March 01, 2015, 11:00:03 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 - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 43
EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?
« on: April 05, 2012, 04:12:47 PM »
The problem really is that finding places that develop and print traditionally is close to impossible.

b/w - do it yourself ! You don't need a darkroom, just get a 'changing bag' - you stick your hands in to reel the film onto the developing tank spool, and then the tank is lightproof and pour the soup in to develop and fix. Easy. Of course, you can't see what you are doing, but that's ok.

Colour, yep, that's harder. I use peak imaging in the UK, who I can highly recommend. They usually turn stuff around in 2-3 days door to door, which is amazing.

I don't analog print though - develop only, and then into the negative scanner. If I print, I print digitally on an inkjet (Pixma 9500).

But that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sure, developing b/w is pretty easy. But that doesn't help with making the prints - which is the whole point of the exercise. Scanning and then printing on some inkjet is where the bad things are starting to happen. Same with DSLRs though.

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone shooting film?
« on: April 05, 2012, 03:04:03 PM »
Anyone shooting film & digital? It occurred to me it may be cool to shoot film sometimes, and I started to look for old 35 mm cameras. I found a Pentax (sorry...) KX, which seems to have been a great camera 30 yrs ago, with a 55/1.8 lens, a flash, a little bag an so on for around US$ 120. Anyone think it's worth it, or is it just to much of a hassle for nothing?

I only converted to digital in 2010 - somewhat reluctantly to be honest. I still use my film cameras but not as often as I'd like. The problem really is that finding places that develop and print traditionally is close to impossible. There are still a few b/w places and there is always the option to do it yourself but I don't have easy access to the gear any longer - and haven't done any of this in too long. And there really is no point in my opinion to shoot film just to have the negatives run through a scanner and then print the same way the files from a digital camera print. That last step is where I'm convinced both digital and film lose out today.

I have a bunch of prints from the olden days that beat everything I've seen over the last decade or more. So I think it's not film per se but what happens during the different printing processes.

That being said - digital SLRs offer a great deal of learning options that film doesn't have that way. And I truly enjoy what postprocessing can offer in the digital world. But then again I don't think that DSLRs fully match yet where film was at it's peak. Close but not quite. So there is still room for both I guess.

What I find stunning is that only half a generation into all this younger folks already think of film as some ancient "lo fi" technology and expect results as if film only existed until the 1870s or so.

Lighting / Re: Flash Mount
« on: April 05, 2012, 10:33:12 AM »
Hey all,

    I have a 430 EX and I REALLY hate the twist lock mount it has. I was thinking, does anyone know if the mount from a 430 EXII can be used as a direct replacement for the hideous mount that I have? Thanks in aadvance for any help you can provide.

Gary W.

I think that's a no. I was thinking the reverse. I like the old fashioned twist mounts better. Much less error prone and probably easier to fix if it fails. The twist lock was on the plus side when I compared the 580EXII to the Metz AF-2. Still ended up going with 580EXII and 430EXII but the new locking mechanisms I still don't like.

Lenses / Re: Buy 60D with Pro Lenses or 5D with Kit Lens?
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:47:46 PM »
Hey everyone, I was wondering what would be better, to buy the 5D Mark III with the kit lens (limited budget), or 60D (or T3i/T4i) with some pro lenses such as 24-70, 70-200, and/or primes. I personally think the 5D is a better option although I won't have the best lens kit as I will only have the 24-105. What would you guys do?

I don't get that comparison. First, figure out what kind of lenses and for what purpose you need. Then if you need full frame or crop. If you're budget is limited then the $4500 MarkIII with the (pretty decent) 24-105 may not be the first choice. It a $1000 lens but you are obviously already thinking beyond that. And things add up quickly (batteries, cards, more lenses, bags, more lenses, flash, more lenses, another flash...).
If you're not sure if you want, for example, full frame and fast primes or if a T4i with an f/4 lens will do then you have to do more homework - otherwise you may regret spending 4K on something soon.

My take: I'd consider a used 5D or a new or used 5DII, a standard zoom, a fast prime and a good speedlight. That should fit into the 5DIII plus "kit" lens budget. With this you'd have lots and lots of options.

Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: April 04, 2012, 11:32:52 PM »
If it was one or the other I'd choose primes. I only own one zoom, the 24-105. It's a fine lens for what it is, but mostly I'd chose a fast prime. I'm also one of those people who opted for the 135 and the 200 over the 70-200 zoom. I could make due with my 50 and 135 alone.

EOS Bodies / Re: Anti-aliasing filter in 1DX
« on: April 04, 2012, 01:37:21 PM »
Thanks for all the background info provided here. A few more questions:

Is this problem less pronounced in CCD sensors? As far as I know the Leica M9 doesn't have such a filter and I still think that it's one of the cameras that delivers the best results of them all (I don't have one and there may be other factors at play including the lenses).

Also, wouldn't it be possible to leave out the filter and deal with any moire effects in post? Or would it be possible to arrange the photosites more randomly? I'd like to see something that was more along the lines of film grain anyway...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Backup body for dangerous areas
« on: April 03, 2012, 09:35:18 AM »
I just bought a 50D as a backup for my 7D.  One thought for the backup is to carry the 50D with no grip, a black lens, and an unbranded strap to be a little less obvious.  I have a friend who used to put black electrical tape over the "Nikon" brand on his camera.

Or you could just put a Nikon strap on the 7D...;-)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Backup body for dangerous areas
« on: April 03, 2012, 09:34:05 AM »
A smith and Wesson would make good back up body for muggers

I was just about to suggest the Walther PPS 9mm...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MKIII vs 1Ds MKIII
« on: April 03, 2012, 09:32:36 AM »
Good question. I'm not in the market at this point for any upgrade from my 5DII but for the same kind of money I'd always prefer the 1DsIII. It depends on what your priorities are. I don't care about video, I like the vertical grip, high ISO is not important to me. So the 1DsIII would be the ideal EOS camera for me and I'd prefer if over the 5DII or III and even the 1Dx.

Lenses / Re: If Nikon made Canon mount lenses
« on: April 02, 2012, 11:16:09 AM »
I'd rather ask Nikon people what Canon lenses they would want, but since I'm here, if Canon made Nikon mount lenses what Nikon lenses would you buy?  (if any) Assume that everything else would be the same (price, weight, optical performance, autofocus performance, etc.

I'll start...the only lens that I want from Nikon is the 200-400mm f4, since their's doesn't contain the built in extender and the extra price. I wouldn't mind the extender, but at $11k, I couldn't even consider it.

None really. The main reason I stayed with Canon when I went digital was the Canon lens line up. Neither are "ideal" and there is always something that people wish was different. I still like my Canon FD lenses better than my EF lenses, but in my estimation I get better bang for the buck in the Canon lineup. The cameras are really secondary to that. The 135L alone makes it a right decision in my book.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?
« on: April 01, 2012, 03:26:25 PM »
The issue is happening because Canon put too strong of a low-pass filter in the 5D3 to deal with the aliasing and moire.

James Miller, a camera tech kind of guy, took out his low pass filter and the details of the image was MUCH sharper.

Here's the article. I believe it applies to both stills and video

A second article on the fix

Wow. That's bold. But this is kind of what Nikon now offers as one of the D800 options, right? To me so far all cameras without that filter have looked better. I would think it's one of the reasons why the Leica M9 looks better?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III plus 24-70mm II
« on: March 28, 2012, 04:13:37 PM »
Unless you really need or want it immediately I'd wait a few months with both. I know that prices probably won't come down drastically but still. And I would want to see some real life experiences with both first - especially the lens which appears to have a lot of added plastic and such.

Lenses / Re: What lens are you patiently waiting for?
« on: March 28, 2012, 09:36:19 AM »
Any update to the 50mm lenses I'd be looking forward to.

Lenses / Re: 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L I or II
« on: March 24, 2012, 10:45:27 PM »
I am an advance hobby photographer, mostly I shoot landscapes, family portraits and some macro

currently I own 16 - 35 f/2.8 II L, 70 - 200 f/2.8 II L and 100 mm f/2.8 L macro and a 5D Mark II

I have been thinking of adding 24 - 70 to my list for shooting both, family portraits and landscapes when I travel,

My dilemma is should I get version I or II ?

I wonder if version II is worth the price $2300, also version I is a proven lens and is already perfect

Please help me understand why one should pay extra $1000 more for version II

Thank you

Good question. Looks as if Canon tried to make an excellent lens even better optically. Given that it is lighter I'd be concerned that the new version doesn't have the build quality any longer like the version I. Yes, I know even that one had issues on occasion. Making things more plasticky seems to be the way these days.

The lenses are good optically but I'm still underwhelmed with the feel and some details of my EF lenses - including L lenses. The original 24-70 seems to be on the better side with this.

Lighting / Re: 580ex II or 600EX-RT
« on: March 23, 2012, 09:19:26 AM »
Funny, but I think it was Syl's reviews of the 600 that made me want to switch. It will be interesting to see what his "standard" gear ends up being in another year.

I also forgot there are several reports of a module that you can stick on your 580s and 430s to control them with RF. Guess I'll hang onto my 580 for now AND get a 600.

That indeed was a good review - especially the girl with the yellow heels in the fridge ;-)

My guess would be that in a revision of his book it'll be a mix of new gear and old. He has to please Canon and his long-standing readers who haven't upgraded yet to the new cameras and flash system. It'll sure be interesting to see what he comes up with next. I like the current version of the book a lot.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 43