August 20, 2014, 01:28:14 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 - DJL329

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 32
376
Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 18, 2011, 11:30:23 AM »
Unfortunately photography is one profession that anyone can just buy a camera and become a photographer. Does it mean they are good at it..no.....You can't buy a stethoscope or scalpel and just become a doctor, or buy new golf clubs and become tiger woods immediately or buy a fast car and become a Nascar driver....these things take time to learn and actually perfect the skills needed to perform.

A camera is a camera, most people that start new photography businesses don't even know how to use their own camera. Lots shoot and let the camera make all the decisions.

There is a difference between just taking photos of people or things that happen to be in front of you and trying to genuinely create something amazing through direction, use of light, angles etc. Photography is all about the light, for landscapes it's being there at sunrise or sunset. For people it's posing skills, making them feel comfortable and being able to see the good light and using it to your advantage to make them look their best, plus picking the right lens to compliment your subject whatever or whomever it may be. For weddings it's the same except you usually have a time restriction during your days.

If you can't see the light or create it, know how to compose, know how and take the time to learn and actually be able to use the camera to it's fullest, or know how to interact with and direct your clients and know how to use light on your subjects creatively to make a killer photo then a new 7000 dollar camera isn't going to really help you.

Well stated!

BTW, I think your quote should be:

"You can't buy a stethoscope, scalpel or golf clubs and just become a doctor..."   ;D

377
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III [CR1]
« on: October 18, 2011, 12:00:33 AM »
Okay, so now that we know what the 1D X has, what does that mean for the 5D Mark III?  Will the MP decrease?  (Is the megapixel war really over?)  Will the auto-focus and FPS improve?

378
Canon General / Re: New EOS GPS & Bluetooth/Wifi Addon Introduced
« on: October 17, 2011, 11:45:56 PM »
Something that should've been inside the 1D X in the first place.

If it was inside, then they couldn't charge extra for them!  ;)  If people don't buy them, then perhaps they'll get the idea...

379
Canon General / Re: "Holy cow. Time to throw my 7D in the bin."
« on: October 17, 2011, 09:10:34 PM »
The original 5D didn't have "live" view (that's why I didn't buy it).  Does the 5D2 have a better focusing system that the original?  Nope.  Do you want GPS or Wifi on your 1D/1Ds Series or 5D2?  Well then you need to buy an adapter.  OTOH, did the original iPods have built-in FM tuners?  No, you had to buy an add-on.  Is there a built-in Optical drive on the MacBook Air?  Nope.  Does the iPad have a built-in USB port or SD-card slot?  No, you need an adapter or, in the case of USB, you can use the included proprietary cable.  So please don't tell me that Apple devices include *every* feature or does things the best way possible for their consumers.  They, like Canon, do what's best for their bottom line.

Both companies know that by leaving out certain features, they can get us to buy add-ons and/or a newer version down the road.  And they know we'll keep coming back, because we've been doing it for years or decades.  Only until we stop buying, will they be forced to change.  Of course, if they ever built the "perfect" device, we'd never have to buy another one and then they would go out of business.  So that's why we get incremental, instead of monumental, changes.  Does that mean we have to buy each new version?  No (I certainly didn't).  We will still complain about it?  You betcha!  :D

380
Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 12, 2011, 03:24:40 PM »
Probably most people in the world can't be taught to throw a 100 mile an hour fastball or even 80. And there are plenty of minor league ball players that have dedicated their hearts and souls into getting into the majors but never do. And there are plenty that can't even make it into the farm system. It's nice to think that sheer will gives everybody the same chance. But the truth is that there's a lot of physiological variation between people. You wouldn't say that everybody in the major league is number one but they all have the ability to outperform most of the world in that sport.

Body and mind.  Apples and oranges.  Sorry, but you really can't compare the two.  You can't learn to be 6' tall -- believe me, I've tried!  ;)  In any case, physical ability doesn't necessarily translate into success, so the point is moot.

As Hillsilly correctly pointed out, not everyone has the will power/drive/desire to get up early in the AM and do what it takes to become the best.  That is what separates the best from everyone else.

381
Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 12, 2011, 01:37:48 AM »
It's not arrogance or nonsense and it's not something you can spell out in a formula. Just apply this same idea to any art form and art history. Are you saying that anybody can pick up a camera and learn to be Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier Bresson? That anybody can eventually become Beethoven or Bach? That anybody can learn to become Albert Einstein? That is the golden touch. Call it a random mutation or a gift from the gods. Whether undiscovered or developed late in life, some have it and some don't but, of course and obviously, there's also a spectrum of artists and ability in-between.

Quote from: Orangutan
Sorry, pet peeve: I have to respond to this nonsense.

  • Would you care to provide some proof of this?  Show me some well-designed scientific studies to show that people cannot "learn" or "develop" ability as artists.
  • Define "talent."  If you consider it innate, please explain how degrees of talent can be distinguished in newborns or toddlers, and how early identification of talent can be correlated to great work later in life.
  • How would you classify someone who started painting only late in life (as my great-grandmother did in her 70's)?  Would you say that was latent talent or developed skill?  How could you tell the difference?  Or would you simply manipulate your definitions to suit?

While it is certainly true that people are born with inherent differences, it is the height of arrogance to proclaim that some are gifted with the golden touch, while others are forever doomed to live the mediocre and drab life of the non-artist.

Being great at something doesn't require being a prodigy, it simply takes more time and effort.  No, not everyone can be a Beethoven composing symphonies at the age of 5, but if you have the desire and passion for something, you can learn how to be great.  As for Ansel Adams, it was his passion for nature that led him to learn photography.  It's not as if he was "great" overnight, but don't take my word for it:

"My photographs have now reached a stage when they are worthy of the world's critical examination. I have suddenly come upon a new style which I believe will place my work equal to anything of its kind."
-- Ansel Adams, 1927 (6 years after his first photographs were published).


382
Lenses / Re: Any comparisions of wide angle shots around?
« on: October 09, 2011, 12:07:39 PM »
There are threads for various lenses located here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/board,16.0.html

You can also check out the Canon Forums on fredmiranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/2) and dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses -- click on a lens and then click on the "User images" tab).  You can also do searches on photo sites, such as flickr.

383
EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting in manual
« on: October 07, 2011, 06:49:57 PM »
I was forced to shoot in manual yesterday, too much backlighting was going to result in poor exposures, and it was much easier to use manual exposure.  I could have used exposure compensation, but I found it easier to use manual.

How about spot metering mode?

384
United States / Re: What should my first prime lens be?
« on: October 04, 2011, 01:19:49 PM »
I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and use it on a 5D Mark II (Full Frame).

The advantages of the EF 50mm f/1.4 over the EF 50mm f/1.8 II:
  • Two-thirds of a stop faster, so it lets in a bit more light when shot wide open.  This helps to blur the background more, but the difference isn't huge.
  • Has an 8-bladed diagram versus 5-bladed, which makes for more pleasing* bohkeh (out of focus objects are a bit rounder).
  • Somewhat better build quality.  The f/1.4 can be a bit fragile, because of it's "micro" USM motor (try not to drop it!), but the f/1.8's body is completely plastic, including the mount.

Another option is the original EF 50mm f/1.8, which was made from 1987 through 1990 (often referred to as the "Mark I").  It has better build quality than the current version, including a metal mount, plus it has a distance scale.  You can find them for sale on ebay and other places (fredmirdanda.com, for instance).  Don't go paying $200 for one, though.  I got one for my cousin last month for $120.

Do some searches on each lens (dpreview.com, fredmiranda.com, etc.) for reviews and sample shots.  Go to a camera shop and try 'em out.  No one else can tell you which will be best for you.  Just remember:  a "better" lens (or camera) doesn't take a better picture.  It's what you do with it!  :)

As for lens compatibility, if you think you may go to "full frame" in the future, then buy "EF" mount lenses, instead of "EF-S."  Canon's EF lenses will work on any "EOS" SLR, film or digital, while EF-S lenses work only on APS-C digital SLRs, like the 60D, 7D and all the digital Rebels.  The only issue there may be if you want something "ultra-wide" (less than 24mm).  Due to the 1.6x crop factor, EF lenses don't provide as wide an angle of view on a APS-C body, as they do on a full frame body.  For example, a 20mm EF lens is equivalent to 32mm on an APS-C body (20 x 1.6 = 32).  Therefore, all the EF 50mm lenses are 80mm on the 60D!

* - Everyone's opinion is different.

385
Canon General / Re: Photography - Equipment or Skill ?
« on: October 03, 2011, 11:11:58 PM »
Quote from: Grand Moff Tarkin
This bickering is pointless!

Every photographer has a different level of expertise and will therefore have different requirements from their equipment.  For a "true artist," the camera is probably no more than a canvas and the lens, their brush and paint.

Trying to explain the relationship via percentages is like ... trying to explain why the sky is blue.

Quote from: The 6 O'Clock News
This just in!  Scientists discover why the sky is blue.  Film at 11.

D@MMIT!

Fine, here's a percentage.  It's 100% Art.   ;)

386
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 650d or 70d
« on: October 01, 2011, 03:28:08 PM »
Canon is very tight-lipped about new releases, so there's no way of knowing when the next xxxD or xxD body will come out.  However, as you pointed out, the xxxD line has consistently been on an annual update schedule, so the next one will probably come out early next year.  IMO, I doubt the releases of the pro bodies (xD) is going to affect the "consumer" ones (xxxxD and xxxD).  The "pro-sumer" line (xxD) is another story, as it may have switched to a 2 year schedule, irregardless of the xD schedule.

-------------------------------
When the original 5D came out, I decided to wait, because it didn't have a feature that I wanted (live view).  I ended up waiting 3 years for the 5D Mark II to be released.  Of course, I had a 35mm SLR that I was happy with, so I could afford to wait.  In the end, I was glad I waited; you're actual happiness may vary... ;)
-------------------------------

Have you been to a camera shop to try out the 60D or perhaps even rented it?  Maybe it does everything you need it to do?  Remember, no camera will be perfect.  There will always be a new one with some new feature down the road...

A common recommendation you'll see here is that if you need it now, buy it.  If you already have a camera and you are okay with using it for 4-6 more months, then perhaps you can afford to wait.  Maybe there's something happening in the next 3 months (vacation, someone's wedding, etc.) and you can't wait.

So, ask yourself:  do I need it now?

387
EOS Bodies / Re: A Loose Roadmap [CR1]
« on: October 01, 2011, 11:48:21 AM »
A new 50mm 1,4 (with a real USM) would be quite nice...

+1,000,000!  :D

The 50mm f/1.4 is one the older lenses in Canon's lineup and, yes, the micro USM really needs to go (had mine repaired last summer).  I'm also hoping, as with most of the updated lenses released in the past few years, that it gets a shorter MFD.  The 28mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 are of similar ages (all three are in the 1992-1995 range), but at least they have ring USM and better build quality.

The 35mm f/1.4L is the most likely candidate, as all of the other sub-telephoto "L" primes have already been replaced/updated.  The long-rumored update to the 24-70mm f/2.8L is another possibility.

As for the non-USM EF lenses (35mm f/2, 24mm f/2.8, etc.), I don't see them getting updated anytime soon.  They certainly don't qualify as “higher end short focal lengths," as the posted rumor states.

388
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 30, 2011, 11:51:45 AM »

I've long been uncertain about this picture. I can give you 10 intellectual reasons why it should work, yet I don't think it does and I'm not sure why.




IMO, the subject is too close to the center of the frame (brush up on the "Rule of Thirds").  Also, there are objects (table, windows, light fixtures) that don't belong or aren't needed.  By cropping them out and moving the subject off-center, it can become a much better composition. :)

389
Give a novice a 300D with kit lens (55-250 or 75-300 III) and ask him to use Auto mode/P mode (like P&S) and ask him to take a portrait at 100mm. Using a tripod and natural light coming from a window.

Give the same guy a 7D and a 100mm f2 or f2.8 with the camera on the same tripod and all he has to do is pull the trigger in auto mode.

Which one will be better?

Did he need to understand it to the maximum? All he did was pull the trigger.

Even for complete noobs, better gear will make a difference... some difference  :)

I whole heartedly agree with this.  It is (or at least can be) similar to golf.  I suck at golf.  I will always suck at golf.  However, buying a good set of clubs helps me to suck just a little bit less at golf.  Similarly, I may never be a great photographer, but decent equipment can help some of my pictures to suck a little less.  I doubt anyone on here woud say a photo out of kit lens is going to match the exact same photo taken with L glass.  Without changing the composition or the lighting or anything else, it should be sharper with better color, etc., all the great things that L glass can give you.

Yes, it might be sharper with better colors with an "L" lens versus a kit lens.  Unfortunately, those are not the ultimate determining factors of whether or not a photograph (or any work of art) is "good."  A good photo doesn't even have to be in focus, so why should making something that's poorly composed/exposed even sharper help?

    "I wasn't sure before, but now that it's sharper, I can clearly see that it's lousy..."  ;)

Think about it:  seventy/eighty years ago, pro photographers were shooting amazing pictures using equipment that was considered ancient decades ago.  They were able to do it not because they were using the latest digital cameras with modern auto-focus lenses, but because they understood composition and exposure.

390
Canon General / Re: Improving composition - photography skills
« on: September 26, 2011, 12:31:11 AM »
Thanks for starting the thread, a much more humane topic...
But, neuro is right (as almost always)- in this world of ubiquitous high-end or near high-end gear I saw my photos always lacking pop, sense, message, etc UNTIL I found what Good Gear can do to them: a fast prime lens for instance makes you think about composition more, the price of it makes you jump out of bed in twilight to chase the time, add manual focus and LifeView and you are doing already better than 90%, and take it to a place noone has been before (not geographically but in you surrounding space eg shooting at flowers from low to sky, like an ant) and you start searching for Yourself in the world of light...
So, follow neuro and look through fast and sharp glass - the rest is readable and seeable on the net.

Yes, a fast prime is a great tool (especially for learning exposure), however (for those who may not have "gotten" it) neuroanatomist was being sarcastic when he said "Well, we all know that the best way to improve your photos is to buy better gear."  Learning how to take good pictures is more important than the hardware you're using.  :)

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 32