March 02, 2015, 11:53:45 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 - TrumpetPower!

Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 64
what to keep in mind is that  colori / spectrophotometer use different  gelatin color filters that ages with time and these must be kept dark.

I have no idea what you're referring to, especially if you're referring to the i1 Pro, Spectrolino / Spectroscan, DTP line, and similar spectrophotometers.

It's true that for ISO 9000 compliance you need to have the devices re-certified every couple years (or whatever), but I very much doubt there are any gelatin filters in any of them -- and, if there are any, they're certainly not ever exposed to ambient light.

Mostly, it's the bulbs that change with usage, and recertification writes new values to the firmware to match the new spectral characteristics of the bulb.

And, honestly? Unless you're doing ISO 9000 certification or you have good reason to suspect the performance of your instrument, recertification is a waste. These are quality instruments that are built to last, and they do.



Lenses / Re: Help me decide; keep my 35L or get a 50L?
« on: October 21, 2012, 02:45:42 PM »
[T]he only thing is I really love the build quality of L lenses.

You could buy three 50mm f/1.4 lenses and still have more money left in your pocket than if you bought a single 50mm f/1.2L.

Again, the 1.2 makes great sense if you can afford to buy it without thinking, "Gee, that's an awful lot of money." And lots of people can easily afford to do so. If you're charging your clients thousands for a wedding and you're doing a few weddings a week, you'd be a fool not to have a few of them with you at the gig in case the drunken uncle smashes one of them. If you're a Microsoft Millionaire, you're wasting more money deliberating over the decision than by just buying it.

But it makes little if any sense to those on a tight budget.


Lenses / Re: Help me decide; keep my 35L or get a 50L?
« on: October 20, 2012, 07:02:03 PM »
Might I suggest?

Consider keeping the 35, and get the 50 f/1.4 rather than the f/1.2. The f/1.4 is a wonderful lens. The f/1.2 is better, yes, but it's not a thousand dollars better. It's worth getting if you can afford to buy it without worrying about spending that kind of money. But for somebody on a tight budget?



Is the X-Rite ColorMunki Photo the right choice?

Yes. You should be quite happy with it. should also resign yourself now to the fact that you'll be capable of getting quality prints from any combination of printer, ink, and paper...and that you're likely to start searching for your favorite such combination and printing lots of color charts and sample images in your quest.

May I suggest? Red River Paper makes good stuff for not much money. Stick with them until you know what you're doing....



If all you need is to calibrate and profile your monitor, there're lots of excellent options.

But if you're also looking to profile a printer, the field narrows and gets a lot more expensive. Basically you really only have two options to consider, both from X-Rite: the ColorMunki and the i1 Pro. Both come in various packages with different software bundles, but the hardware is the same.

(I think there's a colorimeter sold under the ColorMunki name, and I know there're a few colorimeters sold under the i1 name. Neither will profile a printer -- you want the "original" ColorMunki or the i1 Pro.)

If you're not afraid of the command line, get the cheapest package you can find and use Argyll CMS for the software. Argyll is free / open source and produces better results than what you get from X-Rite...but there's no graphical interface for it, so you're typing all the commands. If that bothers you, get whichever bundle supports the devices and modes you want to profile; that probably means one branded either "design" or "photo." The X-Rite software is still excellent and very easy to use; it's just a lot of money and the results from Argyll are even better.



Sure would be nice to have the same update for the 5DIII....


Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye
« on: October 15, 2012, 07:51:27 PM »
Samyang has a much cheaper fish eye for crop sensors that's a lot of fun to play with. It's fully manual, but it's not exactly hard to focus a lens with that kind of DOF.

There're lots of fisheye options out there. What sets this one apart is that it's a full-frame zoom that ranges from 180° full-hemisphere coverage to the standard 180° diagonal coverage. And, of course, that it's a Canon L lens.

If you were wanting both an 8 mm and a 15 mm fisheye lens for full frame, then your only other option at B&H would be the pair of Sigmas. The Sigma 8mm is $900, and the Sigma 15mm is $600...for a combined price of $150 more than the Canon zoom.

Of course, if you were only looking for the one or the other focal length, you could save quite a bit of money by just getting that one -- and there're a lot of inexpensive options for APS-C cameras, as well (including a bunch of ~$300 8mm f/3.5 lenses and a $700 Tokina 10-17 zoom).


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: SLR-like raw shooting cam - suggestions?
« on: October 15, 2012, 07:22:23 PM »
Honestly? You just described the EOS-M....


EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS-M to Ship Today in North America
« on: October 15, 2012, 01:04:27 PM »
I still expect this camera to sell very well, and for the future of both high-end P&S and all Rebels to be M mount.

I personally have no interest, though. My iPhone is all the always-with-me pocketable camera I need, and the 5DIII (and no grip) with the Shorty McForty fits the bill (for me, not others) of a "small, compact" high-quality normal prime setup.


Software & Accessories / Re: Arca-Swiss requires plate
« on: October 13, 2012, 08:10:39 PM »
While you're checking out RSS plates, also have a look at their ballheads, which're awesome.


Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye
« on: October 13, 2012, 07:01:08 PM »
I like the theoretical idea of the full 180° circle this lens has at 8 mm...but how useful is it outside of making QuickTime panoramas and scientific imaging? For example, what's an 8mm shot of the night sky look like, or what else can one artistically do at 8mm?


Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200 f/2L IS
« on: October 13, 2012, 02:36:03 PM »
Well, I appreciated the joke. And I still want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.

Wow -- thanks! I'll have to add that to my Christmas list....


Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 200 f/2L IS
« on: October 11, 2012, 01:47:26 PM »
I know these reviews weren't supposed to be "super technical" and more practical. But including a coffee mug for a comparison of lenses in the lineup? Not my cup of tea ::)

Please, keep them a bit more technical!

Sorry, I thought it would be funny (and seeing as I only own the one equivalent tele for comparison... feel free to crop that part out with your imagination).

Well, I appreciated the joke. And I still want one of those mugs! It's a shame Canon only made them as a one-off for that one show.

On the subject of the lens...I'm sure I'd absolutely love to have one, but I'm also struck by the trend towards slower and slower lenses, even in the top-of-the-line gear.

The previous incarnation of this lens was f/1.8. Yes, f/2 is still wicked fast for a 200mm lens, but it sure would have been nice to have seen it stay at f/1.8 -- or even go the extra half-stop the other direction to f/1.4! Sure, it'd make a big-and-heavy-and-expensive lens bigger and heavier and more expensive...but I bet most people willing to put up with the size, weight, and cost of this lens would gladly give up a bit more size, weight, and money for that extra stop.

It's not just the 200 that's going backwards. The top-of-the-line 50 today is only f/1.2. It used to be f/1.0, and Canon even made an f/0.95. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the next L 50 is f/1.4.

The new Great White is the 200-400 -- but it's only f/4, and slows all the way down to f/5.6 when you use the teleconverter. I'm sorry, but a 280 f/5.6 lens is hardly impressive, even if it's got great image quality. (Yes, yes -- you'd shoot at 280 without the TC engaged...but, still.)

Canon is doing some amazing things in reducing the weight of the Great Whites. They're currently investing the dividends of that research in giving us the same lenses at lower weights, and that's a good thing. I'd also like to see them keep the weight the same as before but offer that much more lens for the same weight.

Who's up for a 12-pound 400mm f/1.8?



5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Ultra long daytime exposures - 5D mkiii
« on: October 09, 2012, 08:36:18 PM »
Interesting... I have to wonder how bad hot pixels might be with such exposures.

If anyone needs a high density ND, you could try Baader astrosolar film. It comes in two versions, the stronger version is >16 stops effective (they say >99.999% reduction) and is made specifically to make direct viewing of the sun safe.

I was just thinking of that. I've got a Baader filter for the 400. Finding something to shoot with an ultra-long exposure with a 400 might be a bit of a challenge, though....


Reviews / Re: Review - Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:48:10 PM »

One thing I forgot, the 24mm TS-E is compatible with the extender 1.4 (though I can only speak for version 2), that gives a very decent 34mm TS-E.

I am quite interested in that 1.4 extender and would appreciate some more info if you dont mind..when you say decent, would that be at max shift also and would you say its good enough for professional use..?

I'm drawing a blank, but somebody posted a while back a "making of" video for a promo shot for a new luxury hotel -- the kind where crews truck in spotlights and they coordinate which room lights are on and off and what-not. The photographer, as I recall, used the 24 with a 1.4x TC.

Perhaps somebody with a better remembery than mine can post a link to the video....



Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 64