January 29, 2015, 09:36:24 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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 41
391
EOS Bodies / Re: Adorama is selling 5d3 for $2745 on eBay now
« on: September 16, 2012, 01:35:42 AM »
 does adoramacamera have any lenses out there too?

392
whatever the crop body is , it will need to produce convincingly better iq than cropping  a FF to the same fov.  in other words better than todays 7d vs cropping a 5d3 image in post from what ive seen posted anyway

393
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 15, 2012, 05:13:40 PM »
the thing about light toys and graveyards is that you must first understand both your needs and the nature of light beore you select the tool.  light travels in straight lines so no amount of diffusion will soften the light coming from the strobe itself. a controlled  combination of direct vs reflective light is better accomplished with a bounce or partial bounce device insread of tupoerware imho. 

394
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 15, 2012, 12:19:25 PM »
I've also struggled with this. I think metering and exposure are critical to getting good shots with on-camera flash. Whenever possible, I think on-camera flash works best when used to fill in shadows and not as the primary light source. The only exception is when you can bounce the light off nearby surfaces and diffuse the light.

With regard to flash toys, I don't think there is a silver bullet. All of the various manipulators seem to have their pluses and minuses. I've used cards, diffusers, bouncers, etc. Like most photographers, I have a flash toy graveyard.



+1 on that. the first thing to go in my graveyard was a particular piece of tupperware that works good as a bare bulb converter.  it is  marketed with true but incomplete information and i now use another more convinient and less expensive solution.

Are you talking about the gary fong for what you got rid of or those really tiny translucent pieces of plastic that you put over the head to diffuse it? What'd you go with?

I found that the gf was over marketed and in the situations I was faced with it didnt' provide near the benefit that the videos show, which of course (what they didn't emphasize) had plenty of reflective surfaces and studio like conditions in that regard.  the chief shortcoming is that the device itself does not enlarge the light source which of course diffusers don't do. 

for a bare bulb diffuser I ended up with the stofen omnibounce cause its just a lot more convinient. 

all in all, the folks at lumiquest and strobist are among those that give the straightest and most helpful information so you can taylor your strobe utilization to fit the need. 

395
Lighting / Re: Direct Flash - How to make it useful?
« on: September 14, 2012, 10:50:01 PM »
I've also struggled with this. I think metering and exposure are critical to getting good shots with on-camera flash. Whenever possible, I think on-camera flash works best when used to fill in shadows and not as the primary light source. The only exception is when you can bounce the light off nearby surfaces and diffuse the light.

With regard to flash toys, I don't think there is a silver bullet. All of the various manipulators seem to have their pluses and minuses. I've used cards, diffusers, bouncers, etc. Like most photographers, I have a flash toy graveyard.



+1 on that. the first thing to go in my graveyard was a particular piece of tupperware that works good as a bare bulb converter.  it is  marketed with true but incomplete information and i now use another more convinient and less expensive solution. 

396
Lighting / Re: Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT - I'm impressed!
« on: September 13, 2012, 05:55:57 PM »
any issues getting the 600 and a 580 EX ii to play together?

397
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D600 $2700 MSRP??
« on: September 13, 2012, 05:09:31 PM »
It's official...

http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0913_dslr_01.htm

yay for the competition, this is an interesting show to watch.  I especially like the "advanced basic camera performance"  marketing verbiage :D

398
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 10, 2012, 11:04:13 PM »
incidentally, more to your question sparkle999 according to this review:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-DSLR-Camera-Review.aspx

the 5D3 has an additional fluorine coating intended to provide additional incremental improvement, compared to the 5D2 The comment is buried deep inside the review, so here is the text (emphasis mine):

"A clean sensor is a strong contributor to good image quality. The 5D III inherits the 5D II's Integrated Cleaning System with the addition of a dust-avoiding fluorine coating. I have read in Canon documentation that the 5D III's self-cleaning sensor system incorporates a more efficient ultrasonic vibration but I'm not certain that this is correct. It was perhaps copied in from 1D X documentation...I have changed lenses on my 5D III a huge number of times and have not needed to clean the sensor since I blew the single factory dust bunny out when the camera first arrived."

399
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 06, 2012, 04:24:22 PM »
ahh -- yes indeed thats a good reason!  to be sure, a combination of lens-changing technique, ultrasonic dust-shakers in the camera, and a good Giottos rocket blower can go a long way to postpone your next date with The Eclipse solution :D  . 

my beach experience is suggesting to me that I should try some PM activities -- the internal shakers are one thing but a good blast of air in combination should be even better.  I'm thinking if the sensor "cleaning" treatment in-camera can run every time you cycle power, then I can arrange  to blow things out more often  :D .   no results yet -- that's just just my latest set of neurons firing.   

400
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 06, 2012, 01:42:05 PM »
its true that lpf cleaning should not be needed very often but if you just happen to be in a situation where you can't avoid changing lenses in a dirty environment, you gotta do what you gotta do and soon or later, hopefully later,  you're gonna need a wet clean to get the so-called "welded" dust off (thats the dust that won't blow or shake off). For example, one time I had to change lenses out on the beach -- no dust there, not even any blowing sand (I was out on some rocks at low tide),  but as near as I can tell the sudden exposure to high humidity ended up welding dust already there to the lpf.  at the time I was without my cleaning supplies so Lightroom's spot removal got a lot of use :D  .  If I had remembered to blow things out before hand I might have avoided or reduced the severity of the problem. 

often, dust can be corrected in post; other times, well no, or at least it would be less work to have cleaned the lpf than to correct the image :D

I have to admit I was once one of the faint at heart, not wanting to touch my lpf.  its totally a personal thing;  some are comfortable doing it and some are not.  for me, once I understood it the mystery was over -- and the right sized swab and two drops of eclipse solution does the magic.   YMMV of course, and you may be just fine with Canon cleaning every 1-2 years.  two cleanings will pay for a lot of DIY supplies BTW :D

I know this isn't a thread about cleaning, so appoligies for the thread drift -- its just important to be able to know and detect if your sensor is clean or not.  If you don't notice anyting on a real photo you can claim success -- but for a more sensitive/severe test, snap a photo of blue sky at some really small aperture (like f/22) with manual focus at infinity -- then look at the result,  In the absense of blue sky I fire up "dead pixel  buddy" (freeware LCD excersizer) in solid light blue and take a picture of the computer scrreen).   


401
EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...
« on: September 05, 2012, 10:45:52 PM »
dont be afraid of cleaning the lpf yourself.  i use the "copper hill" method with an inspection loupe and quite happywith the results . 

402
EOS Bodies / Re: Funny thing happening across the camera world
« on: August 28, 2012, 03:08:03 PM »
46 megapixel on a small FF sensor is absolutely a joke. Forget this rumor.

People said the same thing about rumors related to 18 MP on APS-C, 24 MP on APS-C and 36 MP on FF sensors prior to announcement.
I think the same thing even after the announcements  :)

it may or may not be a joke and it may or may not be a good idea, but it certainly feasible.  46MP on a FF sensor happens to be the same pixel density as the aging 7D sensor, a fact which I find oddly coincident with this rumor :D

403
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2012, 02:16:23 PM »
My real question concerning C or H sensor is how many people on here are actually using a 7D with ef-s lens'?  How many people spend that much on a camera, that much more for a 7D II upgrade and then puts $300 glass on it.  Make it a pro crop camera!  C or H, but actually make it a pro price point for the technology to separate it from all of the T series and xxD series cameras!

5D II, 7D, 70-200, L 24-70 L, 16-35 L, and a bunch more

You might want to look up the prices of two important EF-S lenses that provide key capabilities ,found in no other lenses,  for APS-C bodies at high IQ levels. 

an APS-C camera, as a 2nd body for pros and a primary body for prosumers, will be served well by the top EF-S lenses at those focal lengths.  if the camera is a 2nd body or used exclusively for its reach, then thoses S lenses do not have to be mounted up.   

An H camera would be a niche for BIFers for whom the S lenses would provide no benefit anyway, even if they did fit.

404
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2012, 09:00:22 AM »
That's been hashed out here several times in the past, & unfortunately the conclusion is that anything bigger than a 10D mirror will whack into the rear element of an EF-S lens.

yea, and I just don't see the S factor as significant or important in the H discusssions.  If Canon produces another H body, a lot of folks will have to seek therapy but such such a camera imho would target a segment that won't care about S lenses.

405
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specs? [CR1]
« on: August 22, 2012, 10:06:27 PM »
The reason that APS-H BIF body discussions go haywire is because they usually contain references to the numeral 7, and that brings all sorts of philosophical musings that don't address the issue, namely "what body does canon expect the BIF togs to use?" 

whatever technology is available in 'C' is also available in 'H' with a corresponding set of well known advantages to the larger pixel pitch.  Whats  compelling to me is the hole in Canon's current line-up -- the BIF/Wildlife optimized body.  The 1Dx does everything except the reach part, and yea I totally get that BIFers are the ones who will take the AF performance hit for the ability to AF at all at f/8 -- so I do see room for a 1D4 successor, as long as we can keep the numeral 7 from coloring those discussions.  Call the body whatever you want, or make it a C or an H; doesn't matter. 

I suspect, however, that if Canon produces another H body, it will of such a price point and specialty niche that no one will care about putting an S lens on it, and there will still be room for a 7D2 in 'C' form.  Frankly I agree with those hoping that a new and disruptive "C" sensor is forthcoming and that the 2nd or BIF body will be the king of crops named the 7D2.  To do that, however, such a camera would have to produce convincingly better IQ than cropping a 5D3 or a 1Dx image to the same FOV.   who knows, maybe the BIF 2nd body will be mirrorless.

Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 41