August 23, 2014, 04:02:41 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 40
16
Software & Accessories / Re: how do you transfer your images?
« on: May 14, 2014, 02:19:40 PM »
EOS utility is the best, imho.  LR fails because it's definition of "new" is "whatever is not in the catalog", which means it won't respect that you have already rejected a photo that might still be on the card.    I know the LR experts all defend LR download capabilities but it just doesn't work for me.

If you are careful enough to keep the USB connection safe, while working around the USB cord, the camera, and the computer, then you can certainly be to be trusted with R&R'ing a CF card.  The CF card mechanics are so robust I'd suggest the risk of damaging a USB pin on the camera is 100x that of damaging a CF card slot on the camera. 

But,  to be sure you are right about preferences and whatever works.  I used the USB cord method for 7 ish years and  75,000 ish photos on my 40D, and I didn't damage a single cord or  connector on the camera.  either one works. 

Another reason I switched to the card reader method is that the 5D3 doubled my data xfer needs, and the "in camera USB" method is pretty s...l...o...w  especially for large cards that can hold over 1000 photos.

17
nice analysis A.  I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world.  Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm

One might argue lens and filter manufacturers should team up in certain focal lengths and co-develop lenses.  Keep in mind that filter threads themselves add thickness to the vignetting problem.  Killing those off would help.

Less Exciting but also Less Whack Idea: 

  • The lens company would design a WA lens with a flat front element and no front filter threads or make them removable somehow. This eliminates thickness add #1 -- the filter ring. (Admittedly, lens cap just got problematic.)
  • The filter company would then use the lens's hood mount (outside of the lens on the barrel, possibly specially designed for this) as the basis to snap on an outrigger a la Lee Foundation that is ever-so-close to flush with the front element.  This eliminates thickness add #2 -- the basic hardware to mount the filters.
  • The final step would be wide as hell filters to support 15-16mm FF focal length needs without vignetting.  They might be monstrously big, but it's do-able, right?
 
- A

  I think the market will always demand the single screw-in filter, i.e. UV and even CPLs.  for rectilinear lenses. I wonder if there are mechanical limitations using to the lens hood mount though - it was never intended to support any kind of weight and the last thing you want is breaking bayonet tabs.  you would have to supplement with some secondary holding/fastening system, but that sounds doable.   

but I must be missing something here -- if the lens mfg can design the front to accept a screw in filter without vignetting, then Lee can make an adapter to accommodate  a new, larger, foundation kit and a larger filter set.   However,  as you rightly point out, the filter sizes and foundation system required to stack three things in front of a 16mm would be vast, however, and may approach the mechanical limits of the screw mount.

18
nice analysis A.  I think our best bet is for the market to see the need for stacked filters in a sub 24mm world.  Such a solution might be larger than 100mm and quite costly, but how else are you going to stack an ND, and ND grad, and a CPL in front of a 16mm

19
My thinking is that Canon will make something new like a 14-24 or 12-24 f/2.8 instead of just updating the 16-35 II. If you think about it from a marketing point of view making a version 3 of the same lens is like saying "oh man, it took us three attempts to get it right! Doh, but here you are now!" Or they can be like "hey, look here's something completely new that we cooked up" to help you forget about the version 2.

Also, now with this new 16-35mm f/4 IS anyone needing this particular focal range but not the f/2.8 aperture in a way already have an updated option.

yea the 16-35 f/2.8 II is a conundrum  to me, and I suspect Canon's arrogance to continue as well without a version III.  They can divert attention from the version II shortcomings by producing key answers to Nikon's present offering as you mention.  Those who really want steller IQ at the edges in this focal length range will have several other ways to fulfill their needs.   meanwhile the version II will continue to ride on Canon's reputation and the soft-ball glowing reviews that don't want to point out its weaknesses, preferring instead to use such language as "L quality" and "flagship". 

20
In case it matters.... I've asked for  this one  since  the  16-50 rumor and I'm somebody so therefore it is not true that nobody asked for it. Oh And available June30 per Amazon

21
Software & Accessories / Re: how do you transfer your images?
« on: May 13, 2014, 05:02:33 PM »
I know this is old but I thought I would share something that is likely obvious;  just not to me until recently.  BTW I'm definitely in the card reader camp now -- have two 1000x Lexar cards that get rotated;   I just don't see the wear/mechanical risk in the card R&R, and the Lexar reader itself works really well over USB3. 

what I discovered, however, is that I don't like LR as the file transfer mechanism. I'm using the Canon software instead now, because it has the right definition of what a "new" image is :-). 

22
Might just have to get the 16-35/4L IS.  Selling the 16-35/2.8L II would cover the cost.  Less than 15% of my 16-35L shots are wider than f/4, and of those a reasonable fraction are of static subjects where 3-4 stops of IS would be of more benefit than 1 stop of light.  Sharper would be welcome, too. 

Bummer (for me) about the 77mm filter size, as the 24-70/2.8L II and TS-E 24L II both use 82mm, as does the 16-35/2.8L II.  I have the needed filters in 77mm (B+W K√§semann CPL, 10-stop ND, and the Lee WA adapter), it just means carrying them, too.

yea I'm glad I waited and was pleasantly surprised at the price.  I just pre-ordered.  now pondering the Lee setup and solving the vignetting issue... I'm hearing that even the Lee + 105mm adapter + B+W CPL will vignette wider than 20-ish?

23
So do we have an approximate date that these will be available? I know "June", but I'm leaving on a trip June 28th and would love to have the 16-35 with me.

B&H and Adorama won't say, and Amazon claims first availability June 30

25
Photography Technique / show your ND / ND grad / big stopper photos
« on: May 13, 2014, 12:32:42 PM »
I'd like to see some waterscapes and landscapes using NDs, ND grads, and of course the big stopper.  I'm interested in seeing examples  where the ND route was used either instead of, or with HDR. 

26
anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need?  B&H has no availability info /  Amazon says first availability june 30th.  tempted.
Yes, I pre-ordered this morning - B&H wasn't available to pre-order last night and Adorama & Amazon were, but Adorama wanted $10 to ship (vs. B&H free) and stupid Amazon started charging sales tax here in Florida last week  >:( :'(.

This lens is going to be perfect for me - I rarely bring my 16-35 II along because of the size and ridiculous hood and have almost never used f/2.8.  I don't really need IS, but I think that might be nice once I start using it.  The MTF curves and samples from the Canon Japan link showing sharp corners with no CA look amazing so I'm sold.  If I shoot in low light, I usually use my 24 f/1.4 II, so I can live without the single stop.  B&H tends to get the first shipment, so I guess it will be coming sometime in late June, and I can't wait.

+1.  yea I'll pay the early adopter fee but when one has a need.... 

I'm thinking a manual focus prime like the Rokinon 14mm would fill the low light needs and be a good companion to this one. 

27
anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need?  B&H has no availability info /  Amazon says first availability june 30th.  tempted.
Yes, I pre-ordered this morning - B&H wasn't available to pre-order last night and Adorama & Amazon were, but Adorama wanted $10 to ship (vs. B&H free) and stupid Amazon started charging sales tax here in Florida last week  >:( :'(.

This lens is going to be perfect for me - I rarely bring my 16-35 II along because of the size and ridiculous hood and have almost never used f/2.8.  I don't really need IS, but I think that might be nice once I start using it.  The MTF curves and samples from the Canon Japan link showing sharp corners with no CA look amazing so I'm sold.  If I shoot in low light, I usually use my 24 f/1.4 II, so I can live without the single stop.  B&H tends to get the first shipment, so I guess it will be coming sometime in late June, and I can't wait.

I just bit the bullet.  pre-ordered from both Amazon and B&H.  Amazon may get a larger allocation and they said they would notify me via email when they have a ship date.  I figure this way I'll get which ever ships first and cancel the other.


28
anyone pre-ordered yet to fill an anticipated need?  B&H has no availability info /  Amazon says first availability june 30th.  tempted.

29
Ok, I take back what I said about both the Custom Bracket brackets. While they allow a camera with AS plates to be mounted quickly, they don't have the AS dovetails, so cannot be used on a tripod.
Do people who use this never use tripods? Why this glaring omission? I understand one can always stick an AS plate at the bottom of the bracket, but that is unnecessarily adding bulk.
The RRS of course mounts on to the lens plate (or nodal plate) so it maintains the AS dovetail. But it is a bit too pricey and bulky.

yea there's no free lunch.  I didn't see this (about the custom brackets)  either as I've never used one of these.  At least the Newton allows full tripod compatibility -- you just need to use their plate.  if that is ok for you then really the Newton is still a viable alternative; compact, foldable etc.

and it isn't all about the catch light. Its about control of shadows too. .  if you're in a situation where you don't have an assistant, you need to use ceiling bounce and/or the bounce card and you just need to rotate the camera 90 degrees and shoot, you don't always have time to fiddle.  You want shadows to be diffuse, behind and slightly below the subject especially  when there is a  wall behind the subject.  Some situations may require all of the following:   (1) flash height above the lens axis (2) control of ceiling bounce (3) use of the bounce card (4) quick, as in sub 1 second, switch between portrait and landscape, and (5) quick lens changes. 


If one requires tripod use (without removing some proprietary flash plate) then its fair to assume you already have a plate on the camera and you what any new apparatus to use it.  Either that, or you (like the Newton) accept that the new apparatus will supply its own AS dovetail plate accommodating both itself and the tripod. 

But if you have all of the above requirements AND you have an existing plate, such as an RRS or Kirk or Wimberly L plate, then options are few.  there will be expense and bulk because there has to be some sort of adapter or mechanism to attach the flash apparatus to the existing plate. 

30
You may want to consider the RF-PRO AS (Rapid Fire) from Custom Brackets. It's the least bulky of all the options I've seen, keeps the flash closest to the lens-axis (to reduce shadows when used for fill), and won't interfere with your regular shooting-style. Custom Brackets is known for their high-quality products, and I've seen good reviews for this model. As much as I love all my RRS-stuff, after a lot of research, I believe that the RF-PRO AS is the flash bracket I'm going with...

http://www.custombrackets.com/products/camera-flash-brackets/rf-pro-as.html

this does look to be a viable alternative to the RRS, and addresses the concerns I expressed in the previous post ,namely that the bracket should clamp onto an existing plate and not require its own plate.  An advantage to the Custom Brackets that comes to mind is the stability piece, where you can set the whole assembly down, but this comes at the expense of bulk.  I do like the collapsible feature a lot, which means that it is one piece. 

Another point to bear in mind is that flash head height height above the lens is important, so that even without bounce, the shadow behind the subject appears slightly lower.  So whatever solution you choose, imho it needs to locate the flash higher than the camera's hot shoe. 

Its hard to evaluate these without using them -- So I can only point out what I like a out the Newton and what I think needs improvement.  the things I don't like about the Newton are:

1.  stability.  the fully loaded solution will flop around if you're not careful
2.  the bracket requires its own plate and does not clamp to a std L plate for example

These elements may have improved over the years;  my Newton is about 5 years old.

Both the Custom Brackets and RRS solutions solve the above two problems.  one thing I do like about the RRS solution, which would have been particularly nice in my shoot, is that the bracket clamps directly to the lens plate for collared lenses.  for heavy lenses this is an advantage and relieves the camera from having to support anything additional.   That's something to consider if you expect to shoot primarily with collared lenses.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 40