August 20, 2014, 08:41:14 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 5 ... 40
31
Which Newton Bracket do you use? This one?
http://www.newtoncamerabrackets.com/default-old4.htm

-pw


yea that's the one.  the collapsible Fr model.  What I would prefer is a bracket that clamps on to an existing plate -- instead of replacing the plate

32
A while back I shot a corporate event, featuring the main speaker, without an assistant.  the 5D3 with 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii and shoe mounted 580ex ii was my friend, to be sure.  I have two other flash units and radio triggers but the venue was not amenable to placing them in strategic locations.  I used the bounce card and took advantage of the white ceilings. 
 
I used a Newton flash bracket, which is collapsible and fits inside my lowepro slingshot.  The most important benefit of the bracket is that you loose the hard side-shadows in portrait  mode which I personally find objectionable.  The camera can rotate between landscape and portrait orientations, while the flash stays where it is.    Locating the flash at the center of the lens, and a bit higher than the camera's hot shoe allows you to bounce off the ceiling, using the bounce card for the catch light,  and the shadow becomes soft and located just behind and below the subject.   even in portrait  mode. 

My Newton bracket has AS compatible dovetails machined into it, so I can use a tripod and switch between the bracket and no bracket.   bottom line is that the Newton bracket works well, is collapsible and portable, if you are content with a std sized generic plate.


I'm putting it up for sale because I now have a gripped 5D3 with RRS L bracket and I really like the protection offered by the L bracket, which is code for 'no way I'm removing this'.  :-).   Other market solutions (beyond the Newton)  are complex and unwieldy contraptions, imho, except for the RRS solution, which may be expensive but to me is the only other solution I would consider.  this will be my next solution when I am able to sell the Newton. 

33
+1 on that.  I haven't used the lever flavor,  so I wouldn't have known that!  The RRS knob is large and very effective.  I'm really glad I got my MH-02 Pro head before they disappeared. 

34
 If it were me I'd snap up that 02 pro head if your system is built around dissimilar brands andor  you just  like the screw knob.   I have it and love it.... It's quiet in church lol.   Asfor  the monopod I chose gitzo because of a height requirement

35
Canon General / Re: Insurance for Camera gear
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:22:54 PM »
State Farm seem a bit random with pricing, 15k cover for $187 vs 17k for $176

Clearly, because I'm paying $7.60 per $1K coverage, a much lower rate than either of the above.

yea this is fantastic.   state farm locally will schedule equipment for about $9/1000 per year with full replacement. And that includes mysterious disappearance.  I'm paying about the same as you are through "auto owners" but they are ticking me off with their pro-rated (not full replacement) policy.  They cover 75% of the current replacement value, which means you are always chasing a moving target in terms of how much insurance to buy. 

   For business purpose the local state farm dude would write a standalone policy for $35/1000 per year, which includes $1M liability. 

for those of us who are semi-pro, and use equipment for both personal and business purposes, the only gotcha for the homeowners schedule route might depend on the policy -- if the loss occurred while conducting business there would be no coverage, to be sure, and  some policies may not even allow mixed usage. 

36
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: February 14, 2014, 01:56:56 PM »
A weather-sealed 16-50mm f/4 IS sounds wonderful.  As does the 14-24mm f/2.8 - but what'll she cost? $3K?
As a 16-35mm f/2.8 L III ...

with 77mm filter threads and IS please...

+1  to me a "16-50ish"  F/4 IS with 77mm threads and IS would be very attractive, and would fit nicely into the current lineup without tromping on the 16-35 f/2.8 II which appears is here to stay.  Sure f/2.8 would be nice but thats the job for a 16-35 III, imho.    If such a lens really materializes with that long of a maximum FL, IS will be important even for candids, not to mention narrow aperture landscapes in a pinch where you don't have a tripod.  I've even obtained some resonable results with handheld HDR -- with 6fps and a fast enough minimum shutter speed.

37
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: January 16, 2014, 03:59:40 PM »
My concern is the slow AF at 600mm as he was comparing to the 100-400mm.

+1 they can have market-disruptive IQ/price ratio but if the AF is sub standard it just really lets the air out of that baloon.
This may give you an idea
<you tube video>

I could live with that! lol

As for the edge sharpness question. We will know the details soon enough,  but my guess is that the FF users  who can't shell out 10x the price for a big white will be content with  some amoung of edge softness that is greater than the big white primes.  that just goes without saying.   

and I agree with Don; I'd avoid that shop. or that salesperson, as  the recomnmendation seems to have been based on an ideology, not results. 

38
Software & Accessories / Re: Lee Big Stopper
« on: January 15, 2014, 11:51:22 AM »

39
Site Information / ad choices embedded in the forums
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:07:13 PM »
What controls the ads that appear in the forums? Im seeing some I would rather not see

40
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:02:59 PM »
What is the widest you can get without going bulbous end? Is it 16mm? I imagine a 12-24 or 14-24 would be quite expensive anyway and wouldn't take filters.

exactly. imho  this is why the 82mm 16-35 f/2.8 II isn't going away, and why a  77mm 16-something f/4 IS would go over well.

41
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 07:01:07 PM »
Im just waiting for Canon to come out with a 16-35mm f4 IS. I dont need to shoot at f2.8, but would love to have the IS.

I don't see that happening, but what do I know... If they produce an UWA F4 IS, I would say it would be the rumored EF 16-50 f/4 IS, which I agree would be wonderful for landscapes, especially if it is an L.   

 

42
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: January 14, 2014, 11:57:43 AM »
A 16-50 f/4 IS would be just the ticket.
I like the idea of that, but would still love something really wide like the Sigma 12-24 II I used to own.  I fear that Canon considers our dreams of a super wide covered by the 8-15 f/4.  A lot of their articles have pitched it as a wide angle lens, but at least to me, I don't care for the fisheye distortion even if it can be minimized with a perfectly level shot.

seems to me there is market pressure for Canon to produce a rectilinear 14(ish)-24.  its absense does seem conspicuous.

In addition,  I don't see the 16-35 II going away or replaced.  seems astonishing to me to suggest that, as the rumor has.  Given its success in the market, and the fact that Canon appears to stick by it no matter what weaknesses  the purests point out, suggests it is here to stay and probabably won't be updated any time soon.   It would really surprise me if we saw a 16-35 III this year.

I see  an 82mm mm 16-35 II, a 77mm 16-50 and a bulbous 14(ish)-24, all living happily together,  as they would target different specialties. The  extra FL, IS, and 77mm front end (I presume) of a 16-50 would be welcome advantages if f/2.8 isn't important , complementing the others, including the rumored 24-70 f/2.8 IS.  THe 16-35 II is too succesful (strategically) to update it now.   

BTW off the subject, but  its kind of amusing to see the tricks that retailers go through to get around MAP and that is happening to the 16-35 right now.  happens all the time I know, but its still amusing to think of the conversations among lawyers :-)

43
Lenses / Re: Sigma announces all-new 50mm F1.4 DG HSM 'Art' lens
« on: January 06, 2014, 06:38:11 PM »
+1.   Do the Sigma primes af well?

44
HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Best HDR Software?
« on: January 04, 2014, 11:06:22 PM »
Nik has improved their alignment and ghosting code  quite impressively and I happen to like their UI.   I'm seeing surprisingly good performance with 5 frame handheld shots  believe it or not.   IS is the lifesaver 

45
Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Review
« on: January 02, 2014, 06:06:57 PM »


Exactly... An updated 100—400 +1.4x is sounding a lot better to be.   Sure it will be 2x maybe 3x the price..

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 40