February 28, 2015, 10:21:53 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 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 43
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom VS Photoshop
« on: March 16, 2012, 04:42:49 PM »
Which is recommended for photographers? Not necessarily most popular but more for practicality, ease of use and functionality. I’m currently using Photoshop.

It depends on your preferred workflow and/or if you have a workflow already established. And LR is a bit like a Swiss Army knife - which is a problem if you need a jackhammer.

I use both and you'll find people that will tell you you only need the one or the other (or something entirely different). I would make the argument that there are good reasons to own both.

As far as my personal preference is concerned: I've been using PhotoShop in one way or another since the early 90s or so. I'm not saying I'm very good at it or even know everything it can do - but I know how to find what I need and learned how to use. LR can do a lot of those things as well. And the things it does it does pretty quickly and very well when it comes to editing. It has a few features that PS does NOT have but that are pretty nice. But then again there are some things that LR can't do - even pretty basic things like dodge and burn, which I like using. Yes, I know people will tell you that there are all sorts of workarounds and how it really is the only tool a "serious" photographer will ever need.

I think the main reason this is so popular with the pro folks is that it is great for batch processing and quickly going through a hundreds of photos from a shoot. It beats Bridge with that (once you've learned some rather quirky things in the user interface...).

But here is the bad part in my opinion: it is horrible when it comes to its original core function as a library management tool. It only knows one way of doing things. It's Lightroom's way or the highway. The whole concept of an image editing database doesn't fly with me. I want to have an original and an edited version. I don't care for "virtual" copies and non-destructive editing. And now with the switch from LR3 to LR4 I care even less about it because all of a sudden if you switch from one version to the next you run the risk of having all new settings applied to your entire inventory if you import everything under the new development process.

Even worse: it is extremely cumbersome to work on more than one PC with this. The new version still has no official network support and syncing and exporting databases always makes me nervous.

So, I do use it. Actually a lot more than I originally thought, since there have been more and more reasons for me to go through larger numbers of pictures at a time (event and concert shoots for example). Making selections and quick adjustments to those is pretty nice. But then I end up exporting the edits to a network folder and its backup locations - so exactly what LR really isn't meant for.

You could argue now that at that point it's pretty easy to go back later and change the editing - if you remember which PC you originally worked on...But honestly, that usually never happens. If there is a reason to than get into deeper editing on a few pictures you're much better off with PS.

There is one other important difference: LR is relatively cheap (and just got cheaper). PS is very expensive unless you have access to a student/teacher version or so. I picked up a copy of LR3 for under $100 and I have yet to see a reason to upgrade to LR4. And one more: LR (as far as I know) easily transfers between Mac and PC. With PS it's either one or the other. If you want or need both you (usually) pay twice.

Hope this helps. Again, this is my personal observation and experience with these. Some people have very strong feelings one way or the other.

You gotta love the description:

1). This LCD Hood protector is specially designed for DSLR camera.
2). Its perfect state-of-art design allows it integrated with the LCD system and makes the camera more professional.

Now I have to get one of these. Or better two.

Technical Support / Re: Ants in 5D2
« on: March 15, 2012, 08:36:02 AM »
I'd start with calling a Terminix type company and have them set up professional grade bates outside of the camera inside a plastic box or so. Don't even try the stuff you get at the home improvement store.

After that send it to Canon for a check and cleaning.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: March 14, 2012, 11:02:06 AM »
Points well taken. If I was now starting from scratch (like I did in 2010 after going digital) I'd have a very close look at the D800e - just like I did then with the D700 and the Sony alternatives.

But it's also easy to go crazy with all this. I chose the 5DII and haven't looked back. My main reason was the lens choices I get within the Canon system and what I was used to (coming from the FD system). So maybe I'd still make the same choice even now (which would be the 5DIII).

Let's be grateful that this back and forth between the two main competitors continues. Canon just delivered two top notch bodies (or so it seems). And added the kind of flash system that everyone has been calling for for years now. I'm sure a high resolution body will follow in the not too far future as an answer to the D800(e). I don't think it's a fair comparison that you're making. Those cameras are for different purposes it seems and will likely work very well for their respective applications.


4900 USD (without lens).

You get the new 24-70 mkII for only 3500 USD.

It's in Norway.

Well, how much of that is tax (for the "free" healthcare and other "free" services that are so admired by some here in the U.S.)?

Seriously, I'd be curious what the net price is.

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else wish Canon would ditch the 3x2 format?
« on: March 13, 2012, 01:40:55 PM »
Well, I don't know if i want it to be ditched, but what about a giving us something else? Sure with modern high mp cameras we can just crop whatever, but i still think i'd rather have a different shape. Or maybe a sensor with a 3x2 and maybe a 4x5 option, and i'm not referring to inbody cropping. i haven't done the math to see what the mp would work out to with the pixel density of say the 5dmk3, but wouldn't a 4x4 format offer the most sensor real estate anyway? If you were interested in such things... I don't know if it's even technically possible for this arrangement, but i think it could be advantageous.  Or is it just me that finds 3x2 to not usually be the best arrangement?

I like the 3:2 and square ratios. There are for sure other alternatives that might be nice but you can usually get there by cropping in post processing. I wouldn't want that in camera and rather stick with what has worked well for decades. And as others have pointed out there are limits to what lenses will support currently.

Would a 36mm x 36mm sensor be interesting and technically possible? I don't know. Maybe.

As long as it's not another "HD" 16:9 format...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: No Focusing Screens for 5D MIII?
« on: March 10, 2012, 12:57:38 PM »
Just picked up a Eg-S screen after reading all this. How depressing. It makes things with my 135 and 50 slightly better (but I'd still say dimmer than with the Eg-A). With f/2.8 things start to be borderline. My 24-105 becomes way to dark for indoor shots. So this is not the solution and it's very frustrating when comparing it to my AE-1p (even with an f/4 lens). Why is this? Why can't Canon build their viewfinders as big and bright as they did 25 years ago?

So the sad conclusion is: manual focus is no longer a viable option and I have to live with a bunch of AF points centered around the middle (even on a newer model it seems). They work, but it still feels like a step back.

Let me know if anyone is interested in the brand new Eg-S screen. I'll have to see if the store takes it back.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: No Focusing Screens for 5D MIII?
« on: March 09, 2012, 09:40:03 AM »
Looks like the standard screen that it's going to come with is a grid-style focusing screen... thank g-d.  I shoot architecture, and without a grid, I'd be dead meat, and this would have been a deal breaker.

No, the standard screen has no grid.  The grid is part of the 'intelligent viewfinder' and is a feature that can be turned on/off.  It's generated by the transmissive LCD that sits next to the focusing screen.  The 7D and 1D X have a simliar feature - unlike most cameras, you can actually completely turn off the AF points displayed on them.

I'm still thinking about getting the gridded screen for my 5DII. Do you happen to know if that one is as bright as the original or more like the EG-S?

It's probably the best way for them to sell a lot of those and customers obviously see it as great value - and rightly so. Had it not been the the kit lens I wouldn't have bought it but for the price as a kit it was hard to say no.

People who then want or need a faster lens will still buy one. Despite having the 24-105 I'm still tempted to get the (original) 24-70. There are good reasons to own either or even both.

If you want the 5DIII with the new 24-70 I'm sure you can still negotiate a good discount once they have been on the market for a little while.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica M9-P
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:53:19 PM »
I just came across some talk and reviews on the Leica M9-P. This is a brand and camera I didn't know anything about. Having read about it and seen it...  :o

What the f***? I mean, just WHAT? I really, really... I DON'T GET IT. Leica M9-P. WHAT??

If one would want to go back to basic, why pay $8000 instead of buying a 20$ 20-year-old camera or turning your DSLR mode dial to "manual"?

Is there anybody who understands this Leica stuff? Anything more to be said than "you just have to try it" + aesthetic mysticism-like artistic rant?

How can such a thing exist?

I can't afford the M9 with the appropriate lenses. I wish I could. I believe it would fit my style and interests very well. And in an ideal world I'd still have my EOS gear because it all depends on what you want to do.

For superb image quality, portraits, portability alone I have yet to see something that beats it. The biggest draw for me would be though that it is manual focus and for that uses technology that is time-proven and extremely reliable. If my 5DII was available for use with traditional manual focus lenses I'd probably feel less of a desire to own the M9. But even then I still might. A rangefinder is a different animal and I understand that in this day and age it's not something too many people would actually want to use.

Lenses / Re: Still need a fast lens?
« on: March 07, 2012, 03:25:50 PM »
With the new 5D mark III and the high ISO speeds it will bring, do you still need or want a fast lens? Will a f/4 work just as well as a f/2.8 with a 5D mark II? Will it change the lens you might buy for it in the future?

To me that is a question that is only marginally impacted by ISO speed, IS or shutter speeds. I'll most certainly buy a few more fast primes before I'll upgrade to a 5DIII (or whatever is available by the time my Mark II breaks). I consider the very usable 3200 ISO in my current camera a bonus but I was also perfectly happy with 400 ISO film; so that's that. Same with the Mark III. Nice bonus but the new AF is actually more exciting (since there will obviously never be a full time manual DSLR ever again which would be even more exciting). So is the new flash system

Fast primes I prefer for the image quality and control over depth of field. As useful as my 24-105 is for a lot of things, but there is stuff it just can't do.

@kadadj     Going into winter I decided to reduce the amount of gear I had. I sold the 7D because the 5D is a better lowlight camera. As winter is cold and dark I knew I would be indoors shooting ambient or studio where the 5D is great. I also figured it would force me to reconcile my issues with the 5D MkII handeling and AF. If you look around other photographers do amazing this with it. With that being said photographers do amazing things with the 7D as well.

Simply stated, I made a mistake by selling the 7D. If most my subjects were static then the 5D would have been fine, it is fine. I just had more keepers when shooting the 7D. People buy my images or hire me not because of how the file looks when you are pixel peeping. They buy my photographs because I was able to capture the image at a perfect moment, well composed and the focus falling on the right part of the image. I have plenty of prints framed and hanging on the walls. I can barely remember which camera took what. You certainly can't tell by looking closely at the print either.

Here is a link to one of my websites, this is my work: http://goo.gl/rjHGa

Like your work very much. Regards from a fellow Bostonian

Plenty of good advice here already but I'm going to try anyway:

So first question here seems to be what you are getting out of your current classes, right? Here's a bit of life experience from a 42 year old who has been a bit all over the place himself (in more than one way). If you don't like the current course regimen for concrete reasons that's one thing. Cost and time commitment may just be something where you're kidding yourself. Not trying to be mean here, but I've been there (in my case it was when I first went to medical school...). So any chance that photography is not something you want to do all day and night? Because that's what it takes, I believe, to turn it into a business that you can actually live of. So - as much as I'm a firm believer in education as only ONE means to an end, having the degree and the connections from school may not be all so bad if you are serious about it. Dropping out I'd only consider if you have a plan B that is already working. And it doesn't sound like that. Again, I'm trying to help and not to be harsh.

So, that leads us to business. Taking a few business classes in one form or another is a good idea. For anyone really. I'm always shocked to what degree people are economic illiterates. Schools obviously only teach the more fluffy aspects of it or teachers really are clueless as well. And I don't even mean the "investment advice" type of knowledge that the TV gurus and self help writers of this world are pushing. More the basic principles. I personally believe that nobody is fit for business (or life really) if he or she doesn't understand terms and meaning such as "opportunity cost" and the difference between "cost" and "value". Those two concepts alone are big and I could charge you a good fortune right now for pointing you in that direction.

Especially "artists" seem to suffer from a lack of understanding in that department. Again, this sounds mean spirited but you might find out what I mean by this by researching these concepts. Obviously, there are successful photographers who seem to make a decent living. Look what they do and then ask yourself if that is something you can commit to. If not, what is it you like? And who is your market for that? Is there one? Do you have the tools and skill set for that segment? Are you OK with doing stuff you don't love just to make enough money? Are you on your own or do/will others depend on you? Is your significant other on board?

You see, more questions and no answers but maybe it helps.

And not to discourage you but my path went away from using my artistic inclinations for a full-time living (music and photography in my case). I didn't want to play weddings and teach kids how to play "Enter Sandman" like the vast majority (!) of people I know who went pro (many of which more talented than I am). Instead, I invested myself into another passion (healthcare) and found a different approach that combined a few interests (clinical stuff, business, politics) while adding a business degree. Everything else is no my creative outlet or every now and then a "vanity business" that my family doesn't depend on. But that's just how it played out for me and knowing what I know now I'd maybe try a few things differently if I was 22. Maybe not. Or in other words: if one of my kids will come to me wanting to pursue a full time artistic career they'd have my full support - as long as they understand what it entails and are fully committed.

Oh, and here is one more (half-serious but it may still be bad for the Karma points): assuming that you're a guy don't even try the cutsie-putise approach of a certain brand of portrait/wedding/baby/boudoir photography. You sound too intelligent and you may not me pretty enough. If guys try this they're looked at as creeps and not as oh-so-cuuuute! ;-) But what do I know.

I'm with you. I'm glad that the 5DIII is more an evolutionary than revolutionary design. So it'll be there in a few years if I need a replacement or a second body. Very nice. The new speedlite system is the more exciting part. Given its cost and the open questions regarding compatibility with the current system and current cameras I'll have to sit on the sidelines for a while and wait for, e.g., firmware updates for the 5DII, how things pan out in real life once these are released and what - if any - third-part manufacturer reactions may be to this. Exciting times for someone who only recently got into all the uses of strobes and speedlites. I can't really go out and drop 3K on new flashes and the controller but of the latest news that's really the topic that I followed most closely. But since mix and match is likely a persistent issue I may snatch up one or two 580s or 430s for the time being. I also wonder if this will lead folks to sell their Pocket Wizards, etc or if pros and semi-pros will hold on to them for their compatibility with other studio gear.

There are people here and elsewhere that are far more knowledgeable than me and can give you all sorts of physics and factoids. Problem is: I still don't have an answer to that question and related question. It appears that it's really comparing apples and oranges to some degree. Folks will come to all sorts of answers and they sound reasonable until you start to poke holes into the explanations.

The other thing is probably the question why you and I would even ask the question. To me it was always: what has to happen that I'm willing to switch from 35mm film to digital? Again, a complex question since equivalent file/negative/slide quality is only one factor next to cost of the gear, cost of processing - and print quality. Yep, here I go again. My biggest beef with this question still is that I simply don't know if my 5DII (for all practical purposes) beats my old Canon FD gear. Why? Because I have yet to make the effort of a fair comparison by making a test by shooting the same subject under the same conditions and then picking the best possible print process.

It has become close to impossible to get color prints from film the traditional way. There are a few places left that do black and white. And then you'd have to compare that to a similar process that uses my 5DII files. Difficult project. The issue is not the file size coming from the camera but what is left of it in print. Usually not much given the limits of 300 dpi today (or even less). So you'd have to compare relatively large prints up to a point where film may start to lose out just because of size - but I'm not even sure about that.

All I can say is that my prints from the 90s and prior coming from 35mm look better than what I get from my 5DII. I don't think it's the camera's fault but the fact that a lot of data is lost at print sizes in the 8x10 neighborhood (my preference for the most part). But again, the game changes once you are in the over 20" print size.

So in short (and this is my personal observation):

Full frame 5DII vs 35 film = very similar with strengths and weaknesses on both sides
Medium format film prints = still hard to beat
35mm (b/w) film = still better up to a certain size given a traditional process, certainly more dynamic range

But again, for all practical purposes I consider them equivalent. In prints I miss the certain depth and richness but I think that is not a camera issue but rather a result of the "modern" digital print process. It's possible that alternative (and expensive) methods such as LightJet type prints or high quality (and costly) metal prints make up for that but I haven't tried that yet.

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 43