September 17, 2014, 07:39:40 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 - cayenne

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 81
Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: February 28, 2014, 11:48:06 AM »
Shot the skyline of downtown Houston yesterday after sunset. Both pictures were shot from the same spot. The time difference was about 20 mins.

With Rokinon 14mm 2.8 and the lens correction profile posted by mrsfotografie

Cool shot!

Can you give more information and maybe links to "mrsfotografie"...what exactly that is? Is this correction something you can plug into LR5?

Thanks in advance,


Well I think it is clear that it will put the 50/1.2L to shame and depending on the price point, maybe even the 50/1.4.
I think that's a given in terms of sharpness, CA, and other metrics, but until I see the bokeh and the color saturation of my own shots with it, I'm not in any rush to sell my 50L. 

And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.
True - and Japanese companies aren't generally known to make bold claims they can't back up.

What's your opinions of the 50L?

I rented one awhile back and fell in love with it....I rented and used it mostly for shooting video , some was in extremely dark bars, and that baby made it look like I turned on a wall of lights.

I shot some stills with it too...anyway, I'm saving for one. I'm thinking that f/1.2 would be a bit more valuable to me than f/1.4 in low light video...?  Not sure how much more so in still imagery....but what's your thoughts on this?

I'm likely to get the 50L...but when the sigma comes out...I might rent it and see how it is to play with....



Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:14:12 PM »
The question : "Bad Photography becomes salable art " can apply to music. Never sold as much bad music sells nowadays. It is also a fact that never did so much bad photography as today. The internet is full of bad photos . But no one can force me to buy a stock that I do not like , and no one can force me to agree that a photo is good just because it was sold for a fortune .

The problem is that the "average taste" is undemanding when it comes to CONTENTS . A photo cell can be good if the theme is interressante and achievement is well taken . Similarly , a photograph of medium format camera can be uninteresting ( even if technically perfect ) for lack of subject content .

I'm sure Billie Holiday would not need to make a music video like Miley Cyrus ( nude in a wrecking ball ) because the music was enough to hold the attention . Tanbem think Cartier - Bresson would not need to use the perfect technique to mask the lack of content in your photographs .

Well said.  Billie Holiday had a magical voice and talent.  Unfortunately our culture today celebrates the mundane and the vulgar.  It celebrates the idiocy of youth. 

Do you own any Tesla stock, out of curiousity?  I have strong opinions about Elon Musk...haha.  I've never bought that stock, but am beginning to wonder if it isn't worth trading after all.  That way I too, like Elon, can profit off the taxpayers' backs.

I think a lot of this is fallout from MTV of the 80's.

I mean, did seem to save rock music, but it also propogated that only GOOD LOOKING folks are to be promoted to be todays music stars...not talent.

Many of my favorite groups of the past were butt-ugly, but you didn't see them that often, you heard them and learned to love quality songs/albums they put out. 

And also, there is the proliferation of music today listened to on really low quality systems...ipods with horrible earbuds (most people don't replace them with quality ones), or now, the Beats headphones, that are just awful middle of the road bad bass, with no real dynamics. This has all led to the compression wars that have killed dynamic range on music in order to just make it louder sounding. I grates on the ears....and it has affected even old recordings when remastered.

Wow, ok, I'm getting way off photography...but still, I still amaze kids that come by and hear what a REAL high end stereo system can sounds SET amps running Klipschorn speakers.
Now that is a pleasing system to listen to..while post processing images.

There...I brought it back to photography!!


Software & Accessories / Re: updating to Maverick 10.9?
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:15:48 PM »
No issues here on a early 2011 15" MBP w/ 16 GB RAM.  HDD replaced with a Seagate 750GB hybrid SHHD.  I do not use the Mail app, but have heard that is quite buggy still.

I've got a late 2011 model MBP...I'm holding off for a bit on Mavericks. I've heard it also has problems playing well with Davinci Resolve 10.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:11:31 PM »

I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.

Well, I'm not religious, but I certainly recognize the emotions in the lyrical sections of Beethoven's 9th...

Well, there's a convincing argument.  ???

It wasn't meant to be.

I'm just pointing out (in perhaps an obnoxious way) that Beethoven's 9th does in fact have emotionally-charged lyrics (not primarily penned by Beethoven, but the same may the the case for Miley), so it may not be the best sample for your argument.

Somehow I seriously doubt that Miley's output will be revered next month, much less in a few decades or 100's of years.  I give the Beatles and Stone's output much more of a chance...hell, those have passed the 50yr mark and still get airplay and fairly high sales.

I'm curious.

Why do you think, did Sigma for only for a f/1.4 rather than down to the f/1.2 of the Canon L 50mm ?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Lens Discounts at B&H Photo
« on: February 20, 2014, 05:34:36 PM »
I'm waiting for the 50L f/1.2 to have a sale price....

Video & Movie / Re: The 2013 New Orleans Bridal Crawl Video
« on: February 19, 2014, 08:35:52 PM »
I've just put this up on Vimeo too, I think the quality is better there….

Do ya'll think Vimeo is better than YT?


Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 advice
« on: February 19, 2014, 11:32:50 AM »
Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.
When it comes to thinking between lenses and bodies....err on the side of spending more on lenses.

You can't go wrong investing your dollars on good glass. You can do with a lessor body, but you will do well to save those extra dollars, wait a bit longer...and splurge on the good glass.

Software & Accessories / Re: Which version of FoCal for a 5D3??
« on: February 18, 2014, 04:09:40 PM »
Ok, I'm thinking of jumping in and getting Focal to amfa my lenses, and with a 50L purchase (hopefully this year) I'll definitely want to configure that.

As I understand it, since you have to manually make the settings for the 5D3 camera, full "auto" version likely isn't going to do much for me.

I"m reading on the comparisons:

And as I go down, I don't see anything much really on the Plus and Pro versions that would seem to make a compelling reason to get them over the Std. version.

Can anyone that is using Focal with a Canon 5D Mark III jump in here and say what version they bought and if they got the Pro or the Plus versions, what extra features in those over the standard version are you finding you use and are useful?

Thank you in advance,

***I see Neuro beat me to it while I was typing my post, but it looks like we're on the same page***

I bought the standard for my 5DII, but soon upgraded to the Plus to get fully-automated calibration.  I ended up with the Pro for dust analysis and my long lenses. 

For the 5DIII, if you don't have lenses over 400mm, I'd highly recommend the Plus version because it has the Manual mode.  Using the Manual mode when you already have to change the AFMA amount is much faster because you can just go shoot the photos yourself and then load them onto your PC/Mac.  Waiting on Focal to do each shot takes significantly longer and you still have to change the AFMA amount yourself.  The Pro features are cool, but you can always upgrade later if you decide you want them, and unless the exchange rate changes, it's the same price to upgrade later as it would be to buy upfront.

Thanks to you and Neuro too.

Hmm..ok, that part about upgrading later might sell me on the Plus version.

I see it listed as:  £39.95.....I'm trying to see if they have the prices on that site in US dollars..isn't that like about $80US?

My longest lens at this point, is the 70-200mm f/2.8...I'm likelyl to buy a 2x extender...would I need the pro version to check and adjust that combo ?


Video & Movie / Re: Embedding Video
« on: February 18, 2014, 04:02:59 PM »
I just posted a video in this thread I started:

And the URL isn't doing the usual video embed thing...?

Can you take a look for me to see if something is wrong?

Thank you,

Video & Movie / The 2013 New Orleans Bridal Crawl Video
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:59:49 PM »
Hello all,

I've just posted to YouTube the first video to come out for this charity event I shot last Sept here in New Orleans.

The charity was for  Cafe Reconcile, which helps inner city kids learn about the food service business, which is a big deal here in NOLA...from being a chef to business mgmt, etc.

The video here, is my first ever attempt to do a video for anyone external to just me goofing off in my kitchen doing my CWI (Cooking While Intoxicated) cooking videos.

I've created a simple montage to try to show the fun for the day.

We start the day off at Muriel's a restaurant in the Quarter, and attempt to set the Guinness World records for most people (men or women, this is New Orleans after all) in full bridal costume. We had officials and every thing.
Unfortunately, rain hit and we lost all last minute walkins, and we didn't come close, but it was a fun day, and we're thinking this is a dry run for this coming year.

After the record attempt, it turned into a pub crawl all over the Quarter into the Warehouse dist.

I shot this with my Canon 5D3. I rented a 50mm f/1.2, which helped a LOT for many of the scenes, which were in very dark bars. That one scene inside Gordon Birsch is at f/1.2, it essentially turned night into day in there where the Asian guy in the right is photobombing me..

I ended up using my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 a lot too...

I brought the 17-40mm f/4, but it didn't get used nearly as much as the other two lenses. I'm going to buy that 50mm f/1.2 this year.

Everything was shot pretty much using my manfrotto mono pod with video even doubled at times for a steadi-cam for moving shots.

I shot everything flat using the Marvels Cine style, and I graded in Davinci Resolve 10. I bought the Neat video noise plug in for Resolve and used that to clean up noise.

I edited in Final Cut Pro X, 10.0.9 I believe...the one before you had to have Mavericks.

The beginning logo fly in, and the ending credits were my first every try to work with Adobe After Effects, and wow, I'm blow away by what that can do...will be learning that intensely going forward.

Anyway, this is a first semi-pro effort I've ever made. I can see warts in this, but the client is extremely happy, and it has been very much a learning experience. I NOW know how to do a round trip with Resolve and FCPX...although my next project I may try to learn Premier too.

Anyway, here it is, please  give me your thoughts and your constructive criticisms.  I really appreciate the comments by the crew here on CR.


Software & Accessories / Which version of FoCal for a 5D3??
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:48:46 PM »
Ok, I'm thinking of jumping in and getting Focal to amfa my lenses, and with a 50L purchase (hopefully this year) I'll definitely want to configure that.

As I understand it, since you have to manually make the settings for the 5D3 camera, full "auto" version likely isn't going to do much for me.

I"m reading on the comparisons:

And as I go down, I don't see anything much really on the Plus and Pro versions that would seem to make a compelling reason to get them over the Std. version.

Can anyone that is using Focal with a Canon 5D Mark III jump in here and say what version they bought and if they got the Pro or the Plus versions, what extra features in those over the standard version are you finding you use and are useful?

Thank you in advance,


Software & Accessories / Re: Is Adobe CC going to plan?
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:41:41 PM »
Not me, I'm going to hold out for as long as I can.

I just don't agree with renting my software, and basically having Adobe hold my files hostage if I quite paying them rent

If I have some intricate, multi-layer files or templates, they become useless to me with this model if I ever decide to quit paying for life.

I'm hoping, and there seems to be some consensus out there, that Adobe is keeping prices down now and keeps extending these cheap offers, because folks are coming in droves to CC like they expected, and they've really p!ssed off a large  segment of the market.

I'm hoping that this doesn't work that well for Adobe, and it fails much like the rental model has not worked well for MS and other companies that have tried it. The rental thing works for some people, but there's no reason they could not also offer the old fashioned purchase perpetual license for it stand alone version too.

Who's to say they'll keep the innovation going forward with no real incentive to prod them into doing so? If you read those EULA's you click through, you'll see that Adobe reserves every right to change the deal at any time and raise rates, which I"m guessing at some point, their stockholders (which is the group a company "really" serves) will demand rates to go up for more revenues.

I bought CS6 production premium suite, and so far, I've not see anything new on the CC versions that are so compelling that I have to change.

I figure I'm good for easily 2-5 more years with what I have and I'll see where the lay of the land is at that point. I'm hoping either Adobe may alter their model more to my liking, or if there are any other products coming out to compete with them, either open source or commercial. I'm seeing movement on both sides of that coin already, so I figure I'll see what happens in the future.

In the meantime, I'm voting with my wallet to NOT pay rent for software, and I encourage all that I can to do the same. It is NOT good for us, the consumer in the long run.

cayenne    :o

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 advice
« on: February 18, 2014, 11:01:23 AM »
Hey guys,

I recently got a 6D that I'm very happy with alongside the 24-105, as well as 50 and 85mm primes (all canon). Now I'm thinking of adding a 70-200mm lens and would love that to be a 2.8. Now as much as everyone raves over the canon 70-200 f2.8 ii IS, it's simply out of my budget. So I was thinking between the Tamron f2.8 macro version (700ish), the tamron f2.8 VS version (1400ish), Sigma f2.8 HSM (750ish), Sigma f2.8 OS (1250ish), or any other lens you can recommend that I haven't mentioned. I could probably afford the less expensive lens now, but would require a while longer saving for the more expensive ones. I also plan on adding a teleconverter on whichever one I choose (probably a 2x) soon after in situations where I want more reach. Any advice you could offer me? Would be much appreciated.

As for the type of photographer I am, I don't get any money out of it but it's a serious hobby for me, that's been growing steadily. I tend to do a bunch of portraits and am shooting a wedding for a friend next year, but love and also do some landscapes, sports, nature, basically a bit of everything. All-around would probably best describe my needs.

Try to work a deal if you can.
I ended up getting my 70-200  f/2.8 II, for about $1600.

I bought my 5D3 and a 85mm f/1.8 lens from Crutchfield. I signed up at that time for the rewards points and found a code to get double points for new person.

So, I got a ton of points on that purchase, I waited till Canon had  a sale/rebate on lenses.

So, when this happened, I used those points, plus auto rebate..and I used Crutchfields 12mo interest free financing....

I got the lens delivered, tax free for about $1600...

So, there are ways to get deals, you just have to plot, plan and be patient.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 81