July 30, 2014, 02:22:26 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 - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 43
I would look at the 1Ds3 as the pro version of the 5D MarkII. In my opinion it's the best DSLR that Canon ever made. I'd have one if I had the extra cash sitting around to get a mint body. But I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with that. I look at cameras still as replacement for film. Anything over, say, ISO 800 is more or less irrelevant for me. Nice to have at times, but not a selling point. I recently brought along my 5DII and a rented 5DIII and did not see enough of a difference in the results to justify the upgrade. Yes, the AF is faster and better, but also more cumbersome to fully take advantage of. So I ended up getting about the same keeper rate.

6D may be interesting for street photography because of its size. For studio or anything else where you work with flash or strobes I'd want something with a better x-sync speed though.

I personally would get the 1Ds3 for studio and take the 5D for street.

Lenses / Re: 135 F1.8L IS
« on: October 28, 2013, 10:54:29 AM »
Wouldn't be interested. Love my 135L as is. IS counts as a negative for me. I don't see much value in it and don't want to pay extra, have the size increase and/or the risk of yet another component that'll break eventually.

Keep mine as well. All boxes and paperwork are packed up in plastic bin in the basement.

I look at it from a buyer's perspective: picking up a mint FD lens in its original packing can be quite thrilling. I've gone so far and bought original catalogs and manuals off ebay for stuff that I own and care about (camera gear, guitar stuff, audio stuff, microscopes, etc). No, I do have a life otherwise. Not to worry.

Portrait / Re: 'Straight' Portrait of a Young Woman
« on: October 22, 2013, 09:56:53 AM »
hm... looks over-exposed to me and skin texture is just gone

And why is that a bad thing? I like it.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Rodenstock Filters. Any experience?
« on: October 14, 2013, 04:15:02 PM »
Purchased a lens used from Canada and the seller included a Rodenstock filter. I honestly have never heard of the brand until now. A quick google search and I found them to be high regarded, some say as good as heliopan and B&W. I think the filter ring is brass. Though I found them to be more available in the Europe, B&H has a basic UV filter (77mm) for $85. Specs say that it is 16 layer multicoated.

Anyone have experience with these filters? Thoughts? Any and all advice is appreciated.

Never used any of their filters but all their other stuff (lenses, eyeglasses, ophthomology equipment, etc) is top shelf.

I'm extremely picky with my glasses that I wear and I make sure to always get high rated glass (not plastic) lenses with good antireflex coating. Had Rodenstock lenses several times and they are en par with Zeiss (and some of the other non-FDA approved products that you can only buy abroad...)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: "Downgrading" for a very specific reason
« on: October 14, 2013, 04:10:06 PM »
I felt the same way moving from a 5Dc to a 5D3. The files looked more neutral out of the 5Dc....

There are certainly differences. I just shot an event with my 5DII and a CPS loaner MarkIII (with a 70-200). Subtle differences but I liked my MarkII better. And I actually got a better keeper rate with it. Probably because I'm more familiar with it. I found that the AF system on the Mark III over complicate things.

Files look very very very similar (maybe because I converted the raw files of the Mark 3 to DNG files first to load them into LR3?).

Canon General / Re: Baffles the mind
« on: October 09, 2013, 04:41:22 PM »
I've heard people in other threads talking about how they don't care about video functionality. I don't get it. How can someone love making images and completely dismiss motion pictures?

I do both and it only seems natural that if you like one you would like the other. I just can't wrap my head around it only wanting one. I can understand people having a preference, but to buy a $3000 body an never shoot video on it? Really?

In my opinion these cameras are set when it comes to photo features. They don't need to get any better than they already are. With maybe one exception, AF speed/accuracy during liveview. It's video features that are far behind where they should be and that should be the main focus right now of these camera manufacturers.

Interesting thought. I am one of those crazy people. I've had my 5DII (my first digital SLR by the way, coming directly from 35mm film) now for exactly 3 years I think. I've used the video functionality once.

Video doesn't interest me as a medium or art form if you will. I despise the editing process and only do it if I absolutely must. And then I use a designated camcorder. Or better yet my iPhone. I don't care about the quality of it. My approach to video is that of other people's snapshots with their camera phones. I share them with friends and family and rarely look at them again. I go to the movie theater maybe once a year - at best.

It's not that I don't enjoy the occasional movie or even TV series for it's production value. But even then I look at things like lighting or so more as a photographer if that makes sense. Things like score and sound I also pay more attention to.

Photography is about the moment. For actual story telling along a timeline I prefer music, books or the actual content of a movie or feature.

I wonder where the different preferences come from. Come to think of it it may be how we process details. I like the details of visual arts but maybe I'm not quick enough to process them in moving pictures. In music on the other hand I notice every little detail immediately even though it's a continuum. I believe that's why I prefer photography and music over pretty much everything else.

EOS Bodies / Re: Help with 5DIII raw files
« on: October 07, 2013, 03:47:30 PM »

The people we should be complaining about, and the ones who never get criticism for any off this, is the camera manufacturers. Why do they insist on changing the RAW file format of every single camera that comes to market? Considering there is precious little IQ improvement in sensor tech and those improvements are easily enclosed in a broad and accessible format, why don't the manufacturers adopt TIFF, or the open and entirely free DNG to create a standard for RAW files? So much development time is wasted reverse engineering the stupid changes to the RAW files for each new camera, that the manufacturers are not interested in developing software for anyway, it is a farce.

Excellent point. Why they're not sticking to file format is beyond me also. I'm sure somebody will cite a technical reason but that brings me back to my original point. There is not enough difference to justify any upgrades at this point unless anything breaks. That's true for my software and my camera gear. I'm perfectly happy as is.

And I get your point now about the free software tool. I agree, we need to chalk that off as a plus.

The reason I'm even concerned is that I want to update my computers at home soon, going from Win XP to (most likely) Mac. I'm not even complaining (well maybe a little) that my existing CS5 can't be transferred to a Mac any longer (unlike my LR3, which is good)  but that there is no more boxed version now to achieve the same that I have right now. Look, I'm here willing to spend money but they want to sell me something else instead that I don't want. I'd rather be able to buy a boxed CS5 or CS6 for Mac than even getting the online version for free. I don't need anything else that is constantly changing and updating to heavens knows what. I already have that happening with my stupid iPhone that I have a strong impulse to throw out of the window after the iOS7 update.

Yes, I know, I'm weird. I'm not great about changing workflows and screen designs constantly. Once things work I like to keep them around for a while.

EOS Bodies / Re: Help with 5DIII raw files
« on: October 07, 2013, 11:00:28 AM »

3. I more and more dislike Adobe. I really need to find a replacement. Their upgrade politics are ridiculous. Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...) and I feel done. Not spending one more penny on them.

This always makes me laugh. Name me one other software company in existence that makes and distributes a free program that they fully support, again at no cost, that gives you the functionality to buy a $3,000 camera and not need to update a $100 piece of software?

As for you not spending another penny on them, well the last thing you did was buy LR3 that came out in 2009, I doubt if they will miss your $100 every four years.

I have a full version of CS5 as well. And if enough unimportant people like me jump ship they may miss something I suspect. My biggest beef is not even the necessity to buy a new version every now and so often but the move to the subscription model. I don't want it and I'll never have that. If I can't buy it and outright own that one specific version I'm not going to do it.

And no, there is not much of an alternative yet. Most certainly not for people who want/have to use Macs and Windows machines.

EOS Bodies / Re: Help with 5DIII raw files
« on: October 06, 2013, 12:31:10 PM »
Or should I get the latest (free) adobe DNG converter?

You can't cheat Adobe ... c'mon, they need to pay their rent (or buy luxury villas), too, so they have to keep selling software, you know :-p ...

... but here's the solution. This won't work: you can convert the cr2 into dng, but they'll be a newer dng version than your lr3 supports. This will work: convert the 5d3 raw files into tiff - you can just get a Lightroom 5 trial, it runs for 30 days to do it, it installs along your lr3.

Actually, it worked flawlessly. The Adobe DNG converter lets you choose which version DNG file you want. So I selected the latest that is compatible with LR3. Was able to import as usual and the develop module in LR3 handled the DNG files just like I'm used to on my 5DII's raw files.

Lessons learned:

1. I'll stick to my primes and don't want the 70-200

2. No need to upgrade to the 5DIII. The results look indistinguishable and - call me crazy- I much prefered the handling of the AF on my 5DII over the rented Mark 3. The 3 is faster but setting the AF points drove me nuts. And all 61 points are centered around the middle so I see no advantage.

3. I more and more dislike Adobe. I really need to find a replacement. Their upgrade politics are ridiculous. Add to that the latest credit card and password snafu (which can happen to anyone, but it's a question how you handle it...) and I feel done. Not spending one more penny on them.

EOS Bodies / Help with 5DIII raw files
« on: September 29, 2013, 12:49:50 PM »
Hello Everyone,

I think I have an issue here. I have a 5DII and tested a 5DIII from CPS for a job last night. I also still use LR3 and have no intention to upgrade. Reason being that I'm happy with the raw engine as it is and would not want anything happen to the files that are already there.

I also have no reason to upgrade to the 5DIII at this point. In fact, after testing it last night I'm more leaning towards picking up a second 5DII body at some point.

In any case, what can I do now with the raw files from the 5DIII to get them into LR3? I understand that I probably need to convert them in another program. Any recommendations? I have DPP from my 5DII. Not sure if I'd need a different version or if I have access to it. Anything else I could use?

My fault as I should have thought about this before.


Noticed that I can open the files in CS5. Any chance I can use Bridge/CS5 to batch convert the 5DIII raw files to DNG? Or should I get the latest (free) adobe DNG converter?  http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_digitalwf.pdf

Lighting / Re: Cheap manual flash to use for fill lighting...
« on: September 19, 2013, 11:36:55 AM »
so I have been side lighting photos of my infant daughter using a 580 exii,  an umbrella,  and a  yongnuo 622c...  and even though I can't access all the ettl  features immediately (I'm pretty sure it is operator error), I think the shadows from  being side lit aren't exactly what I'm looking for. 

 so I wasn't too get a cheap manual flash that I  can couple with my rouge flash bender  to add some fill flash or maybe even side lit fromtheother side using a wire  that attached to the hot shoe.

I  was  thinking about one of the newer brand flashes for 40  bucks,  but once I nut it it will only be worth twenty bucks if I sell it.  I  hate losing money on gear...  it drives me nuts.   so I was thinking,  maybe I should buy something like a 430 ex ii  which will retain its value,  but 200 v 40   seems like a  bad use of resources. 

I  see really old manual speed lites  on  craigslist,  but the head doesn't articulate backwards...

 so the question is...  what is the right price to pay for a manual flash  that will only be used inside the home for fill light.

Here's my take (based on some experience and experimentation with Speedlites - something I was completely new to not even 3 years ago). It's always great to have options. Having ETTL and Hi Speed Sync can be very beneficial. You may find that setting things manually is preferable. But even then it's nice to be able to control things via the camera menu. So there's you're answer if another Canon flash or fully compatible third party (such as Metz) is better than a cheap manual flash that doesn't support that nor Hi Speed sync for those saturated outdoor shoots in bright daylight.

BUT: if the goal is just to have nice fill I would start with adding a reflector to your existing setup. That usually works really well even with just one flash.

There is some good reading material available on the web and in books (e.g. Sil Arena's books or the basics covered on http://strobist.blogspot.com/ )

Lenses / Re: 85L or 135L?
« on: September 17, 2013, 09:46:57 AM »
Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:

24-105 (great kit lens, but I might sell it)
24-70 f2.8 MK2
50 f1.4
(Sigma) 12-24 - some people don't like this, but I think I got a good copy
70-200 f2.8 MK2

I'm trying to find a reason to buy either the 85mm or 135mm.  Which should I buy?  I know I have that length covered, but they're such celebrated primes that I'd just learn to zoom with my feet more and I know my results would be good.

So, here's my question.  Both are very well-loved in the photog world, especially with portrait shooters.  Which should I get?  Or, should I be considering another prime altogether?

Thanks in advance!

I've never used the 85L so I can't really speak to that. First question to me is always which focal length do you want? One indicator could be to check your existing photos shot with the 70-200 and see what you prefer and for what.

And frankly, either lens will be very close to what you already do with the 70-200. So the only real reason for either would be to shoot wide open. My 135 renders excellent results with that and I use it all the time for portraits, events and my kids. It's crazy sharp if that's what you're after. The bokeh is lovely. And I'm sure both can be said about the 85L.

Besides many of the pros and cons that either lens naturally will have (and those are clearly very Firs World "problems") I would look at cost. My guess is that for the cost of the 85L you could pick up the 135L and the 85 1.8 or maybe any of the third party 85 lenses some of which are really nice in their own right I suppose. If you then find you prefer one focal length over the other you can always swap.

Lenses / Re: Why are Zeiss lenses manual?
« on: September 12, 2013, 04:11:59 PM »
There will always be those few who want a proper manual focus for the pleasure of using it, but they are few and far between.

I wonder if there are people who use an abacus to calculate their tax forms, just for the pleasure of it?  ::)

I suppose only in Massachusetts will you ever find the terms "taxes" and "pleasure" in one sentence ;-)

Lenses / Re: Why are Zeiss lenses manual?
« on: September 12, 2013, 04:07:10 PM »
It would change the way they provide such high mechanical quality. Dare I say that for me it's really the other way round: why doesn't Canon provide any digital full frame body that works reliably as a full time manual focus camera only? Answer: very few people would be buying something like this in this day and age. But I'd still prefer it.

You don't use live view for manual focus?

No. Never. I can't stand it. If live view was gone I wouldn't know it.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 43