Messages

1

Lenses / Re: 50mm.. Upgrade or not?

« on: Today at 10:43:48 AM »

Nothing new to add. I've done it and kept the 1.4 around for a while. Yes, the 1.4 can be sharper in the f/2 to f/4 area. I still never used it again even though it is and remains a very fine lens optically.

Both have flaws so you pick your poison - and there really isn't an alternative out there that wouldn't have a flaw. Until there is something even better the 50L remains my go to lens. Anyone who likes good "bokeh" and any kind of people photography should look at this as an option. Where it occasionally may fall short with respect to sharpness under certain circumstances (a bit blown out of proportion in my opinion) it kills when it comes to colors and contrast. It's the perfect complement to my 135L. YMMV.

2

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!

« on: May 21, 2013, 10:34:20 PM »

Ironically, the best way to send a message to Adobe is to buy their product.


Buying CS6 rather than renting will show the model we prefer. And when it comes round to the time when people would normally be upgrading, then they'll notice that people are sticking with what they've got.

Nah, not even. They'll notice that people like me bought CS5 and LR3 and nothing since. They blew LR4 and now their expecting me to spend a lot more money on something that I have no control over. I hate updates because there always is something that doesn't work like before. Once I have something that works for me I stick to it until something breaks. Bad bad consumer, I know.

And I have no issue with canceling something if it doesn't work any longer - like flickr after the latest "upgrade".

Maybe Yahoo or Adobe don't care because they have enough other people loving the new stuff. Good for them.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Unimpressed with 6D + 24-105. Am I doing something wrong?

« on: May 20, 2013, 05:04:19 PM »

I think this thread brings out a simple painful? truth. That is electronics have developed to the point, that the overwhelming advantage the FF cameras had some years back - is rapidly closing down.

Another truth is that in the digital age - electronics plays a big role - shadowing the role of optics that dominated the film cameras.

So here we see, a small sensor camera + an entry level lens - produce - at least under certain conditions - results that are for all practical purposes - almost identical if not better then a $2500 combo !

I'd dispute that. Unless of course "practical purposes" is reduced to how-sharp-can-it-be. My 10 year old Canon PowerShot is tack sharp. I don't find it to be useful for my practical purposes because it offers very little control over the creative process the way I like it. But sharp it is and it focuses any time.

I kept using film for many years because "full frame" sensor cameras (let alone anything bigger) were out of my price range (and no system would fit my FD lens collection anyway). Anything smaller than the old 135 film standard is (in my opinion) limited by physics and not by electronics or optical quality. Even "full frame" feels like a compromise with something like a f/4 lens attached. But again, that may just be me or a handful of other suckers. Doesn't say anything about the quality of output from an artistic standpoint. There are folks who come up with great stuff out of a point and shoot or whatever you give them.

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Unimpressed with 6D + 24-105. Am I doing something wrong?

« on: May 20, 2013, 03:17:23 PM »

I think this is always a matter of preferences. When I was looking at these my first impression (as so often) is always the background. The photo on the right looks like a P&S or mobile phone with the typical unpleasant background blur full of artifacts.

The one on the left looks overexposed - which (in my experience) is not untypical for recent Canon cameras. I often find myself correcting that on camera. Can't tell what the 6D was focusing on. My other concern is always the "this is from the raw file with no adjustments" statement. Those files are not meant to be un-adjusted. That's like saying "here's the negative; can you see how the dynamic range stinks?" in the old film days. It's not the same as a color slide or so.

So my conclusion based on the background alone would be that the full frame camera would be the winner here with some potential adjusting of AF issues, corrected exposure settings (and a level, sorry). Contrast seems to be an issue here also and I can't find out why that is. Likely not the 24-105 which has very good contrast in my experience.

But again - that's me and my priorities. You may come to an entirely different conclusion for your taste and interests.

5

Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear

« on: May 20, 2013, 09:35:38 AM »

Am wondering what gear we all want that is not being manufactured yet but we wish it were.

I start:
A focusing screen (for cameras that accept interchangeable screens eg 1dx and 5d2) with proper split screen focusing aid. This will help me use Zeiss lenses better and focus manually Canon lenses in low light etc.
And, if I could: 24-105 f2.8 IS with good corner sharpness. This will be my ultimate travel lens.

Thank you.

A) A more affordable M9 alternative

and/or

B) A modern digital version of the Canon F1 with a line of revived FD manual focus lenses

6

Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?

« on: May 17, 2013, 11:59:07 AM »

Interesting statement about the 40mm vs high ISO. I personally would never go on a trip like that without a fast lens. To me that's strictly a DOF issue and has nothing to do with low light capabilities.

If my goal was to capture mostly people and their places I'd take the 50 and the 24-105. If it's more about landscapes and interesting interiors I'd take the 50 and the 17-40.

From my set when I want to go small I usually bring a 50 and my 135.

7

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:30:28 AM »

Here's a question for Mac users out there:

I'm still on my old Windows machines and long overdue for an update on both my main desktop and laptop. I've postponed this and it's not going to happen before the Fall now anyway and there may be some new machines out until then. But I've pretty much decided to move to the Apple world given how much I dislike Win 8 (and Win 7 is not really great either in my experience).

Problem for the photo stuff (and this is why it's in this thread) is my Windows Photoshop license (CS5) that I (according to Adobe) can't transfer to Mac unless I go and buy CS6. Given what Adobe is doing here I'm now even less inclined to do this and would rather stick to CS5 and LR3 which I'm perfectly happy with until a new camera purchase forces me to something newer.

LR3 will run under Mac OS and that now has become (still surprised by that) my go-to tool for 90% of what I do. For the occasional open heart surgery I'd like to run CS5 on a Mac (probably will be a tricked out Mac Mini first) in either Parallels (preferred) or dual boot (if I have to) in Win 7. Is anyone using it this way here? How bad is it? I'd expect it to be still better than what my current old desktop has to offer but thought I might check first. I won't have a gazillion files open or anything like that.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Need advice for getting a battery grip for the 60D

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:19:16 AM »

I've recently invested in buying a 60D
I need to get a battery grip

I was going to buy one from eBay for £25
My friend suggested I wouldn't be happy if the cheap grip became faulty and damaged the camera!

So... what should I go for?
There's only one branded (non Canon) that I have seen
Not a brand that I know, but sold in well known retailers

Thanks


Omar

I'd suggest going with the original Canon. From all I've seen so far what's available for my 5DII the Canon grip is still better than aftermarket. Not that it's a 100% perfect fit but at least the electronics are exact specs and the materials used are the same as on the camera (including buttons etc).

Yes, I understand they are a bit overpriced perhaps but then again this may otherwise be saving money in the wrong place.

9

Software & Accessories / Re: Alternatives to Adobe Software

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:26:23 PM »

Good post. I will follow this thread closely.

+1

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 08, 2013, 03:25:33 PM »

Alright then. This is the final straw with the morons that have already a bunch of other products that were really good before Adobe got their hands on them.

I'll keep using LR3 and CS5 until I make a switch to Apple products by the end of the year and then that's it for Adobe products. They can shove it. And please nobody tell me what an excellent deal I'm missing out on or how this "pays for itself" for a professional/semi-professional. It's too expensive and it's stupid. I don't want a new and "improved" version all the time anyway. I've yet to see a reason to "upgrade" to CS6 or LR4 let alone sign up for a subscription or cloud service. Screw this.

Let's hope this gives a boost to competitors.

11

Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.2 L

« on: May 06, 2013, 09:38:29 AM »

I just bought a canon 50 L lens and was checking it over this evening; I shook it lightly, and it rattled a little bit.  I also have to  micro adjust the focus on it on my 5D Mk III   15 points!!  Never had to do it that much with any of my other lenses!  On my 1dx I have to adjust it the same direction 5 points.   Should I return the lens? Or send it to Canon?  Or just live with it?  I need some advice from someone with a little more experience.

Mine doesn't rattle and I was fine leaving it at +/-0. I'd have it replaced. The latter doesn't matter much - the rattle does.

12

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 06, 2013, 09:34:55 AM »

For kids in my opinion and experience 50L + 135L on full-frame. Hands down.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of EOS M [CR1]

« on: April 29, 2013, 02:20:29 PM »

Can't they just make it a M9 equivalent for a quarter of the price of the Leica? I still want a "full frame" range finder with manual focus, optical viewfinder and two or three small, fast standard lenses (28, 55, 90). Shouldn't be too hard and would sell like hotcakes I assume.

And they could indeed recycle their FD mount with that.

14

Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2L vs 35mm 1.4L for events photography...

« on: April 25, 2013, 05:06:01 PM »

I have to second what others have said about the focal length. The 35L is probably the slightly "better" lens in many ways from a technical perspective. But I bought the 50L simply because I wouldn't know exactly what to do with a 35mm lens. I always got the most boring and insignificant results with that focal length. Not really wide enough for "drama" (I'd go for 28 on that) but too wide for portraits (adding big noses and things when too close).

Carefully try them out though. There are probably plenty of reasons to love or hate either one.

15

Lenses / Re: Do you still love 24-105L?

« on: April 25, 2013, 04:59:46 PM »

It's good for what it is. I never loved it and always regretted not buying the original 24-70 instead when it was still available and only very little extra money. The results are certainly more than "good enough" but I never liked the f/4 limitation which makes it actually not a versatile lens for my preferences. I rarely ever leave the house with just the 24-105. It's good for studio style portraits though or anything else where you'd stop down anyway.