Hay mark, can you use second curtain sync off camera on the 600s?
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.
Saw a version I of this lens for 350$ with the built in hood. Didn't buy it.
LOL, I know you're not a fan of this lens but you could have easily made $200-$300 flipping it.
So I was reading the rumor on Canon's roadmap for 2013 and got me to thinking... Is the 1DX really Canon's workhorse?
I'm a beginning fashion and beauty photographer that is working to get bigger and higher profile jobs. I currently have a 5D Mark II which has served me quite well for many things in this arena. However it's not as great an all-arounder that I would like for my non-fashion jobs which helps circulate my name and get me some additional income.
The 5D Mark III is a great camera. But the lack of a user-replaceable focus-screen and no pro body is a downside. It's fast enough and the AF is more than adequate. But not sure if it's something I would be happy with for 4 or more years. Which is what I expect from a pro camera.
The 1DX is what I want except that it doesn't have the higher MP of the 5D series. Well, I was a little disappointed when it didn't have built-in WiFi... But overall, it's pretty darn nice. The way I look at it, as long as I have the appropriate lens, it can pretty much handle anything I throw at it. Which would allow me to take more jobs that I know technical limitations won't be an issue.
However, I'm a little concerned about the 18MP. For publication in large format magazines, I think 18MP would still be fine. For fashion and beauty, is there a big advantage to go with 22MP? The only step-up I see would be Medium Format which I don't see a need for at least a couple of years. How much of an advantage would that be over a 1DX/5D3 in the fashion/beauty markets?
The EXIF just exposes "the look" for the self delusional nonsense that it so often is!
A 1.6 crop shot at 135 and f2 @ 100 iso is virtually identical in every respect, including dof and perspective, to a ff image shot from the same place with a 200 at f2.8 and 200iso. The dog shot could be done identically with any of the 70-200 f2.8 lenses. In that instance "the look" is entirely repeatable, maybe there is a good reason my customers don't care how I achieve my results, I know how to achieve them without thinking, or self delusion.
Maybe just provide the EXIF like everybody else does?
BUT, can you definitively give the focal length and aperture of RLPhotos' three images?
Assuming little or no cropping, I'm guessing the dog was shot with a email@example.com or something along those lines, maybe shorter. The ratio of very large nose to tiny eyes means it was a relatively short lens to get that perspective. The apeture had to be smaller to create enough DOF to keep the nose and eyes both in focus since the dog has a long snout. It will be interesting to see what the actual setup was.
Nope all these images are shot @ f/2. The trick is proper technique to get what you want in focus.
If you can't tell between f/2.8 and f/2, bah you might as well shoot f/4 lenses because you won't be able to tell the difference either.
Then by all means educate us. Tell us how you were able to so distort the face of the dog and make such a massive nose and such small eyes so close together and yet maintain that DOF. We people you can't tell the difference and don't know proper technique want to know how to create these beady eyes and a huge nose peering thru a fog of blurred fur!
It's called a higher angle in which you tilt the camera down slight to move the plane of focus just enough to get both eyes in focus @ f/2.
Geez, do you guys actually go out and shoot? Its feels like I'm talking to some test chart shooter here.
That doesn't explain the distorted perspective of the huge nose and small close together eyes. To my knowlege, only a relatively short lens and close subject distance creates this "peep hole" type of perspective.
On such a dog, the nose to eyes distance is prabably 6 inches. So I for one would like to know which focal length and subject distance can create the DOF needed to keep both eyes and nose relatively in focus while at the same time skewing the proportions of the dogs face that way.