July 30, 2014, 05:40:34 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47
16
Don't look for us to stop you!

I'm wanting a 400/2.8 but that's some serious scratch for a hobby.

True, but the lenses rarely drop their value...unless you drop one on concrete. So they are an investment, sometimes they go up in value. There are very few things we can buy which hld their value. Some cars, if you don't use them. Some guitars, a few Hi Fi components, some specific wine, some pieces of art...but Canon's great whites hold their resell value so well city traders have been known to invest in them too.

17
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:30:51 PM »


Canon 5DIII and a 70-200 f2.8 LIS II with a 2x TC mkII

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: July 09, 2014, 06:21:06 PM »
Which is why I prefer fast primes over f4 or f2.8 zooms. I gain a far lower iso value or a higher shutter speed.

Well, but lower than "100" is "screw on nd filter" and the iq of 1600 on the 6d is so good I seldom feel the necessity for a really fast prime. You can post-process push a bad exposure, but cropping from 20mp (too wide prime) is tricky, and adding image data in post (too long prime) is impossible.

And I already raved about how damn difficult it is to af with the 6d in enough threads, and even with a better af system the dof of f4 on longer focal lengths is already very thin @100% crop. Not that I'd dismiss fast primes as you get thin dof @small export/print sizes, but I guess I'm the "zoom flexibility" type of photog.

Yep, I got by with my 5D and then 5DII for many years using fast primes. It was hard, but I used the single centre point and recompose technique and One shot setting. But I fitted a Eg-s fine focus screen so I could see if my 85 f1.2 IIL was in focus. I was a tricky technique but once mastered, I could shoot weddings all day at f1.2 as close to MFD as i liked and get sharp in focus image.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:39:05 AM »
I have a 6D, which I've been using in low light situations. In recent months I've found myself frequently exploring the limits I can go and still come up with what I consider successful photos. I've very happy with the results I've been getting up to ISO6400 or so.

After downsizing 22mp 5d3 -> 20mp 6d and adjusting for slight sharpness differences it's a wash, this is the same sensor generation. However the 6d has significantly less banding, i.e. higher dynamic range which *does* make a difference if your shots require it - it even tops 1dx on low iso. You can boost the dr on 6d even higher with Magic Lantern, nearly up to 15ev.

Having said that, no nice noise performance makes up for dodgy metering or getting out of focus shots with the ancient 6d af unless you're mf'ing (like with ML's focus peaking).

Even what I've shot at 12800 pleasantly surprises me.

ISO 12800 is just a digital push (on 6d, actually even 6400 is) - no need to use it unless you shoot jpeg or do video, otherwise underexpose a lower iso and keep the higher dynamic range of the lower setting.

The main positive about the 6D is the centre point is rated to -3ev whereas the 5DMKIII is -2EV.

Well, yes, it's "nice to have" esp. with slower lenses like f4+. *But* af'ing @-3lv is so slow that you could also just switch to live view and contrast af or mf with a boosted lv (ML again) which works far below -3lv.

Which is why I prefer fast primes over f4 or f2.8 zooms. I gain a far lower iso value or a higher shutter speed.
If I gain 2 stops advantage, I can double my shutter speed and halve my iso value. If I dump my entire advantage into the iso value, it will fall by a factor of 4. That's a big difference and far more than any camera can provide regardless of how good the iso handling or on chip noise reduction is.

20
Dear "J,"

I supposed I should not be surprised that you chose to announce the end of our relationship in such a public and cowardly way. You were never one for subtlety and discretion.

And, so typical of you to blame all the failures on me. As though you contributed nothing to the breakup. But, then, I guess since you contributed so little to the relationship, I should not be surprised.

The truth is, I've known for a long time this wasn't working. If I could have ended things myself, I would have. But as you know, for me this was an arranged marriage. You picked me and I had no say in the matter. For the honor of my family (and honor is something my culture values very highly) I could not leave you.

At first, your clumsy attempts to satisfy me were amusing and not without a certain boyish charm. But, honestly, it quickly became apparent that you were never going to improve. In fact, I soon realized that you actually thought you were good. I know this is hurtful to say, but since you are the one that began this public conversation, I think honesty is justified.

Never once were you able to bring me to my full potential. No, let me be more candid, never, ever did I come remotely close to achieving the heights I was intended for. You would fiddle with my dials and move my joystick, but it was so mechanical and uninspired that I could hardly bear it. Honestly, most of the time I wished you would just stick to the green box and let me do it myself.

And the trips...well, what can I say? Sure, I enjoyed them, but it was as though you thought that simply going someplace new would solve all our problems. All it did was make me long for the relationships that I saw others enjoying. How I wished that could have been us. But you...all you ever did was worry about whether someone else had a newer, prettier model hanging on his shoulder. 

You were so obsessed with showing me off that you didn't see how many of your fellow travelers lovingly treated their lowly Rebels with respect and appreciation and how they were rewarded in ways that you and I could never achieve together.

Yes, I saw the world. But, really, I would have traded it in a instant for a quiet little town in the Midwest, with someone who understood me and what I was meant to do.

Now, dear D810, believe me, I wish you no ill. In fact, I actually feel sorry for you. I know people say you are nothing more than an overinflated mass of silicon, but I know better. We are both from established families and, like me, you have not had any say in this relationship.

I would like to wish you a long and happy relationship, but I suspect that won't be the case. In the end, you will be blamed for everything. Just remember this. It is not you...it's him.

Wow...I'm coming to you for my next letter writing needs!

21
I think he forgot that the 5D3 has held it's value better than the d800.

Don't feed the tolls....nothing here to see...lets move on to a real thread!

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:12:27 AM »
From my observations, the 6D is about 1/3rd of a stop better in it's iso handling. The 1DX is about a 1/3rd of a stop better than the 6D or 2/3rds of a stop better than the 5DIII. Not killer but noticable on a like for like basis. But all three camera's tend to meter scenes slightly differently, so the results will be obviscated by the different metering and rendering values. But in an identially lit scene and all three cams on a tripod, set to M and manually dialled in settings, my above results will be apparent.

23
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:08:52 AM »
I was hoping for some primes to compete with Canon's 400/500/600mm primes.  A 300-600 would be interesting, but it likely won't be f/4 throughout; probably something like the Tamron instead as the weight would get too significant.  Ah well; I can still hope for something in the future.

I'm sure they are coming, although I doubt they will deisng a 400mm f2.8.
Their 500mm f4.5 is a well regarded lens and one which seriously do with an update. An IS unit, opening up to f4 and the ability to take teleconverters without Af issues and weather sealed should do the trick.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:05:37 AM »
Multilayer sensor technology alone should have two stops of IQ advantage over bayer matrix, plus additional sharpness without AA.

I don't understand this statement....are you saying that the extra two stops of exposure latitude will improve per pixel sharpness? I'm not sure I quite understand?

25
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:43:10 AM »
There are very few lens review sites I have much regards to. Photozone.de is one of the more questionable sites, their old ef 300mm f2.8 LIS review comes to mind. That site reconed it was a really low performing lens....yeah right! DXO labs site is another example of this, their lens and camera tests seem to be fanciful compared to real world use. A generic lab test of a lens is not really applicable for all lenses, foe example if i put a 85IIL on a camera, i am looking for it's abilities to shoot great portraits...not measure bricks on a wall. I want nice looking natural optical vignetting, soft corners, beautiful out of focus rendering, popping colours and contrast....whihc i get from this lens at f1.2. it saves me a lot of post production work! If i pop a 35L on my camera, I couldn't give a hoot what dxo labs says about this lens, i want to know how good it is at small group shots or full body or 1/2 body portraits. If I pop a 16-35IIL on my camera for a landscape, i couldn't care a stuff how it performs wide open....I want it to have great sun stars, Ultra low flare and really perform well from f8-f16. But most review sites slate this lens and yet for landscapes it's fantastic. 
Which brings me to my point, who actually has regular need for 36mp? Who has the lenses and the required burdon / technique to feed the 36mp resolution?
When i moved to 21mp from 12mp, I found that I needed a complete new array of memory cards (4 sets for a whole day's wedding shooting), I needed an upgrade to my PC in both hard disk, backup, processor and memory components. Even then I found lightroom slowed painfully. But the images did have extra detail, but it wasn't equal to twice the improvement in real world use. 30% at best and even then it was only noticable with tripodded photographs. For hand held shots there was even less of an inprovement. So I have questioned the need for 36mp. For my needs it's pretty irrelevant and is probably counter-productive for my workflow.
The 5DIII has given me every thing I could have wanted in a camera. Pro build, 6fps, a stunning AF system which works in servo mode with all 61 points active. It tracks, it has low light capability, it meters well...it's full frame...what more could I need in my genre of photography?  I think the 5DIII can only be inproved in DR/dark shadow noise...and that's about it.

26
Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:24:19 AM »
Jeff often gets a lot of critism for is envious relationship with Canon as one of their Ambassadors of Light. But he was heavily influential in the 5DIII's specification, in fact I'd go as far to say that camera was pretty much his personal wish list...which is great for every one.
Jeff has a lot of influence over photographers and many are envious of his opinion and often make snide remarks about him being a shill to shift more lenses. But the reality is he buys all his own kit and makes reviews based on his personal observation.
Most photographic artists need to cycle through their kit regularly to keep fresh and apply old principles in a new context. Jeff looks like he's concetrating more on composition and placement than isolation by depth of field at the moment. So f2.8 zoom lenses make a lot more sense in that context than a large bag of big heavy fast primes....lets face it, a 24-70 is a LOT lighter than a 24L/35L/50L/85IIL. With bright sunny weddings, I like to run witha  24-70L on one cam and a 135L on the other...a great combo. But I prefer my photos using a 35L and 85L combo....but that's just me.   
I didn't mean for my comment to come off as disparaging in any way to Jeff.  I was just trying to say that as a paid Canon photographer, he might make some comments that are somewhat influenced by Canon.  In this case, he might actually be using zooms most of the time, but he also might just be using them more.  His point about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs 135 f/2 are valid for example, but looking at his recent work, it still looks like he uses his primes a fair bit.  I wasn't trying to say that he lies or has sold out to Canon or something, because that's obviously not the case.  He seems like a respectable gentlemen and as you say, I'm sure his input to Canon has benefited us all.

The one thing that impresses me most about him is that while he almost never uses flash, he has the ability not only to be in the right place/right time and find a great composition, but also find great light.  It's quite a talent and one that has clearly come from his many years of experience and hard work.

As for the prime/zoom argument, it's one I go back & forth on myself.  I'm fortunate enough to have a great set of primes and zooms, so I'm able to pick the best tools for the job, often using a combination of the two.

No probs bud, he's a photographic hero of mine, like Guy Edwardes...top of their game and the very best in their genre.
I think in this case, Jeff is using the lightest kit he can get away with on the day and i really don't blame him for that. Most wedding photographers keep any eye on the weather reports and know their venues well, so it's quite easy to make the "prime vs f2.8 zoom" choice days before the gig. I regularly have a big kit bag in the back of my car and select what I need throughout the day, I'm sure Jeff does too. I've been to several of his wrokshops over the years and the last time I looked over his kit bag, he wisely packs a pair of flashes....which look like they have never been used. A consumate professional...a backup for nightmare lighting situations...which most likely will never occur, but if it did, he'd still get the shots!
My perefered load out is a 16-35IIL, 35L and 85IIL. But on sunny days it's way too bright to shoot wide open, so for me a 24-70L and 135L are a great sunny day combo. I have a 70-200 f28 LIS II in my car, but it only occasionally comes out during wedding receptions and weddings ceremonies where I'm banished to the back row of the church. I find it amusing at weddings were people like to label me a prime only photographer or a zoomset...or a flasher...when in reality it's about the photos one produces. The kit is a tool, but the goal is the photograph. When I handle a 35L or swap over to a 85IIL, I have a specific shot in mind. I like to mix up my lens choice on a "needs basis" and at the wide end, I have only the choice of a 16-35IIL or a TS-e 17L and that lens is very rare for me to get out at a wedding...and when I have it was for a specific shot. The same is true for the 8-15mm fisheye, a little use is quite enough of that particular lens!

27
Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings
« on: July 08, 2014, 07:31:57 AM »
Oh I am not sad, the 16-35 MkI fitted in my underwater housing whereas the MkII didn't, that was the main reason I kept it. Housing has long gone but the lens lives on. Having the 17TS-E for the times I need sharp corners, and so much more, make swapping it out for anything a low priority.

Wedding prime shooters, the real artists, are a very small breed, Jeff Ascough is my personal favourite and he truthfully is an artist, though it is surprising how much he relies on post to get his exposure and contrast where he wants it. http://www.jeffascough.com/wedding-photographs/

As for film, I delayed jumping to digital in the early 2000's when Velvia went from 50iso to 100iso, wow a whole stop more, for free!

I too have admired his work for a long time, too, and when I used to do more event work, I'd check out his site/blog frequently for inspiration.  I don't know if you've read his CPN posts of recent times, but he says that he has switched to f/2.8 zooms and high ISO for most of his work, at least that's what he's said as a paid Canon shooter.  Given the amount of post and his use of grain, I guess it's not much of an issue.

Velvia was great stuff - it was like perfect post processing done in camera :).  I've tried all of the simulations, even DxO Filmpack's very good one, but there's a richness that's missing from them, just like the Provia profiles.  The Tri-X and Portra simulations from DxO are amazing, though, and I really like using them when appropriate.


Jeff often gets a lot of critism for is envious relationship with Canon as one of their Ambassadors of Light. But he was heavily influential in the 5DIII's specification, in fact I'd go as far to say that camera was pretty much his personal wish list...which is great for every one.
Jeff has a lot of influence over photographers and many are envious of his opinion and often make snide remarks about him being a shill to shift more lenses. But the reality is he buys all his own kit and makes reviews based on his personal observation.
Most photographic artists need to cycle through their kit regularly to keep fresh and apply old principles in a new context. Jeff looks like he's concetrating more on composition and placement than isolation by depth of field at the moment. So f2.8 zoom lenses make a lot more sense in that context than a large bag of big heavy fast primes....lets face it, a 24-70 is a LOT lighter than a 24L/35L/50L/85IIL. With bright sunny weddings, I like to run witha  24-70L on one cam and a 135L on the other...a great combo. But I prefer my photos using a 35L and 85L combo....but that's just me.   

28
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: July 08, 2014, 06:58:06 AM »
In the end, I think we all agree to disagreements. We choose the lens that suits our shooting needs the most. But objectively, the new 16-35 4L IS is a sharper lens, has IS, and sells for lower price.

Objectively it also is unable to do f/2.8 at all, which is the whole point and quite significant, as well as the fact that at f/11 the sharpness is similar to the 16-35 f/2.8L II - the importance/usefulness of this should not be ignored when advising on which lens to pick :)

As you say it depends what you shoot and how. I bet that a LOT more people could make use of even just nearing 1 stop IS and much better CA control (especially longitudinal) and overall somewhat sharper, especially on the wider end at this UWA to WA range than need f/2.8 there. Of course some like yourself prefer the f/2.8 over all of that, but I bet for an UWA zoom, rather more make out better with the new lens. Plus the new lens is like roughly $500 or so less too.

I don't disagree with any of what you are saying.  Most people probably will benefit from the improvements of the new 16-35 f/4 IS, as this lens focal length probably racks up the most sales for landscape or non-demanding "general use."  The increased corner sharpness and lower price will help these two groups respectively.

On the other hand, most professionals who sell their services for cash in places they have little control of the ambience will likely benefit more from (or outright require) f/2.8.  But, that group is probably a smaller percentage of the lens-buying population. If someone is paying you to do something, you don't want to be in a situation where the shot desired is not doable because your lens is not wide enough or not fast enough.  Also, those who are more into shooting people indoors, even casually, will benefit more from f/2.8; a shot with obvious motion blur, high ISO noise levels, or compromised framing due to lack of a wide enough angle - all are much worse than decreased corner sharpness.  Recall, f/2.8 lets in twice as much light; in many cases where you don't have the option to drop shutter speed due to motion, that extra light will actually add to increased resolution as you can use lower ISO and in turn lower (or no) resolution-reducing DNR.

Which all goes back to - the new 16-35 f/4 IS is awesome and a much needed upgrade for the 17-40 f/4, but it is most definitely not a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8 II as some are proclaiming.

You are quite right, it's a replacement fro the 17-40 f4 L not the 16-35 f2.8 II L. Which leads many of us to think that the rumoured f2.8 replacement will cover a very different range. A 12-24mm f2.8 for example would be fun. But ultimatly, if one needs the extra stop of light and the 1 stop slower shutter speed offered by the new f4 IS version can't be made to work with the IS unit, then the f2.8 is still the best option in that situation....which I why I haven't swapped out mine. 
While a 12-24mm f2.8 would be fun, for group shots, I would prefer the 16-35mm range.
I use my 16-35 f2.8 II L along side a 35L and 85IIL on three cams for my wedding work. If I chose the new f4 version, there is a huge difference in light gathering between my ultra wide and my primes. it's a bit too much for my needs, but this new f4 lens is a fantastic piece of kit and I'm sure Canon will sell bucket loads. For 80% of the full frame photographic community, this is the right lens for them.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 08, 2014, 06:48:23 AM »

I think you really want a 1D-x....but for 7D money, good luck with that!
You think so? If the 7Dii doesn't give lower noise at up to 1600 they may as well not bother.

With that complete list, yes it's a 1D-x requirement. But if you take a single spec in isolation...no it's not too much to ask. But I really can't see a 7DII having a faster frame rate than 8pfs....happt to be proved wrong though.

30
Software & Accessories / Re: Neutral Density Filters
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:55:45 AM »
So, I've recently invested in a 16-35 II. I'm looking to use an ND filter for long exposures, but I'm having trouble settling on one.

I've looked into the lee system, which is obviously awesome, but comes at a price -the big stopper is £99, the holders etc will run to about £120. Not a cheap option! The other Idea was a Hoya Vario ND in 82mm and then step down rings- even more expensive with the filter alone running to about £200.

I've just seen a NiSi filter on amazon. 10 stop coated filter in 82mm for £49.98.
I'm just wondering if this is a good buy- if anyone has experience with these filters or even this brand I'd be really grateful.
Thanks,
Elliot

I've done a lot of filters in my time and none are truely neutral. Lee's big stopper has a green cast, Hoya's filters have a pink cast and B+W has a copper cast. I choose Heliopan becuase they have a colour cast which looks nicer (a warm brown cast) which helps sunrise / sunset shots by warming them up a bit. But none are truely neutral. Lee resin ND grads have colour casts too, usually a megenta cast which is most noticable on their .9 (3 stop). With most ND's, the higher the density, the higher the colour cast. I tend to prefer a 3 stop and a 6 stop, which I stack a polariser too if I need a greater density. I try to avoid the 9-10 stop filters as then have very strong castes....which is nice for BnW and art toned images though, but not so good for colour!

The vario ND's are a nice idea but they don't work too well on anything less than 24mm.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 47