July 23, 2014, 05:54:33 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 218
31
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 09:10:12 PM »
I use B+w filters on all my lenses except my 100mm macro and 40mm pancake. They never come off unless I can see they're a problem when I'm shooting back lit subjects or I use my LEE filter system. Otherwise, My lenses always have pristine front elements at the end of their life for resale.

UV Filter vs No UV Filter Debate.:
Small | Large

32
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 09:52:34 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.

33
Software & Accessories / Re: If CC ends, LR 5.5 still partly works.
« on: July 13, 2014, 12:29:26 PM »
It's a step forward but it shows how thick skulled they are to take this long to get it addressed. I find it funny to believe adobe will provide much innovation when the checks will roll in regardless in CC land.

34
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 12:16:59 PM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?
Your post.

If I said that you're wrong and I'm right, would that make you feel better?
TL;DR

35
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:04:17 AM »
Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

About what exactly?
Your post.

36
Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Why Photography
« on: July 13, 2014, 07:56:21 AM »
Stock sites (RF or RM.)
Fine art prints (deviant art or other services to find customers.)
Occasionally magazines
Occasionally licensing some images from whomever.
Commercial clients (catalogs :( )
The obvious family portrait and wedding biz.
Restaurants.

There's is a lot more but where ever someone sees something that's not video, there is a need for a stills photographer. It's hard and doesn't pay as much as a straightforward career but It's what I love to do.

37
Lighting / Re: Anything Strobist
« on: July 12, 2014, 03:25:36 PM »
OK I'll add three but it's hard to choose when the majority of your stuff is strobist. These are currently my fav 3 photos at this time.

1. Two 36" stripboxes on each side of the chair and an 47" octo just above the subject. 5d3+17-40L @ 17mm. ISO 100 - 1/200th - f11

2. 2x 600rts and a reflector below. Set at 8 feet plus a smoke machine. 5d3+24-105 @ 24 mm - iso 400 - 1\200th - f/5.6

3. One 47" octo as the key and a gridded for the BG light. Processed for the strip light in front. 5d3+17-40 @ 17mm - iso 100 - 1/200th - f8

38
The king of UW and I consider a better lens than the 14-24 Nikkor. If zeiss made AF lenses for canon, I'd own no canon glass. Maybe someday when I grow up, I'll own this 15mm prime.

39
Lighting / Re: Anything Strobist
« on: July 12, 2014, 03:04:46 PM »
Does strobist only include speedlites and not studio strobes? (Ironic?)

40
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 03:00:19 PM »
Yes, you might get a small (VERY small) additional amount of flare with a B+W XS-Pro Clear multicoated 007m filter.  There really is no other tangible impact on IQ.

But, in exchange you get:

* Weather-sealing: both the 16-35 f/4L IS and the 16-35 f/2.8L II are *not* weather sealed without a filter.

Yup. there is this. However most people give up due to weather before their cameras do.

Quote
* Ease of cleaning:  Got some crud on the clear filter?  Spit shine it with your shirt! If you scratch it, the investment to replace is minimal.  Busting out a microfiber cloth in the field isn't always practical.

Hint: UV filters and protection filters scratch more easily than the front element of your lens. This means that your on the road cleaning of the filter with your tie can introduce a mark the results in flaring and needing to remove the filter anyway.

Quote
* Virtual lens cap: sometimes during sessions you need to swap between two cameras quickly.  Would you want to throw a camera in a bag - or have it in a holster - with no lens cap?  Well, assuming you don't drop your bag on concrete, for these fast swaps there is little risk if you put a capless lens/camera in a bag if it has a filter.  One shouldn't make a habit of this, but its an option you generally would not have without a filter.

If you're careless with your equipment then bad things will happen sooner or later, irrespective of whether or not you put a filter on the front of your lens. Maybe one day when you throw it in the bag, the lens mounting will break, who knows.

Quote
* Riskier shots: 16mm on full frame may require you to get VERY close to what you want to photograph in some cases.  Do you want to risk your unprotected front element in these cases?  How about action shots, if you are photographing in harsh elements, or just greater confidence in general since you don't have to worry about your lens?

When I take risky shots it isn't the front element that's at risk, it is the entire rig and/or me. And I've taken some risky shots. Balanced on a rock in the middle of the Merced, if the camera falls and gets wet, the filter on the front of the lens ain't going to make any difference to anything except the front element of the lens and that's likely to be the least of my concerns. The occasional drop of water spray hitting the front of the lens is of little concern and a minor risk in comparison to everything else.

Quote
* In reality, it does cost a lot to fix the front element of a lens, and you will lose use of the lens while its being repaired: While some blogs have pointed out that the cost of a front element is not always that much, the labor to replace it usually is large amount and it involves your lens being out of action while getting repaired.  If you are getting paid, this is not a situation you want to be in.

By all means keep a protection filter on if it makes you feel better/good but there is no reason, optically speaking, for it to be there today (unlike in the past.)

The problem is that people used to put UV filters on lenses to deal with film problems and habits are hard to break so people have kept doing that and in the absence of needing to do it for film, have come up with new reasons.

In this list of 5, there's one real reason (the weather sealing.) Everything else has just been hired in as supporting cast members.

Nope, your still wrong. Have a nice day. :)

41
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: July 12, 2014, 12:44:34 PM »
.

Looks yummy, Where the milk?

Here is mine 1dx + 85L II @ f1.2
Nice job. How's the 1dx tracking been treating you with f/1.2?

With f1.2, I haven't try to shoot in Ai servo much. Keeper is high in single mode.

With 70-200mm f2.8 IS II and 400mm f2.8 IS II Ai servo is wonderful with 1dx. Full burst 20plus RAW, keeper rate is around 18plus.

There is something special about 1dx AF system(i'm not sure what it is), it feels much more responsive and more accurate compared to my 5D III.

I think the AF in the 1dx uses color information for tracking and also can drive the USM motors harder and faster. I wish I had AF point linked spot metering. :P

42
Software & Accessories / Re: Sub $1000 27" monitor for photo editing
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:59:00 AM »
The dell U3011. I have a pair of them @ 850$ on a Newegg sale 6 months ago. You should see them drop again by the end of this year but a fantastically accurate monitor and calibrates like a champ.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:54:43 AM »
The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF.  How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?
The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.  I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

Quote
EVFs suck power like crazy.  You're going to need a battery breakthrough to replace OVFs as well, or an enormous battery that more than makes up for the size difference of removing the prism and mirror.
Yup, this one is still a real problem for event/action photographers.  For landscape/studio not so much.

Until you take that evf into very low light. Then It shutters and flops around like a fish out of water. (With the a7 anyway.)

44
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:32:33 AM »
.

Looks yummy, Where the milk?

Here is mine 1dx + 85L II @ f1.2
Nice job. How's the 1dx tracking been treating you with f/1.2?

45
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:24:12 AM »
I can imagine that this question has been on the forum before. I am sorry if so.
I've bought the new 16-35 f/4. I was recommended to put a B+W Slim 010 UV 77 E MRC filter on the front especially for protection. But this filter isn't available (can't find it on the net either).
Do you use a protection filter or .......


If you put a filter on, remember to take it off when you take photographs.


??


??


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml
the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it


Right because all my L glass has filters on them and haven't been able to take a single photo with them.  ::) ::) ::) Some people.... smh...

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 218