October 25, 2014, 12:19:50 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 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 32
391
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. :)

392
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.

393
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.  :)

394
Canon General / Re: Improving composition - photography skills
« on: September 25, 2011, 10:29:05 AM »
Can't give specific advice without having seen any of your photos, so here are some basic rules that helped me when I was learning:

  • Get closer: don't try to "get it all in."
  • Simplify: if it's not a part of your composition, then what's it doing in your photo? ;)
  • Two-thirds rule: here's a simple explanation; you can find plenty of info online or in books.
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
  • Read books/articles that target the types of photography (landscapes, portraits, macro, etc.) you're interested in.

395
I eagerly await the 5D Mark III, however I'm more interested in a 50mm f/1.4 II that replaces the "micro" USM with "ring" and decreases the MFD.

For those wanting an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, just remember that Canon has yet to release an EF (not EF-S) lens with IS that does not reach at least 100mm.  I'm not saying I think they won't add it, just don't assume they will.   ;)

396
EOS Bodies / Re: New Processor for EOS line [CR3]
« on: September 23, 2011, 02:17:35 PM »
[CR3] ?????? :o

He must've forgotten the minus sign between the R and the 3.   ;)  Or that the CR ratings are for the site's moderators to rank the Rumors that they post, not for everyone else to use.

397
EOS Bodies / Re: Ball pitching speed / Shutter speed accuracy experiment
« on: September 22, 2011, 05:06:56 PM »
Have you tried doing a similar test using an automobile, traveling at a predetermined speed?  When you compare the results from the 2 bodies, the results should be identical (if they're both working properly), since the speed of the car is now a constant.

You could also do that to test your radar gun.  If it is off by a certain factor (the percentage difference is the same, even at different speeds), you could then factor it in when using it on the pitchers.  Or possibly (I don't know anything about radar guns) use it to calibrate the radar gun?

398
Sports / Re: New Member ;-)
« on: September 22, 2011, 01:23:30 PM »
The 24-70 f/2.8L might be a better choice for indoors, instead of the 24-105mm f/4L, as it's a stop faster, and you already have the 70-105 range covered with the 70-200mm.

An ultra-wide angle, such as the 16-35mm f/2.8L (the 17-40mm f/4L, is a cheaper, slower alternative) is another must:  group shots, interior shots of the church, etc.

The 15mm fisheye is also popular.  For instance, in posed shots of the bride (with the train laid out in front), it helps to exaggerate the train.

And don't forget a flash!   :D

Here's an article I just found on the subject:

http://www.slrlounge.com/6-must-have-lenses-for-wedding-photography

In the end, do lots of research.  I'm sure there are plenty of books and articles on the subject.

399
EOS Bodies / Re: Big 5D Mark II Price Drops in Canada & USA
« on: September 22, 2011, 09:48:41 AM »
that mean something new coming?

Not necessarily.  Most of the folks here are hoping it does, because it's been 3 years since Canon last announced a new Full Frame dSLR (3 years since 5D Mark II; 4 since the 1Ds Mark III).  There is a "Pro" announcement scheduled for today (see link, below), however we don't know which products will be announced.  Just have to wait and see.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/09/canon-pro-announcements-on-september-22-2011/

400
Lenses / Re: New L Series Lenses coming out with the 5D Mk3?
« on: September 21, 2011, 10:20:41 AM »
That's one of the advantages of investing in an EOS system. Every single EF lens ever made, for example, will work on any new Canon EOS DSLR you buy today.

Interesting that you bring that up as a positive to buying Canon when Nikon and Pentax have a backward compatibility that spans 50 years or more. While Canon's is only 20 or so.

However, I don't disagree with you. I find that 20 years is plenty.

I don't think I'd wave the canon flag when it comes to discussions of lens back-compatibility.  especially not to anyone who had to go through the FD-to-EF sea change.  I hope that canon's learnt that lesson and we won't see that happen again in our lifetimes.  a lot of the higher end glass canon produces is stuff that's meant to last a lifetime, so a 19-year life span for a lens mount is absolutely unacceptable.

At the time (mid 1980s), Canon was trying to keep up with Minolta and Nikon.  The FL mount was mechanical and needed to be replaced to outpace the competition.  Was it risky?  Yes, but if you want to be successful in business, you have to take risks.  Since they now have an electronic mount, it's highly unlikely that Canon will have to replace it anytime soon.

It's now 24 years later and Canon has sold more lenses (EF mount) than Nikon has in 50 years, so I would have to say yes, Canon has learnt their lesson.  ;)

401
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF50mm f/1.4 USM
« on: September 21, 2011, 09:29:27 AM »
Truly loving this lens!

Kev

+1  :D

All shot with the 5D Mark II.

(With extension tubes)

     


402
Canon General / Re: A Canon Hollywood Event on November 3, 2011
« on: September 15, 2011, 11:42:00 PM »
“Canon is making an historical global announcement”

Psst, moderator.  It's "historic" (something important), not "historical" (anything from the past, not necessarily important).   ;)

403
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 07:00:35 PM »
I'm awaiting the release of a 400 mp camera so I can sell off all my telephoto lenses.

400MP on a APS-C or even full frame 35mm would be so overkill it isn't even funny.

It would be so "noisy" that you'd need to wear earplugs!  ;)

404
EOS Bodies / Re: New body spotted at IAAF Daegu?
« on: September 12, 2011, 01:02:12 AM »
The highlights and shadows by the prism are playing tricks on us.  It's definitely the 5D Mark II.

405
Lenses / Re: TS-E 17 mm f.4,0L or ef 14mm 2,8 L mk II
« on: September 10, 2011, 04:33:46 PM »
If, as your post states, you're planning on shooting landscapes, then I would say neither of these lenses.

The TS-E is great for architecture, since you can use it to eliminate the "keystone" effect.  If you're not shooting buildings, then why pay more for the Tilt/Shift and manual focus?   And, as others have mentioned, you do need to use a tripod.

The 14mm is rectilinear (I have the original version), which makes it great for exaggerating/distorting perspective.  The best use for this lens is to get up close to something, not for landscapes.  The angle is so wide, things in the distance end up being very small.

Also, since both have a convex front lens, neither will take screw-on filters, which can come in very handy when shooting landscapes (especially ND and polarizers).

Therefore, IMO, the best choice for shooting landscapes would be the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.  Check out other sites (fredmiranda, flickr, etc.) to see examples by other photographers.  You could also rent (or at least try it out in the store) before buying.


Pages: 1 ... 25 26 [27] 28 29 ... 32