July 22, 2014, 09:47:29 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 218
2296
Landscape / Re: Can I save this shot in PP?
« on: September 24, 2012, 04:44:42 PM »
Hi,
driving along early one morning and saw this shot, lots of low mist in the fields. I was hurried as where I parked was not ideal. Anyway I took some bracketed shots, from -2, -1.5, -1, -0.5 and +/-0. But, at F9.5, the sun is blown out in all five shots. I guess using F22 would have helped me.
The -2 shot has loads of noise due to most of it being very under exposed.
I thought about taking the darker parts from one of the better exposed versions to improve it. Anyone got any other ideas how to go about repairing this shot?

What about when shooting? I was using spot and trying to get the mist correct, which seems to have happened OK. I guess a grad ND would probably have helped too.

Cheers Brian

Maybe, But it looks grim.

2297
EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« on: September 24, 2012, 04:41:17 PM »
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.


+100000 right here!

I went from a 450D to a D700 because of Nikon's fantastic midrange prime selection. I currently have a 50/1.4G and 85/1.8G and they're both tremendous lenses. Canon's competitors in this area are outdated and, while cheaper, are not serious lenses for someone investing in full frame. With Nikon I can have a full range of modern, fantastic primes that perform well above their price for the cost of one L lens, and that was worth switching for me.

That said, it doesn't really matter what you shoot! DR this, handling that, blah blah blah. Both sides have things that the other doesn't, and both make cameras whose capabilities vastly outmatch the photography chops of the average forum poster.

For me, the areas in which Nikon excels (normal primes, UWA) are more interesting than Canon's specialties, and I found the D700 to be sufficiently better/more robust than a 5D2 for my money when I was comparing brands. Having handled a D600 this weekend, I'm very glad I jumped on a new D700 at $2200, as the D600 feels VERY plasticky. It would be great for someone coming from a Rebel-type camera, but I can't imagine holding a camera like that again after putting almost 15k shots on my tank-like D700 in these past 6 months.

Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here. 8)

2298
Landscape / Re: Best lens for landscapes for a trip to the mountains?
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:45:51 PM »
I am planning on going around Switzerland for a week to travel through the alps and photograph scenery and landscapes. I also want to rent a lens that would be best for landscape photography. I have a 60D with an 18-55mm, a 28mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200 f/4 L. Here are the lenses I am considering to rent:

Canon 10-22mm (I had a Tamron 10-24 when I used to shoot Nikon and absolutely loved the wide angle)

Canon 17-40mm L (I don't know if this is wide enough but I'm considering buying this lens in a few months to replace my 18-55)

Canon 16-35mm L (Not sure if its worth spending extra to get this one, especially if I'm shooting landscape where I'll be using narrow apertures)

Canon 24-105 L (Would this be a decent idea as a general purpose zoom or do you think I should just try to go for something more wide angle?)

Thanks for your help!

10-22mm + 50mm 1.8. Thats light, compact and EZ to lug all day.

2299
EOS Bodies / Re: 450D to 6D
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:42:31 PM »
Given the recent announcement and the affordable price of a 6D with a 24-105mm kit, I'm starting to seriously consider the full benefits of a move from using a 450D with a 15-85mm to a 6D with the 24-105, specifically in terms of shooting in low light, depth of field and so on...    Whilst I'm sure some will shout, buy a 5D III, but seriously folks, I'm not happy to invest that level of my cash into a camera, so...  Please, given my current lens line up, consideration of keeping the 450D with the 10-22, perhaps trading my 15-85 & 18-55, what can I expect and are there any pitfalls I need to think about ?

5Dc = 500$  :P No sacrifice.

2300
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:41:11 PM »
As a 60d shooter was looking forward to the 6d entry level ff I was hugely disappointed by just the additional 2 af points and 1/180th fash sync.   Came across this good comparison page regarding flash syncs

http://www.photographe-mariages.net/blog/20120404/vitesse-de-synchronisation-par-appareil-photo/

Why do the 60d, 50d, and 7d have a faster flash sync than the 5d mark ii and iii and the 6d?????

I'm holding off to see how the 7d mark ii shakes out now.  the 6d doesn't impress me and the 5d mark iii is too much.


no.

2301
Lenses / Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:37:49 PM »
I believe this is an age old question that has been asked many times.
But that was when zooms weren't fantastic in terms of sharpness.

I currently shoot portraiture 90% of the time and i constantly use the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.8 prime lenses only for my shoots..granted they're not the L version but those are way too pricey. I'm shooting on the 5Dmk3.

However, i'm always "struggling" to be happy with the results i'm getting. The photos aren't bad but i jus wished they were a tad bit sharper. I've done all the AFMA stuff and still am not happy. In fact, i'm even happier with the results from my 40 f2.8 STM lens but that lens just isn't fantastic for close up shots.

Therefor this question…should i give up both primes and go for a new standard zoom lens?
It seems the new 24-70 from both Tamron and Canon are impressive in terms of sharpness in the center and corners. Primes are still better at extremes but i'm more bothered about center sharpness.

Looking at MTF charts for both these lenses at 70mm f5.6 (5.6 is what i usually shoot at, sometmes f4 but never lower), their center sharpness values far exceed what both my primes can do (because they're both VERY old designs?)

I admit, i wished Canon would update their 50 and 85 no L lenses as they're both like 20yrs old, but until that happens, should i just go for the Tamron 24-70? It's sharp, it's cheap, it's got IS…other than it being only 70 and not 85 which i'm used to…are there any other "negatives" as to why people use primes for portraits more than zooms? Especially the new models..

I'm asking becuase i never owned a 24-70 so i have no clue how it's like shooting with it. i only have the 24-105 which is a horrible lens if you want sharpness, but that's not what i bought that lens for in the first place.

Any comments will be greatly appreciated in helping me decide to give up my primes and go for the Tamron or just stick with the primes.

Yes. Just look at the 200mm F/2. ::)

2302
EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]
« on: September 22, 2012, 05:55:33 PM »
If its a 5Dx for 4099$. I'm so buying one.  ;D

2303
Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW
« on: September 21, 2012, 09:00:43 PM »
thanks guys.
pretty sure i'll pick up LR4 then.
isn't it around this time of year that adobe release an update to elements? maybe only a short wait until then to upgrade my v8 to v11.

Good choice. Before and Afters are always surprising.

2304
Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:13:11 AM »
For my 40D raw files I've been using Elements 8 for some time.
Now I'm about to get a 5D MK III, I'll not be able to use Elements 8 as it's version of ACR isn't compatible with this camera. I can't afford a copy of Photoshop CS6 so whats my best option? What do most people use? I guess the answer is Lightroom 4.1.

Yes LR 4.1 is Great.

2305
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Nikon vs Canon - Honest Poll before photokina.
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:07:50 AM »
Its still overwhelmingly one sided for canon lenses but Nikon bodies are still superior.

2306
EOS Bodies / Re: Best FF option
« on: September 21, 2012, 10:04:55 AM »
Mulling over what my best FF option is now that the (pathetic) 6D has been officially announced.  I want to add a FF body for landscape, architecture, portrait, and flash work.  I would like to get it soon, preferably before year's end, but could wait as long as March 2013 if there is a reason to wait.  I consider myself a passionate hobbyist, I do not make any money or plan to from photog.  I’m interested in the CR community’s thoughts and suggestions.

Current Gear

-  7D (with low shutter count)
-  16-35 II (less than a year old)
-  24-105
-  70-200 F4 IS (may sell for 70-200 2.8 II)
-  100L
-  1.4 II
-  600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT (plan to add a couple of 440EX-RTs)
-  Plan to get a 35L or 50L (waiting to see if a 35L II is going to be announced)

I plan to buy new.  I may consider a refurb from Canon but not likely since after shipping and taxes I’m not saving much.


Option 1:
-    Buy a 5D3 (got the money but really don’t feel good about spending that kind of money on a body.  Besides that would delay some of my other intended purchases.  Could wait for a price drop but really don't see it dropping below 3k, don't expect anymore $2750 deals--I'm still suspicious about that.)

Option 2:

-  Buy a 5D3 – and sell some gear to help offset the cost.
-  Sell 7D – Hate to give up reach.  I like to shoot MLB games and have wildlife option.
-  Sell 16-35 II and buy a 17-40 (plan to use this lens for landscape at small apertures so soft edges on 17-40 shouldn’t be a problem.  BTW, how is the distortion on the 17-40  compared to the 16-35II?)

Option 3:
-  Buy  a 5D2 now (had ruled this out but now reconsidering).  If my crystal ball showed that Canon would release firmware for better RT flash support, this would make this option easier but we all know that’s not going to happen.

Option 4:
-  Nothing at this time.  Wait and see if Canon decides to build a FF camera between the 5D3 and 6D that their customers actually want as opposed to reacting to Nikon's D600.

Option 5:
-   Your suggestion

Right now I’m slightly leaning towards option 3.  Thanks as always.

you can buy a 5Dc for like 500$ on Evil bay or craigslist. Its cheap as chips as still is a great camera and you wouldn't have to sell anything.

2307
1D X Sample Images / Re: Who is this idiot??
« on: September 20, 2012, 08:45:31 PM »
:P

The guy who purchased the most technologically advanced canon camera ever produced to date.  8)

2308
Canon General / Re: How do you sell your gear?
« on: September 20, 2012, 08:43:53 PM »
Hello all.

New to the forum, but I've been a long time visitor to the site.  I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm having a tough time selling some gear.  I'm trying to sell my canon ef-s 17-55.  I've had it up on Craigslist for a few weeks with about 1 or 2 interested in buying that have backed out of at the last minute.  I really don't want to put it on ebay to avoid fees.

I was just curious if anyone knew of any other outlets to sell used gear. 

Thanks for any suggestions.

Craiglist

Good Friends

Evil Bay

Fred Miranda

Lastly, Pawn Shops.  >:(

2309
EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?
« on: September 18, 2012, 09:44:03 PM »
Seems to me it's targeted at the very same people the 5DC was targeted at back in 2005, new FF owners. I was one when I bought the 5DC in 2006 (for AUD$4,200 including 24-105L). I still have it and it is a great camera with good glass (I've since added the superb 70-200L II IS). But let's look at the comparison and then assess whether the Canon hierarchy have dropped the ball as some here suggest.
The 5D was marketed by Canon (and I think generally regarded) as the world's smallest, lightest and most affordable FF DSLR. Seven years on and the 6D is a smaller, lighter, more affordable and more competent DSLR by almost any measure of specification you want to use.
The 5d is 12.8 mp, the 6D 20.2mp.
The 5D processor was a Digic II, the 6D has a Digic 5+.
The 5D body weighs 810g and measured 6x4.4x3", the 6D 770g and 5.7x4.4x2.8.
The 5D shoots continuously 3fps, the 6D 4.5fps.
The 5D's has 9pt autofocussing (with no cross-type), the 6D 11.
The 5D's LCD was 2.5" and 230k pixels, the 6D's is 3.2" 1024K.
5D ISO is 100-1600 (expandable to 50-3200) and the 6D 100-25,600 (expandable to 50-102,400).
5D has exposure compensation of +/- 2 ev, 6D has +/-5.
5D's viewfinder is 96%, 6D's is 97%.

Add to this the list of things the 6D has that the 5D doesn't - video function, liveview, touch screen, HDMI, built-in wireless, built-in GPS. I may have missed things, but the general point is that it is aimed at the same market but offers more to them at a better price (as you would expect).

I understand why some people might be disappointed with the specs, but I think we get a bit greedy some times. Proof, of course, is in the eating but, at this price, I for one will consider upgrading to the 6d from my 5dC once the detailed peformance reviews are in. :)

I've owned a 5Dc that I Ran its full shutter life into the ground and then purchased a 5D3.

Now considering that a 5Dc can be had for 500$ on craigslist, its still the best camera you can buy for around that price range but the 6D is nothing like the 5Dc a at release.

The 5Dc had no competition in its time, while the 6D has to convice users not to buy a 5D2.

The 5Dc was released as a budget FF camera and still is the Budget FF digital camera, while the 6D isn't.

The 5Dc can still swap focusing screens, and Yes, There is a difference even with the 5D3's magnification.

The 5Dc is a Great camera but Comparing it to the 6D? Not even the same league.

The 6D is more like the 50D to 60D transition.

2310
EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?
« on: September 18, 2012, 08:47:32 PM »
My friend and I have been exchanging messages back and forth about the 6D's target demographic.  He would believe that this is aimed at wealthy folks who might leave the camera in an auto mode.  (Hence, no need for the nicer AF of more recent systems.)  I really think otherwise, that it's aimed at enthusiasts.  I'm not looking to win an argument here, I'm just curious what you folks think (by demographic / bucket of people) about to whom this new rig is aimed?

I think we'd all agree that this is principally aimed at people looking to get their first FF camera.  But who are these people?  Just spitballing here, I would guess...
  • Enthusiasts who always wanted FF but have always blanched at the price.  This thing seems dead nuts aimed at 60D and 7D users that don't value those cameras for the APS-C length / speed but value them for being 'higher end'. (I know some sports and birding folks who love their 7D for length / speed reasons -- this would not be aimed at them.)
  • Journalism / photography students -- textbooks are still built around FF old-school 35mm film lengths and rules, right?  Wouldn't APS-C multiples just foul that up?
  • Perhaps a just-starting-out pro photographer's choice until he makes enough money to warrant a pro rig.
  • Serious tourists / landscape fans -- people who own tripods and spend a day shooting a national park.
  • People who often enlarge their shots and long for better IQ over their APS-C rigs?

Personally, I think the 6D is really a 5D2 with a few nice features to buoy the price for the next 2 years.  The 5D2's price would have plummeted were it left on the market and this was not released, right?

But what do you folks think?  Who is this really aimed at?

For people who have more dollars than cents.  :-X

Pages: 1 ... 152 153 [154] 155 156 ... 218