October 25, 2014, 11:39:10 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 - Danielle

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Lenses / Re: Help me to decide: 35 vs 50mm
« on: July 27, 2014, 03:45:16 AM »
I own a zeiss distagon 2/35, it's a gorgeous optic if you take that path. That was my choice between the 35 or 50. Used on crop or full frame, it's a good choice. Once upon a time in the film era I might have said different but my taste has changed and I assure you zeiss 2/35 is an excellent piece of kit - I'd choose it any day over the L lens.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom vs. Capture One
« on: July 23, 2014, 02:09:33 AM »
Until this year I've been using Lightroom extensively. I've now completely switched over to Capture One pro 7.

Why? Personally I find the results are just better and that bit counts. Some tools Capture One has like the colour correction tool (huge one), tethering tools and even the clarity/details sliders are a light year ahead of Adobe in my opinion. That said, I completely agree Capture One is built for commercial photographers. But that said, any photographer of any genre can obviously use it. It's a very very different program, Adobe Lightroom I'd suggest is much more user friendly to the casual's out there, costs less money too!

Without going into any real depths, those interested would pick up there's a free 30 day trial. Either program can create stunning results, it's a personal and potentially logistical choice for some. That's my view.

Lenses / Re: Tamron lenses --> annoying zoom ring
« on: July 18, 2014, 08:04:50 AM »
+1 I prefer zoom rings at the front and focus rings towards the rear too. But either way doesn't worry me. You'll get used to it, it's impact on shooting is very small.

Lenses / Re: 70-300mm F/4-5.6L IS or 70-200mm F2.8 VC?
« on: February 20, 2014, 08:35:12 PM »
That's kinda tricky to answer. Both are quite different lenses. One one hand you have a good pro 70-200, on the other you have a good compact quite long zoom also with fantastic IQ. So do you need that 100mm? The 70-300L also does an ok attempt at macro too (yes I said attempt, but it's good if you have no other choice).

Your 6D has great noise control at very high ISO, the slower 70-300L may not hinder you much. And let me assure you the IS in the canon is strong (as in very good). If you really want the f2.8 to blur background more though, the 70-300L is not so great. You can get good blur from f4 at 70mm though if your not far from your subject though. Same for f5.6 depending on distance too, never as great but acceptable.

You need to work out what is more versatile to you. The 70-300L will be more compact in a bag too if that matters.

Software & Accessories / Re: Waterproof bag/case options?
« on: February 17, 2014, 11:33:29 PM »
Have you looked at the lowepro dryzone bags? Not cheap but they're designed for that kind of stuff, I believe there's a rover style still and a full size backpack. The older model dryzone (not rover) was slightly smaller but there's very few around now as it's long discontinued. Some shops may have old stock, but that series could be worth a look.

Lenses / Re: Good Non-Sports Mix - 10-22 + 35 2.0 IS?
« on: February 17, 2014, 11:28:00 PM »
I own a 10-22, it's very useful at times. That particular filter should be fine, I have a hoya digital (something I've forgot) on my lens, I think any slim line filter should be perfectly fine. Only if stacking numerous filters, as in the case of many lenses, you may vignette.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 advice
« on: February 16, 2014, 11:31:36 PM »
I'd recommend going to try out a Tamron VC in a store. I'm very hesitant to suggest paying more for the canon just because it's canon. I've tried one, if I get a 70-200 then I'll buy one myself, I can't pull myself to spend up to $1000 more (in AU particularly),no way. The Tamron's are built well too. I own the Tamron 24-70, it's great, I'm sure the larger brother would prove to be too.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Best Flash
« on: February 13, 2014, 07:11:04 PM »

I personally would rate Metz at the top, they could be worth a look too. Very good flashes. I almost brought the top one but got a 52 af-1 instead. Touch screen, works like a charm as optical slave from the 7D and better than the canon 430. Big bit cheaper than a 600rt or the metz 58 af-1. Touch screen too. I'd look at those before other third party flashes. 

How's the touchscreen of the 52? I own the 50 and would like to add the 52 because it can be used as a master (50 is slave only)

+1 for Metz.

If you need more synch possibilities, a Phottix Mitros might be an alternative.
Again, it all boils down to how you want to use the flash:
on/off camera, radio/light-of-sight/cable synch, ttl?

Zero complaints of the touchscreen on the 52, the flash is a gem.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Best Flash
« on: February 12, 2014, 10:47:54 PM »
I personally would rate Metz at the top, they could be worth a look too. Very good flashes. I almost brought the top one but got a 52 af-1 instead. Touch screen, works like a charm as optical slave from the 7D and better than the canon 430. Big bit cheaper than a 600rt or the metz 58 af-1. Touch screen too. I'd look at those before other third party flashes. 

Food for thought I hope.

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 01, 2014, 02:09:35 PM »
I chose the Tamron after testing one in the shop and going away for a few weeks for a think. That $1000 extra for the canon wasn't happening. My tamron did however show a VC issue, otherwise the lens is damn sharp. Tamron fixed it up and I've had a good sharp reliable copy since. So I can vouch for Tamron service too. I'm happy with it, I can't compare to the canon mkii as I never tested it (points to the cost I personally think is nuts for such a lens). I use Zeiss otherwise, this lens filled the gap with an autofocus lens and I'm NOT disappointed with my choice one bit.

I do like the rendering, I find it beautiful especially for portrait oriented work. Soft almost muted colour, yes maybe lower contrast than the L's I've used but I like it anyway. Each to their own.

Lenses / Re: Canon 24mm f2.8 IS Prime or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC Zoom
« on: December 09, 2013, 12:09:23 AM »
I own the tamron 24-70 vc, all in all I can say it's extremely good value. Nice quite beautiful muted skin tones and for a zoom, very good sharpness. I own a zeiss 35mm which overlaps one focal length (obviously) but I think for anything portrait like, the tamron is damn good. I would have brought another zeiss prime, still will but not in those focal lengths. Another bonus is that the tamron is weather sealed. It's a very good value zoom. Go try one first in a store. Then have a think. I'm quite happy with it. Good build quality too. It's kinda big however.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: November 30, 2013, 07:46:14 AM »
1. 5D MK III will NOT be out in 2014

+1000, it will not be out next year! Not a chance in hell. - just being serious here.

Oh and I side with neuro above. In my opinion, and probably many others, the 5d3 is a light year ahead of the 5d2 and I don't mean the AF system. It's severely better at everything.

Lenses / Re: 16-35 2.8L II - Is it really THAT bad ?
« on: November 17, 2013, 08:59:44 PM »
Having used both, the 17-35L has some of the most horrendous flare I've seen for a while, the 16-35 mark ii is a long shot better. The 16-35 mark ii is a good lens, maybe no wow factor but a very decent choice. Very usable set of focal lengths, hence why it's popular.

I can also vouch for its durability. Having dropped it and my camera accidentally on concrete. Both are fine. Which is a good thing.

Lenses / Re: Same ole, same ole' Filters vs no filters...
« on: November 10, 2013, 08:06:43 AM »
I have always left high quality filters on my glass. Filters & energy absorbing hoods have done more than their designed purpose for me over the years. Together they have saved me plenty of money absorbing the bumps and biffs that are all part of a day's work. A filter makes me feel OK about cleaning down a lens with my shirt when under pressure. They eventually pick up a myriad of barely visible scratches and are routinely changed every few years. Better the filter than the front element!

I don't want to feel like I'm walking on eggshells every time I pull a camera out of the bag. The path to unhindered creativity is not always easy on the gear, so in my view, a pragmatic approach to the use of filter and hood is an everyday must.


+1 on that, possibly +1000.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 07, 2013, 02:17:25 AM »
#1 here too.

However, canon can't really make one. That look out dates eos cameras, it's not happening. They won't make an ae-1 digital or any fd digitals. Very unlikely.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9