March 03, 2015, 07:32:57 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 6 ... 82
They are still readily available for less than $145, though some people are charging more.

I just pulled the trigger on one from ebay'er in Hong Kong. I got it for about $145.80 with free shipping.

It indicated I'd not get it till March 3 through March 20th....

Now....I'm already getting impatient on waiting for it to arrive!!!



I got word that mine got held up by HK customs. THey ebay seller asked if I wanted to cancel or have them try again…I asked to try again, so waiting to see if it comes in….

Hope mine works better than PBD's did…


EOS Bodies / Re: Is Dual Pixel Tech Coming to the EOS 5D Mark III?
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:54:20 PM »
I thought Magic Lantern had already done this with the 5D3??


I've owned the 50 L a number of times and I do agree that it's wonderful when it comes to
Color, contrast, bokeh, build and weather resistance .handling and AF is also superb, small size and nice
Weight .

The reason I keep selling it is because of sharpness , or lack of
It. It's good enough in the center, but I like to compose off center, and especially with the new 61 pt system and it's simply horrible off center, really bad wide open. It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.

I'm one of it's big fans, I really am, I love almost everything with it, but when you can't tell where you have focused when going off center it's pretty limiting.

I have the 85 L II and it's a completely different lens now with the 1dx and the new firmware and it's awesome and a really nice useful 1.2 lens , also in the far corners. For video though the manual focus ring is pretty bad.

The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is on my lens list too....but like I'd mentioned, I will get the 50L first, for video as much as photography at this point in time. 

I rented teh 85mm f/1.2 and loved it, and used it to shoot at Voodoo Fest in New Orleans here last was fun, but I found I had some problem nailing focus on it...and I wasn't trying to recompose either.

However, I did like it and will get one, but it wouldn't work well for video with the way manual focus is handled on the 85L.

I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them. Like was part of my problem of the 85L I rented....


Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 28, 2014, 02:00:46 PM »
I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.

The bands that are talented and clever enough to write raw, gutsy music (like the Stones or Nirvana or even the Pumpkins or Pixies more recently) are now for whatever reason doing esoteric music that’s too cold and intellectual and difficult to access. And the emotional immediacy isn’t there; it’s just very formal and cold and you need to think about it to appreciate it.

I like the immediacy of Miley or Britney Spears, but the music is written by committee and takes no risks whatsoever. It’s garbage, but some of it is good, well-crafted garbage...

The loudness wars… that’s another issue. Speakers are so bad music needs to be compressed to fit into a tiny dynamic range. Reminds me of HDR, actually, which I think is hideous and only looks good on a small iPhone screen or something (never printed large) and is why I like these 8x10 photos.

That said, Gursky to me falls into the visual camp that’s analogous to bands that are talented musicians but too distant and self-aware to make anything raw. Which is why this photo is so silly in many respects. And why high art is so silly (it’s too intellectual). But I do think a lot of his work is good, and prefer this photo to any HDR. (There is some good commercial photography, too, but most of it is in print… actual commercials. A lot of middlebow “art” is horrible. Stuck in Customs is the worst photography I’ve ever seen. It's like Kinkade's paintings. I’m sorry to be a snob, but this stuff is the worst of both worlds. There has been good stuff that occupies this space, and it's the best stuff… Beatles, Spielberg, etc.)

I honestly think Miley is someone who can only be appreciated by people near her age, who haven't lived through when music meant more, concerts meant more, and it wasn't all promoted and pigeonholed to where it had to either be idiot "hip hop pop", just "hip hop", "rap", or "country". 

Rock is dead, because that's how the industry wants it.  If they promoted it, kids today would love it.  Just ask what type of music most kids in Northern and central Europe...and South America like.  Bands like Iron Maiden couldn't tour the way they have in these places, if the youth didn't love them.

I also disagree that MTV kept rock music alive.  The fans kept it alive IN SPITE OF MTV.  MTV really promoted "new wave" and top 40 pop music such as Madonna and Boy George ("Culture Club"), more than "rock" acts of the time.  It wasn't until the late 80's that "hair metal" became the rage.  And plaid shirts, saggy pants, the whole Seattle cultural takeover, was a direct reaction by the music industry, to find something that was the opposite of hair metal, but that was still "rock".  After a time they needed to modify it further, so was born "heavy industrial"...but then in the late '90's, there was a brief European influence of "techno pop", because people got tired of angry plaid wearing Seattle artists whose daddies died when they were age 13...then when they discovered Neil Young could be their surrogate daddy, a lot of their fans stopped thinking of them as relevant. 

In the 1980's, we would have never liked the type of music that most kids like today.  We still like the music from that era, when our favorite bands tour, we attend in droves.  Some of today's youth also attend, even without their parents.  I've seen them.  U2 set the record for highest grossing, and longest single tour, with "360" (2009 to 2011).  It also cost the most to produce.  Having seen it twice, I feel it was worth it.  But those counted toward the nearly 50 large concerts I've attended in my life.

In 2000, for KISS's "farewell tour" of that time, they actually sold more tickets than Britney Spears (and that was at Spears' peak).  Her tour however, grossed more money, because ticket prices were jacked up a lot for her, and those fans paid.  But 2000, was 24 years after KISS was at their peak (1976).

24 years from now, will Cyrus, or Spears (in her case 10 years from now...and pathetically she's Cyrus' "idol") able to tour and sell more tickets than whatever the current popular act is of that time? way.  Why?  I say because their "fans" are not fans of them or their music, only of a culture of idiocy promoted by people who don't care a whit about artistry. 

Music today, is simply a much smaller industry than before Napster and MP3 music sharing took off (and eventually before Apple's iPod took over).  The profit margin is a lot lower, because of downloadable music.  So the industry, promotes a few acts, to a degree...but ignores the rest.  And the music companies, apparently hate rock music.  That's why it's not promoted...not because the artists are too esoteric.  There are plenty of local rock bands in every city that are good enough to have made the big time (at least one from each city I would guess), were they in a different era in time.

None of today's acts in the USA are "mega artists", on the level of the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, or even U2.  Why?  Well, because their music is not as good, and as artists, they aren't as good.  History will show that.

Lady Gaga, in my opinion, is more of an artist than most of the other females who have made it big.  She actually sings, dances, plays piano, and writes much of her own music.  The others don't seem to be able to play a musical instrument.  Miley can play an acoustic guitar on occasion, but I don't get the sense she enjoys it.  Taylor Swift enjoys playing guitar, but she's another story.

As for speakers being bad, compressor limiters have been around since the 1960's.  The whole reason for it, has more to do with ambient noise in the end user's listening environment, rather than speakers.  It's also the reason compression is used for live performances (that and to put less stress on the PA).  Basically, popular music needs to be compressed, because it needs to sound loud, even when it is played back fairly quietly...because most consumers are listening in a car, or in some place where people are trying to shout over the music. 

Ever been to a party or concert where people don't try to yell over the music?  I've not.

In summation, what I'm trying to say is, it's a good thing Jay Z wasn't around to stomp out early blues and rock from the 1950's, that southern people (and people in Chicago and especially Detroit)...of his own race, invented.  I'm glad it took so long for rock music to die.  Hopefully it will be resurrected for the youth culture, but I guess it will be different than it was. 

Youth culture today, musically celebrates thuggery, vulgarity, misogyny, in a way that is very hypocritical...not to mention it sounds really lame.  And it's because the people in charge of what music gets promoted and played on air, want it that way.  It's got little to nothing to do with a spontaneous desire for such, by the consumers of that music.

When I see very young kids today, wearing AC/DC and Zeppelin and Stones tshirts, and actually also LISTENING to the music of my day, I'm torn on how to feel about it.

I mean, I'm happy that it shows the artists of my day put out good material that has stood the test of time, but I also feel bad for them in that, there SHOULD have been a number of bands that had taken their place over these past few decades with solid music that the world would be enjoying and be a common language for the youth of generations past mine, but it appears that got side tracked along the way somewhere.

I find it funny to be wearing on occasion one of my genuine concerts shirts from the day...and seeing a kid that is about 12yrs old, wearing a reproduction of it.  I drove into a parking lot at a grocery store the other day, it was a friday afternoon after work, I had the top down and was jamming to old Zeppelin Dazed and Confused, the 30 min version on The Song Remains the Same soundtrack album. I guess it was blaring.

I shut it and the car down, got out and walking in, one of the very young stock boys was sitting outside on break and started kinda head banging my way and shouted "Hey, great song man, I love zeppelin".

I smiled, but when I got inside, I wondered, how the hell did a kid that young know that song well enough to know what it was?  I mean, it was in the middle of the part where Jimmy was playing a heavily effects driving guitar with a violin bow...unrecongnizeable to most anyone that was a Zep fan from my age I'd have thought.


Oh and yes, I'd love to talk stereo some too....stereos that "glow" are cool.  EVerything is better in audio with tubes IMHO.


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,

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 82