the Canon 50 1.4
It's not the sharpest but it makes pleasant photos.
I've never thought of it as fragile. I don't mind mine too carefully and it's fine.
The 50 1.8 is a good lens too.
That definitely doesn't bounce.
A friend of mine dropped my one .
It was interesting to see the inner workings of it afterwards

Lenses / Re: Why don't Canon make lenses for other mounts?
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:19:36 PM »
I'm sure it's because Canon want to lock users into buying their cameras.
A lot of users probably never go beyond the basic camera and kit lens.
But you've got to wonder that there is a huge market out there for Canon lenses.
I can only think of one Nikon lens that's desired by Canon users (the 14-24mm).
Nikon users would buy Canon lens. Especially D800 D810 users.
Maybe Canon feel the engineering involved isn't worth it for the volumes.
I'll be interested too to find out the real reason.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 150-600mm Preorder?
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:49:23 AM »
I have a Sigma 150-500mm for a few years. It was one of the early models. I was never particularily happy with it's sharpness. It was later recalled (the early made ones - mine was amongst them). I didn't bother in the end because I'd been a bit disappointed with it and didn't feel like going to the hassle of shipping it off.
I think you are taking a risk taking an early model of a new lens. They probably don't have all the issues ironed out on it. But maybe things have improved significantly with Sigma. Hopefully you get a great lens and that it's far superior to the 150-500mm

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:43:47 AM »
Maybe I need to get my eyes checked. The last time they were checked the results were excellent but maybe they are starting to go wonky.
Even full size the picture look sharp. I'm amazed as to how sharp people expect a lens to be.
These photographs are shooting a swaying object focused on an eye which much be moving back and forth a few mm/cm all the time.
There is a very good article in here somewhere about lens and camera tolerances.
Sometimes you have a camera +3 and and lens +3 so it's out +6
other times you have a camera -3 and and a lens +3 and you have a perfect combination.
People blame the lens when there is nothing wrong with the lens (as in its within acceptable tolerances). Its the combination of lens and camera that's at fault.
Maybe I should be more demanding of my lenses. The Canon 50 1.4 wouldn't be as sharp as that.
I'm not sure more sharpness would add in any way to the photos.
But as you say you are a bit of fanatic about sharpness.
I thought I was a bit too but it actually looks like I actually expect too little.
Do the AFMA, hopefully you'll find sharpness and happiness and contentment with what looks like a pretty exciting lens. I should consider it myself.

Photography Technique / Re: Noise in 5D III - Concern or my fault?
« on: October 14, 2014, 11:48:37 AM »
Maybe I'm going blind but it looks more of a camera shake problem than an noise problem.
I have a gorilla pod and have never been impressed with its stability.
It never grips something perfectly stable (at least the biggest version one of them doesn't).
Still from the distance the photos don't look so bad. The two shots are reasonably good fireworks shots.
Since the vast majority of photos go no further than Facebook or Flickr I wouldn't be too worried.
If you want good fireworks shot the most essential item is a sturdy tripod not a more expensive camera.
The 5D III isn't a miracle worker but it's a good solid and consistent camera.
Noise control is good enough. I've taken alot of night shots at reasonably high ISO's and been very happy with the results. I pixel peep too and would love better noise control and dynamic range but really its a crutch. What I need to do is improve my composition and find better locations. That would be a major improvement well beyond what a new camera could provide.
I think your 5D III is fine and you will grow to love it.

Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:59:43 AM »
If you are buying the Tilt-Shift for creative blur or the "Tilt" effect you'd be better of doing it in Adobe CS6 or CC.
It's probably more effective.
I have the 24 TS-E II and I love it. I use it quite a bit and it makes me feel like a real photographer but I probably get better shots from my 17-40mm.
I think the camera is better at autofocus than an eye is at manual focus - just my opinion that may be factually incorrect  ::). I have excellent eye-sight and it's easy to have an out of focus shot on a manual lens.
If you over tighten the screws on a tilt shift you could head for big trouble.
If you don't tight enough the lens will drop and go out of focus.

The advanage of manual is it slows you right down and makes you think.
A TSE is a difficult lens to manage correctly.
It's not self explanatory.
Generally very little tilt is required to get that big depth of field look.

I opted for the 24 mm because I could add Lee Filters.
No regrets. I think Extreme Shift left to extreme shift right is approx the equivalent of 19mm (again could be technically incorrect  :-[- its pretty wide anyway)

It looks great as an lens.
Bulbous lens of the 17mm make me more nervous for some reason.

Photography Technique / Re: Clouds
« on: September 10, 2014, 05:55:32 PM »
If you mean getting more out of clouds in software I find Google (Nik) Viveza 2 to be very useful in this regard.
Silver Efex Pro if its black and white. The structure slider is the one you'd want

Photography Technique / Timelapse
« on: September 10, 2014, 04:28:26 PM »
Hi All,
Does anyone know of any website site or guide on timelapsing?
I've only taken static ones so for but I'd like to take rotating or moving timelapses and was looking for tips and tricks.
Here's a sample of what I've done

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm 1.4 vs Canon 50mm 1.2L vs Canon 50mm 1.4
« on: September 01, 2014, 10:12:44 AM »
If I were you I'd buy a 50 1.8 and see how often you actually use it.
It's a fine lens. So is the 85 1.8.
The 70-200 is an excellent portrait lens.
I use the 70-200 F2.8 II a lot for portraits handheld. The image stabilisation is great and people look great
The 85 1.2 is good in a studio on a tripod. It's harder to use in the fly. At 1.2 there isn't much forgiveness in depth of field and you need an ND filter in sunlight.
The 40 2.8 Is an option I don't use it enough but is also quite a nice lens.
I can see you are going for quality over quantity on you lenses which is quite sensible.
With your buying pattern I'd say the Sigma art is the best choice for you.
Best of luck with  your search

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm 1.4 vs Canon 50mm 1.2L vs Canon 50mm 1.4
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:21:33 AM »
I bought the 85mm 1.2 II because of its ability to shoot @ 1.2.
This allows me to take very creative portraits. It's a heavy and slow focusing lens (relatively speaking).
I personally don't understand comparing 1.2 lens to anything else but 1.2 lens.
Stopping down to 1.4 and comparing at 1.4 to the sigma art doesn't make sense to me.
I have a Canon 50 1.4 (and had a 50 1.8). I would consider it a fair comparison to compare it to the Sigma 1.4.
I quite like the Canon. It's not the sharpest at 1.4 but it has a lovely vignette and creates a nice look.
If I were buying a canon 1.2 it would only be for its shallow depth of field @1.2. If I was going to mainly be stopping down Id buy the 1.4 or 1.8 which are much lighter.
I love all these types of discussions and comparisons because I always want to know which is the best.
But I am also experienced enough to know a bad workman blames his tools..
A 50 1.2 might be better than a 50 1.4 but I like 99% of the members of Canon Rumors are not good enough to show this in real world photos.
I got up at 05:00 yesterday morning and took out of focus photographs of a beautiful sunrise over the sea with a 24mm TS-E II. It wasn't the lens wasn't sharp.
It was the brain of the photographer .
But it was a wonderful privilege to witness the sun rising. That memory will last a lot longer than the out of focus photographs.
Drop the charts for a while and try it for yourself.
But keep these discussions going because they are enjoyable too

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 19, 2014, 07:00:52 AM »
Get the feeling it's not easy to make money with photography these days. Those who shoot as their main job seem to drive Yugos from what I see personally and those who shoot AND sell products and build up a giant web presence and following seem to live in nice homes in La Jolla, CA or the fancy part of CT  ;D.
It's definitely tough out there for all but the very top photographers, at least in terms of making six figures, plus.  I am in awe of people who do nothing but product reviews and seem to live quite well in terms of farms, horses, and trips to tropical islands, not to mention any names...but I guess a percent or two of big white purchases adds up :)

The reality is that stock is all but dead and that was a huge source of income in the past.  It's been supplanted by workshops, books, videos, and affiliate links. 

They say that if you want to make money from photography, you need to teach photography, not do photography.  Scott Kelby has done rather well with this model.
I agree…some of these people do very well financially.  I am always amazed at some of the places that people, such as Trey Ratcliff, have been to,…sometimes multiple times…places I will never get to…
I find Trey Radcliffe amazing. I was fascinated when I first saw his HDR work. Amazed him giving away his secrets for free. He's probably improved it in the meantime but the original tutorial didn't tell all his secrets. When I look at his work now it doesn't seen so good . Often OTT, he often doesn't make the best of the amazing locations. But that's what's still amazing about him. He's been to amazing places on the back of his website. He's also like a sage / guru on all types of subjects like the best camera , mirror less cameras, lecturing at google and other places.
All because he was first and has stayed top of the HDR pile.  He tells people how he became successful and to follow their photographic dreams. It's a bit like a pyramid scheme. There is very little room at the top. You can't repeat Treys success as the field is full. You have to find a photography type so far unexplored. I guess 3D photography and physically going to another planet are left. But you never know. I never saw HDR coming. Trey did though and I tip my hat to him. I hope he is enjoying his fame and wealth.
On the subject of D810 and 5D III . I've never used the Nikon but the 5DIII has been a great camera for me. It's a great all rounder. Never let's me down. Very high quality images. Nikon make a great camera too so we are all blessed to live in this era. The gear is no longer the excuse not to take great photos. Maybe it's easier to blame the gear than the technique or imagination.

Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: August 16, 2014, 04:38:04 AM »
I always find these debates interesting but also people spend too much time saying certain lens are crappy. I think people often blame equipment before themselves. A good photograph is 90% creativity and 10% equipment. I'd say in a blind test 99% of Canon shooters couldn't tell a photo taken from an Otus from a 50mm 1.4.
People should push to the limit what they have before moving to more expensive equipment.
I have the 85 1.2 . This lens is amazing at times. It's not amazing all the time because the photographer isn't precise enough with their technique. Similarily the 50 1.2 is a great lens in the right hands. It's a specialist portrait lens. I doubt they had walking around in mind. In a studio with lights and stopped down a bit those two lens are too sharp. You can see every pore, every blemish and piece of food stuck in their teeth.
It's scary at times. I have to jump past photoshop to portrait professional to not shock the person in the photo.
More practice with your existing prime is my advice. Work on your creativity and technique and worry less about the lens performance. It's good enough.
Ps my canon 1.4 isn't the sharpest lens in the world but it takes a lovely photo (as long as you don't pixel peep).
Perfectly fine for flickr or Facebook and printing to A4

I find it a little soft at the edges like the 16-35l.
The minimum focusing distance is to far too.
DXO gave it a poor review. It turns heads though.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8