Messages

616

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?

Cheers,

b&

617

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....

b&

618

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....

Cheers,

b&

619

Software & Accessories / Re: Head for Manfrotto 055xprob

« on: October 08, 2012, 08:42:39 PM »

But the OP wants a head for indoor real estate - so presumably he will be using 14mm or 16-35mm lenses and not telephoto, so a good sturdy ball head with quick-release plates would be better for moving tripod + camera from room to room, as well as upstairs/downstairs.

You just described the Really Right Stuff BH-40....

b&

620

Software & Accessories / Re: The tripod I want isn't available so…..I might cut one down…*gasp*

« on: October 08, 2012, 08:35:31 PM »

The Manfrotto 055XPROB can be put right down on the ground, and it's more than up to the task of holding your gear. Indeed, it works great with a gripped 5DIII plus the 180 macro with flash on rails on a ballhead -- just be prepared to weigh it down if you need to extend the setup past its tipping point.

(I actually prefer its older cousin, the 3021BPRO, for on-the-ground work. I've got both. The 055XPROB is great; the 3021BPRO is even better.)

Cheers,

b&

621

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Problem with dynamic range!!

« on: October 06, 2012, 12:10:10 PM »

I changed to spot to meter then to evaluative to shoot

That's probably your problem.

If you're doing spot metering and then making exposure adjustments (such as by putting on a filter), then you've got to be using manual exposure all the way. Otherwise, the camera is going to take a fresh reading and come up with its own best guess, which may well be a very confused guess through your filters.

Cheers,

b&

622

Software & Accessories / Re: Help suggest a Tripod for Landscape, low angle shots

« on: October 06, 2012, 10:10:40 AM »

The Manfrotto 055XPROB is a superlative tripod, especially for low-angle / macro work on the ground, and it's pretty inexpensive. It's not as light as the carbon fiber tripods, but it's not all that heavy.

Put a Really Right Stuff BH-40 on that, and you're good to go.

If weight is an object and money isn't, RSS is making some great carbon fiber tripods.

Cheers,

b&

623

Software & Accessories / Re: Head for Manfrotto 055xprob

« on: October 06, 2012, 10:06:13 AM »

I'm a really huge fan of Really Right Stuff. Give them a call, describe your gear and what you want to do with it, and they'll get you set with exactly what you need.

Cheers,

b&

624

Lenses / Re: If you could only have 2 lenses for a wedding...

« on: October 04, 2012, 07:53:31 PM »

If it's just two lenses, then a standard zoom (24-70 or 24-105, your preference) and a telephoto zoom (70-200) is going to be your best bet. That's especially true since you don't have enough experience to know what you're doing; the versatility of the zoom will probably be a blessing for you.

No matter what you do, it'd be silly to not have the Shorty McForty (or at least the Plastic Fantastic) in your pocket. It's just too good and too small a lens to not have as backup.

If you were going to do a wedding with just two primes, you'd want a 35 and an 85.

More commonly, you'd have one of the holy trinities. 35/50/85 is the classic. 24/50/100 can work well. Some might like 35/85/135.

(Of course, all these focal length suggestions assume full frame. Adjust accordingly for crop.)

However, I wouldn't at all recommend doing a wedding with only primes until after you've done enough weddings with zooms to know what you're doing.

The ideal setup for a novice wedding photographer would be the holy trinity of zooms (either 16-35 or 12-24, depending on availability, plus standard and telephoto) plus a holy trinity of primes (pick any) with two bodies. You'd keep the standard zoom on one body, the telephoto on the other body, and only swap those out with one of the other lenses when you had a specific need to do so. That'll give you enough backup equipment to laugh in the face of disaster; enough options to cover any unexpected situation you might run into; and only be moderately burdensome.

Of course, it'll set you back five figures....

Cheers,

b&

625

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II

« on: October 04, 2012, 02:02:50 PM »

Imagine a picture of a little wildflower filling one side of the frame with a field and stream in the midground and the distant mountains in the background...and all of it in sharp focus except for the grass right underneath the flower with dreamy bokeh.

That sounds like you're speaking from experience. I'd love to see it. It might put me over the fence on buying one.

I'm writing from anticipation as much as anything else. I haven't shot wildflowers since getting the version II, though I've played around with perspective and the like with an eye towards what I'll do in the spring.

Here're two sorta-samples, though. The poppies are with the version I from some years back. The other was messing around in the back yard. Neither are near MFD, mostly for compositional reasons.

I'm also attaching a rough draft of the shot I took of the annular solar eclipse this past summer. The foreground on the lower right is several feet away. The rest...is a little bit farther.

Cheers,

b&

626

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II

« on: October 04, 2012, 01:40:23 PM »

A note on shift panoramas: simply shifting the lens doesn't make for a perfect perspective stitch, though it's generally "good enough" in the real world. Ideally, you want to keep the front element of the lens fixed while you shift the body. If you're using an Arca-Swiss clamp, you can easily fudge this -- even easier if the plate and clamp is laser-engraved (as most quality gear is).

You can create a shift panorama with this lens with the same field of view as a 16mm lens. Not only will this panorama be higher resolution than a similar shot made with a 16mm lens, the image quality on all fronts will be significantly better than what you get with a 16-35 L II. Yes, the fully-shifted corners on this prime are sharper and brighter than the normal corners on the zoom.

Also, this lens has an amazingly short minimum focus distance. You can almost focus on the lens cap -- and you probably can with an extension tube. That means that this lens lets you do wide-angle high-magnifcation near-macro shots like none other. Imagine a picture of a little wildflower filling one side of the frame with a field and stream in the midground and the distant mountains in the background...and all of it in sharp focus except for the grass right underneath the flower with dreamy bokeh.

Cheers,

b&

627

Software & Accessories / Re: NEW RAW Converter - Photoninja

« on: October 03, 2012, 08:05:17 PM »

It's worth noting that this is $130; that there's a non-functional demo version (save, etc. is disabled) available for free download; and that there're both Windows and Mac versions but that the Mac version requires 10.5.8 or later.

Cheers,

b&

628

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better dynamic range than my 5DIII

« on: October 03, 2012, 06:00:09 PM »

It's almost guaranteed that that was shot with a large format camera, possibly even using 8" x 10" film. If so, then it's to your 5DIII what a PhaseOne IQ180 is to a cell phone camera.

Cheers,

b&

Except that negative format has nothing to do with DR that OP is talking about.

It does if it's black and white film compared with color digital.

b&

629

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better dynamic range than my 5DIII

« on: October 03, 2012, 05:23:29 PM »

It's almost guaranteed that that was shot with a large format camera, possibly even using 8" x 10" film. If so, then it's to your 5DIII what a PhaseOne IQ180 is to a cell phone camera.

Cheers,

b&

630

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D or 5D2

« on: October 03, 2012, 03:48:40 PM »

Since the goal is a 5DIII, I'd suggest a 5DII today. Start saving for the 5DIII, and consider the resale value of the 5DII as a down payment on said savings.

However, if you mostly shoot sports today or anything else that needs a high-performance camera more than you need the best in image quality, then get the 7D (but still plan on selling it once you've saved up enough to get the 5DIII).

Also, as EOBeav pointed out, if all you shoot is landscapes, there's really not that much difference between the 5DII and the 5DIII. Yes, the 5DIII is a better landscape camera, but probably not enough so that you'd notice in a side-by-side comparison of prints. Where the 5DIII shines is in performance (framerate, autofocus) and low light situations.

Think of the two of them having basically the same film low ISO film, but the 5DIII gets you a much better camera plus some higher ISO film. If all you want of a camera is a light-tight box with good film, the 5DII is the way to go. If you need more than just the film to get the shot, the 5DIII is the better choice.

Cheers,

b&