Messages

31

Technical Support / Re: A Film Look

« on: March 12, 2013, 12:36:16 PM »

Ah, film look. Honestly, that's become another one of my pet peeves really. What is a "film look"? With film only "gone" for a few years now it seems that a lot of folks who have never used it now assume that film gave/gives us some grainy, low resolution discolored "lo-fi" look. Equivalent assumptions being made in the audio world drive me equally crazy.

That being said: yes, film does look and feel different, especially when you're looking at real prints and not some scanned negatives put out on the same ink jet printers that we have to put up with as digital shooters. But there is not one look. Different film types and processes will render different results - most of which will be tack sharp, not discolored or grainy.

I actually just shot a few rolls b/w Ilford for portraits that I'm planning to develop and blow up myself at a local lab place next week or so. I shot these together with my digital SLR with the same light and settings so I'm really looking forward to a nice A/B comparison that I haven't done yet to that extent. I'll be curious to compare some digital b/w prints from the same session next to them.

My next bigger expense is likely to be a medium format camera and some darkroom gear for my basement. As much as I like my DSLR and wouldn't want to miss it again, for some things I feel those blown up large and medium format portraits still look better. And it's not the hipster-grainy-lo-fi look I'm after but quite the opposite actually.

32

Lenses / Re: 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?

« on: March 11, 2013, 07:06:54 PM »

Hello guys,

I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?

I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.

The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me  important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

I suspect that the 16-35 is better at 16 then the 24-70 - and the 24-70 beats the 16-35 at 70. Sorry, not trying to be a jerk here but I don't think that is a comparison that makes a lot of sense. The new 24-70 is obviously a stellar lens from what I hear and read. I find it weird though that it is made with a plastic barrel and wouldn't buy it just for that.

It seems some people complain about the 16-35's performance every now and then. I'm sure it's a great lens as well though and will deliver great results if you need that focal length. And if you are comparing only the overlap between the two I'd go for a prime such as the EF24 or maybe even better the Zeiss 21 Distagon. The latter would be my choice instead of the 16-35. For a 24-70 I would always prefer the older version over the new one even though it's not quite as sharp.

33

Canon General / Re: your scariest photography moment?

« on: March 11, 2013, 05:17:51 PM »

Swimming through the Connecticut River with my (then still relatively new) AE-program and sneakers overhead after sliding off a cliff with no way to get back up on that side. Maybe that's what lead to focusing on people and leave the whole landscape thing to others...

There were a couple of close ones while skiing and climbing in the Alps as well. Does being mugged in a strip club in London count? Again, the camera made it out of that one as well. Part of the reason I'm still attached to it I suppose.

34

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Red light a challenge for band photos. Strategies for red light?

« on: March 11, 2013, 10:12:00 AM »

I can only reiterate what others have said. B/W is one way out to some degree. Obviously shoot all manual for more consistent results. And then if you work for a specific band try to point out what the issue is (in a way that drummers or even singers can understand) and see if they let you place a few strobes in a strategic places. If they let you you can even gel them. Or see if they can have at least a bit of white from FOH.

I've actually gone the gelled strobe route once for a band that really didn't have any colored stage lighting. I know that usually strobes and live music are considered a no-no but it's all in the communication. I've been playing as a musician for many years myself we were never concerned with flashes going off really. Certainly less annoying than the sea of cell phone screens at today's shows. Whatever happened to lighters?

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sell canon 5d3 and return new macbook pro retina to buy the 1d x

« on: March 11, 2013, 09:59:49 AM »

I have always wanted the 1d x but am unsure the extra $3k is worth it for me. The pro's for me are better iso in low light and af point metering. Cons size and could that money get me a nice 35 mm prime and maybe a 1.4iii teleconverter and keep my macbook. Just stuck on the decision. Any suggestions?

Ok, I'll play along. You haven't given me a convincing reason to do that. So, you "always wanted" the 1Dx. Why is that? Because it looks cool/"pro"? Because there is something it can do that let's you make better pictures than your MarkIII? Because you shoot in conditions that require an even more rugged body?

Sorry, but the "better ISO" is about as reasonable as saying you don't want the 1dx because of its "lower megapixel count". It's irrelevant almost always. I've never found a reason to shoot at anything higher than 3200 - and that's extreme and on a MarkII. Up to 800 does the trick in 99% of the cases I would argue. I must admit that I still operate under the rule of thumb that if it worked on film and my DSLR does the same thing or better I'm set.

Same with AF point spot metering. If my camera had that I'd turn it off. And I use spot metering quite a bit actually. Just point at what you want to meter for, lock the reading and then focus as you normally would. It's really two separate things and what you focus on does not necessarily be the area you want to meter for.

Invest in glass or light, and enjoy your fabulous MarkIII/Macbook combo. With that camera and post processing ability there is absolutely NO excuse for making mediocre pictures.

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D Mark III

« on: March 07, 2013, 09:44:10 AM »

Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my remaining mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround and backup) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did.  And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!

That's probably the best case I've heard so far for a 6D. If it's really just a backup and for walkaround I see how a smaller lighter plastic camera makes sense and its limitations probably won't be too difficult to deal with since you still have the Mark III for the more serious stuff.

On the other hand I personally would keep the second 5DII until fails before spending more money. I still think that the MarkII beats the 6D overall - but then I was never concerned with the AF performance and find it plenty good even in difficult light.

How about something completely different for everyday use/walkaround? I'd consider a Fuji or Sony and keep the 5DII around as second SLR body.

37

Lenses / Re: Addicted to dof

« on: March 06, 2013, 06:17:36 PM »

Like others have said, yes, there is a difference between the 50 1.4 and 1.2. I've been a decade long user of the various iterations of the 1.4. The EF version unfortunately is not built like the old FD versions. That's why I even looked at the 1.2 at some point.

What converted me, however, is the contrast of the 50L - with the shallower DOF and ever so slightly nicer bokeh as a bonus. The thing just puts out amazing colors wide open. My 1.4 was actually sharper between 2.8 and 4 (or so). I sold it anyway since I simply stopped using it. It's a trade-off that's not for everyone obviously. Is it worth the additional cost? Probably not for most people. I never regretted the extra grand or whatever it came down to.

38

Lenses / Re: Advice on a telephoto lens for street photography

« on: March 06, 2013, 06:03:13 PM »

I have both the 135 and the 200. Both are excellent and great value really. So it comes down to which focal length you want. I personally would consider the 135 more of a street photography lens - the 200 might be a bit too tight but it depends on what you're intending to do and your style.
Can't speak to the macro. I'm certain it's great also and has the added benefit of, well, being a macro lens. I personally would prefer it without the IS.

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Bodies and cell towers?

« on: February 27, 2013, 02:06:17 PM »

There are definetely healh related issues to electro magnetic radiation (=antenna's).
Therefore, there are safe distance limits, see attached file

You're sure that that's "definitely"? I have yet to see anything that indicates that cell phone towers or cell phone use have any impact on humans whatsoever. Yes, there are the occasional "studies" that make the headlines in the main stream media but appear to be mostly questionable interpretation of data junk. I don't buy it. The various government regulations are totally random.

That's why I was interested on any potential harm to the camera gear. I'm not worried about myself.

40

EOS Bodies / Bodies and cell towers?

« on: February 26, 2013, 01:27:18 PM »

Question to all our physics and engineering experts here: I found an interesting location that is at the top of a building with cell phone transmitters attached to it. I think they're for major US carriers in case the frequencies used make a difference.

The place has the usual warning signs a la "may exceed the usual blahblah". From a medical standpoint I'm certain that it's a no-issue. But what about camera gear? I guess I might not want to use wireless triggers there but anything else at risk?

Thanks

41

Lenses / Re: 5D3 + 50 F1.2 L

« on: February 26, 2013, 10:16:30 AM »

I use mine with a 5dII - which supposedly has "horrible" AF compared to it successor. And yes, "front focus" is part of the lens design. As far as I know that hasn't really bothered people too much for the last 80 or 100 years or however long this optic formula has been used now.
AF is never 100% since it is focusing on something that has enough contrast that falls in the area of the focus point - which I believe are bigger than the little dots you see in the viewfinder. So results vary since the camera can't read our mind quite yet. And slight movements will have an impact also.
What I'm saying is: if you're already obsessing about "sharpness" of the lens you might consider just returning it for something different that you like better. Maybe something is really out of whack with either the lens or the body. Maybe try another one and also another body and see if there's a noticeable difference under real life circumstances.
If you can get over it shoot it wide open and enjoy the colors and contrast which is probably second best to the Leica/50mm combo.

42

Lenses / Re: Canon 6D (Body Only) which lens to purchase?

« on: February 26, 2013, 10:01:46 AM »

Your 35+135mm idea sounds very reasonable to me. The 24-105 I would only recommend if you can budget the kit together with at one fast prime. Yes, it's versatile and nice but f/4 can be quite a limitation (and no, the silly ol' IS doesn't change that).

43

Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?

« on: February 25, 2013, 08:40:46 AM »

I second the 50 1.4. Safe the rest of the money for diapers and supermarket delivery service...

44

Software & Accessories / Re: I'm not much of a techie, need some advice on my iMac...

« on: February 22, 2013, 02:13:52 PM »

I don't have a Mac (yet) and I obviously don't work with Aperture. But I follow these discussions since I'm planning on moving to the Mac platform at some point this year.

What I can offer though is that I'm on a ancient Thinkpad laptop as my main photo editing computer (because those had really good high resolution screens that are surprisingly true to colors when calibrated). It's a Dual Core Pentium with 4GB memory - make that 3GB since it's running on XP. That thing handles raw files from my 5DII under both Lightroom 3 and PS CS5 pretty well as long as I don't open too many at once (5 or so is totally fine).

So, more memory is always a good thing but I also find that newer computer with "modern" operating systems are not necessarily much faster. For instance, my work-work computer is an HP Elite Book with i5 and 4GB Ram. Give it a little more complex stuff to do and it caves in.

The other thing to consider are speedier drives. That made a difference for me also in the past when I installed fresh 7500rpm drives in my old Windows machines. On an iMac that is obviously difficult to do but you could hook something up via firewire or thunderbolt, e.g. an SSD drive, and see if that helps. I don't know how Aperture manages it's files but CS5 uses a "scratch disk" and you want that to be in a fast place with enough room also.

45

Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?

« on: February 21, 2013, 10:37:30 AM »

As a rule of thumb primes are usually sharper than zooms. Thought there are some examples these days where that is not necessarily true anymore - though it's also a question what is a fair comparison.

I'm not surprised that your 100L is sharper than a 24-105. In my line-up the 135L is probably the sharpest. The other question however is why that is important. Sharpness is only one factor in what people like about lenses. There are lots of camera/lens combinations that will deliver sharpness but may lack in other areas.

The 24-105 I find surprisingly sharp by the way for what it is. Maybe I'm just lucky that I have a "good copy" (as there are always variations for each lens it seems), maybe I'm jut not too picky when it comes to sharpness. The weakness -if any-  of the 24-105 is not sharpness as far as I'm concerned. I have no issues using it for indoor portraits with controlled light at f/8. And even at f/4 for general use it's totally fine. I go for the primes for a general different look and feel and not so much out of concerns for sharpness. It's all good really.