April 19, 2014, 06:55:50 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 - awinphoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 130
1
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 07:55:11 AM »
Happy Birthday Helen!

2
Lenses / Re: just hit the purchase button
« on: March 12, 2014, 03:49:58 PM »
Congrats!  We got a larger tax return but instead of buying the camera equipment we wanted to, we have to pay it on a new baby and insurance and copays and all that other fun stuff that comes along with it. 

3
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: February 24, 2014, 12:27:43 AM »
Eagles diving for afterbirth in Nevada

4
Software & Accessories / Re: Is Adobe CC going to plan?
« on: February 18, 2014, 11:13:10 AM »
J.R., I cant speak for the adobes branch and pricing philosophy in your neck of the woods, but I was concerned about that also when I signed up for the current photoshop plan back in november...  From what I could tell, most of the review sites talking about the current pricing structure seemed to all suggest that with adobes wording, it appears that if you sign up for their plan and stay current paying the plan, then your price appears to be locked...  However if for whatever reason you cancel your plan, let it lapse, or for whatever reason do not continue your account with adobe, prices likely would be going up in which you would not get this current rate you are seeing now.  Of course everything is subject to change, but from everything I saw, that seems to be the overall consensus. 

5
Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 06:39:51 PM »
Honestly, I think your comments are unfair and directed at the wrong "idiot" in this situation. These people obviously used their cameras on "auto" mode. So, the question is, why is the camera not clever enough to actually figure out what's going on, huh? Badly designed "auto" mode from the manufacturers, in my opinion.
The auto mode is only there to help you in the beginning if you're new to photography and started with digital so you can check the exposure settings the camera chooses, see in practice how all those numbers relate to each other and if they get smaller or bigger when it gets darker, and then you're supposed to switch to manual mode when you've got enough of a handle on how exposure works. It's supposed to help you along while you study exposure and basic photography. It's not supposed to be used indefinitely, it's like training wheels for a camera.
I think camera manufacturers spend too much research on the Auto mode as it is, but since it goes hand-in-hand with autofocus and autofocus is a very good thing it's nothing to be scoffed at. What is unreasonable is to expect the auto mode to work in a situation like the one described above. I can already see people complaining about some cars not being fully automatic with gps guiding systems and auto drive so you can sleep on the wheel in the near future when those systems become more common. Non-satellite controlled cars won't be bad cars, and cameras without Auto modes or with auto mode that isn't sentient and all-knowing aren't bad cameras. If you want your camera to take pictures in the most challenging of conditions, learn to take pictures in the most challenging of conditions. Same goes for driving. If you're straight off driving school don't go driving on slippery roads full of curves in the mountains in a lightning storm.

Now now... remember, P is for professional =)

6
Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 04:38:26 PM »
Dont get me started on the lens caps, but i had a friend who got these color enhancing filters and was frustrated that he wasn't seeing any difference with or without the filters...  He had AWB on. 

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Repair or replace 7D
« on: February 03, 2014, 10:36:00 AM »
My 7D had something just like that happen to mine... same description, however when i sent my camera in, they tied it with the board that deals with the USB board saying that board was fried and caused my shorting out... even with my CPS discount, they quoted me nearly $600...  You can call me an early adopter, but i bought that camera within the first month of it's release and it's given me many years of loyal work, but it's aging and not getting any younger.  If it was my primary body or i really intended to use it for several years to come, i would have OK'd the replacement...  BUT, alas, I said thanks but no thanks to the repair and letting it retire with dignity... 

8
Lenses / Re: 100mm L not for portraits?
« on: January 30, 2014, 11:02:45 AM »
I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft. (Due to haze and other aerial disturbance, our eyes are used to accepting things in the distance as being less distinct.)

That and stopping down to maybe f:5.6 or 8 should do the trick. You don't want to go so slow that the girls' movement spoils the shot.


good advice, plus, the ol' rule of thumb (although disputed by many), 1/3 of the focal plane in front and 2/3 of the focal plane will be in focus, depending on what aperture you use, so you have the better chance of of the back subject falling in focus than the front one jumping in focus.


Along with Neuro's answer I'd add this very helpful site link. Take a look at the tables in the "CLARIFICATION: FOCAL LENGTH AND DEPTH OF FIELD" section and don't forget that, generally, lens focal length gets shorter as you focus closer, no disputes, just physics.


And when all else fails, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.  DOF and parameters vary based on the focal length of the lens, aperture, and focal distance...  Some combinations are narrower as neuro suggests, however other combinations are quite in the favor of 1/3 in front 2/3 in back... the common characteristic is however no matter how narrow the front/back focus is, there typically is more latitude in the back focus than front focus of the acceptable focus range. 

9
Lenses / Re: 100mm L not for portraits?
« on: January 29, 2014, 05:49:21 PM »
I think the photo would have look sharper had you focused on the closer of the two girls. It appears more natural if the subject in the background, rather than the one in front, appears a bit soft. (Due to haze and other aerial disturbance, our eyes are used to accepting things in the distance as being less distinct.)

That and stopping down to maybe f:5.6 or 8 should do the trick. You don't want to go so slow that the girls' movement spoils the shot.

good advice, plus, the ol' rule of thumb (although disputed by many), 1/3 of the focal plane in front and 2/3 of the focal plane will be in focus, depending on what aperture you use, so you have the better chance of of the back subject falling in focus than the front one jumping in focus. 

10
Reviews / Re: Agree with Rey
« on: January 29, 2014, 11:38:18 AM »
I agree with everything Rey said. I chose the 1.8 precisely because all things considered it's simply a better lens than the f/1.2! The f/1.2 is a special lens for those special times when you really want the DOF of f/1.2 at 85mm, but 85/1.8 is the obvious choice for portraits and normal photography! It's faster (AF, not aperture), better, and more reliable.

Couldn't disagree more.  The 85/1.8 is a cheaper lens, and it focuses faster.  Budget permitting, the 85/1.2 is the obvious choice for portraits - portrait subjects aren't moving fast, you have f/1.2 if you want it, and of course the 85/1.2 can be stopped down to f/1.8...and gives better bokeh with both at f/1.8.  The 85L still has some axial CA, but it's nowhere near as bad as the 85/1.8.

I'm curious as to your basis for calling the 85/1.8 'more reliable' - neither lens makes Lensrentals frequently repaired lists (Sigma's 85/1.4 has made that list, though).  Do you have some data to back that up, other than meaningless anecdotal info?  (I've owned both, the 85L for longer, neither broke so does that mean the 85L is more reliable? No.) 

While the 85/1.8 is a better value, the 85L is a better lens (unless you're shooting fast action - and even then, you're rarely racking from infinity to MFD and back, so in practice the 85L actually does ok with moving subjects).
I buy my lenses for specific needs, but when I do, I prefer the "what else can I use this lens for" approach. That's why I said, "all in all" it's a better lens. Sure, the bokeh of the 1.2 is creamier, but it's also less sharp, has more CA (both lateral and longnitudal) and has a slower AF, and considering I already have a MF f/1.2 lens that's sharp wide open and that I can use for portraits, I had no reason to go with the lens that has a slower AF: here's where we get to the "what else" part. If I shoot indoor sports (for leisure), I don't want to be sporting a lens that has slower AF, just because it's more expensive. No one there is going to be impressed, and I'm not going to be impressed when I go home to look at a card full of blurry images or correctly focused empty floor. The bokeh of the 1.8 is quite enough for me, I actually like it a lot. What I really don't get in the 85/1.2 is the amount of CA. It's an L series lens, supposedly one of the better ones. Really? Canon couldn't control the CA better when making that lens? It's 85mm, not 15mm! I have a $200 lens from 1978 that can do better! Part of value is "getting what you pay for". Yes, I find the 1.8 better value, but more importantly, I don't find the value of the 1.2 anywhere near its price. Not so for many other L series lenses, they are well worth the money, but this one? Not in my eyes, no way. There are a few misses in the L series lenses, and despite popular opinion, I consider the 85/1.2 (both I and II) one. I'll hold on to my 1.8 (with it's better flare control than the 1.2) until I find something better in the 85mm region with AF. By better I don't mean "better in one regard only". However, I'm perfectly happy with my 85/1.8, which is why I'm holding on to it. I didn't get it because it was cheaper, I got it because it was the best set of compromises for what I needed from this lens. I would have gotten the f/1.2L if I thought it was better all around. I don't. It's a special lens for special uses, and for those uses, it's great, the bokeh is great, better than the 1.8. If you want a special lens, the 1.2 is your choice. If you want to use your 85 for anything else (like I do), if you need a fast focusing AF, the 1.2 is not your lens. That's why I went with the 1.8, and not with the 1.2 or the Sigma 85 1.4. You're welcome to disagree with my personal opinion and I think I've given you enough of an explanation. Costing less doesn't always mean cheaper, or worse, and costing more doesn't always mean better, and then there's the question of "better at doing what". I've learned that, and if you think otherwise, one day you'll learn it too.

Couldn't argue with any of your observations... In Digital Revs side by side comparison of both 85's from Canon, he definitely conceded the AF was faster in the 1.8 to the 1.2, wasn't even close...  He also like the shot to shot reliability of the 1.8 vs the 1.2.  He did like the build and the sexiness of the 1.2 and the focus WHEN the lens was properly focused.  I have worked with neither, but an 85mm is on my list of next purchases (as well as replacing my backup 7D).  I did however have similar results when I tested the 50mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4... When I tested the two lenses on the same cameras, the "cheaper" lens focused quicker, more reliably and a better value... The 1.2 was nice when it worked and focused good, but when it was off, it was horrid.  As a working pro, i'm not interested in the sexiness factor, i'm looking at the odds and shot to shot factor... if i have a client spontaneously give me "that look" in which that shot would make or break that photo session, I need to have confidence that the focus is going to be nailed when I fire that shutter... If i cant have that confidence, it isn't going to make my camera bag.   

11
Lenses / Re: 100mm L not for portraits?
« on: January 29, 2014, 11:27:36 AM »
2.8 you are not going to be getting both in focus, and depending on how close you are, you may find it hard to get 1 girls entire face in focus...  much too shallow.  Tilt shift lenses are great for subjects on multiple planes of focus, but impractical on the budget.  You can stop down the lens, but you will slow down your shutter speed to compensate so depending on the light in the room, that could be an issue.  You could also raise ISO so you dont lose shutter speed, but that's another ball of wax. 

12
Software & Accessories / Re: Nanuk cases vs. Pelican/Storm ones?
« on: January 29, 2014, 11:22:47 AM »
Cannot speak for Nanuk, but I have used pelican cases and storm cases... Currently my go-to case is the pelican 1510...  Great case...  size does make flight attendants slightly uneasy as it is just within the requirements, but is built like a tank.  Storm cases are great also.  From the videos you posted for Nanuk, they appear to be the sigma of camera cases...  a great 3rd party alternative...  If the warranty looks good and money is tight, get it... if you have the extra dough, get the storm/pelican and sleep easy. 

13
Agree to disagree on what?  Thats their rules on their website about qualifying candidates...  dont shoot the messenger...  They can do what they want to do, but they need to make their minds up either way and either enforce or change the rules and open it up to practically anyone with a cool 10k in disposable income...

We will agree to disagree on whether there is ambuity in their guidelines.

I don't care to shoot the messenger nor am I trying. The problem is, I never asked for the messenger to bring me a message about what it is that I'm doing. You, however have decided that it is necessary to bring all of us your message. We can all read and write which is quite evident if you have been a part of this thread.

And no, they do not NEED to make up their minds. YOU feel they need to. They do not NEED to enforce anything. Again, YOU feel they need to. They can continue to do exactly as they are now and you will either continue playing the game or you won't. Either way, it is THEIR business and they are running it how THEY see fit. If they wanted to exclude people in a more stringent fashion, they could and would do so. They haven't. As such, your sub-group of consumers appears to be the only one with a problem.

okay... since you seem to defy logic, lets look at another situation...  immigration... there are very strict and specific rules on what is and is not legal immigration and who can and cannot be a US Citizen.  Everyone can CLEARLY see that illegal immigration is a problem.  No one is denying that.  You have to have your head in the sand to not see that issue.  Now, the left wing of the aisle is saying that those who are here should still stay here even though they broke rules and immigrated regardless, and the right side of the aisle is saying they should leave or pay higher fee's and other requirements to stay... Clearly the system is broken or they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. 

Like this, they had the rules, and people with your mind set SAW that requirement of Full Time Professional Photographer or Image Maker and decided, eh, canon will NEVER know if I try to pull the wool over their eyes...  Those rules dont apply to me, and apply anyways.  You get accepted and now you feel entitled to the program even though the rules are clearly flawed and broken.  Now you are saying, that's OK, they NEED me dang it, they NEED my money...  Keep me in your system and i'll buy another camera...  All the pro's who thise program is meant for are selfish for wanting this to be exclusive.  If you really think their is nothing wrong with your thinking of the rules and how you apply to THEIR rules, then i'm not the one with the problem. 

PS., I'M not saying your not of a professional level or quality... that's not for me to decide, thats your customers... BUT, you clearly state your NOT a full time professional photographer...  Since that is the rule to join the program, I'M just saying, if they were to follow that rule, then you wouldn't qualify.  Nothing more nothing less.  I'm not attacking you or your status, i'm just saying IF you are indeed eligible to qualify in their program, and they are ok with it, then they need to change that rule so it's fair for all people, like you.

Funny that you mention that as an analogy because the interior law enforcement end of that is actually my profession. In many ways, it is comparing apples to oranges for many reasons. However, I do agree that there are some parallels.

Ultimately though, the decision to run the program however it is run falls on Canon. They do not have lobbyists, special interest groups, and various politicians pressuring them to fix or change the system so long as it is working the way they want it to. If the program no longer suffices for your needs, you are free to take your money elsewhere. In immigration related issues, all of us taxpayers are forced to buy in and do not have that same luxury.

Ok, let me throw your question right back at you... IF the system, in your opinion is fine and dont fix it... okay... what makes YOU more important than any other consumer who would want to be a part of CPS but see's the full time photographer requirement and stays away?  What makes you any more special?  Gotcha... 

So if that requirement is no longer a requirement, make it official and let everyone know, not JUST people like you who skirt the rules. 

14
awinphoto, you do realize if your wish is granted either the cost you pay for CPS will significantly increase or the benefits you receive will significantly decrease, right?  As the "users" you think Canon should boot are the ones making them the most money off of the program and in general, as they likely require little to no service compared to a full time professional.  Thus, their membership actually benefits you as they drive down the cost of your CPS membership and allow for increased benefits.

All for what, so you can flash a CPS membership as an exclusive badge of honor or something?  I don't see the downside, only economic upsides.

If you don't win your argument, more customers are serviced and satisfied.
If you win your argument, you are going to pay more and/or receive less out of the service.
Either way, you'd essentially lose.

Simple economics.

So again, what is the purpose for arguing this again?

Also, for the record, I believe Canon has set it up the way it is now to satisfy people who think they should be in this "exclusive full time professional club" by having that message on their site, but for economic/sustainability reasons actually allowing anyone who has the points to join.  Very smart business.

If i'm not mistakened, many moons ago before the system was abused and neglected, prices were the same, and ahem, we had more services, more discounts, yearly gifts with our membership, and that has taken a big hit, especially recently, because of the membership, so your statement makes NO SENSE

15
Agree to disagree on what?  Thats their rules on their website about qualifying candidates...  dont shoot the messenger...  They can do what they want to do, but they need to make their minds up either way and either enforce or change the rules and open it up to practically anyone with a cool 10k in disposable income...

We will agree to disagree on whether there is ambuity in their guidelines.

I don't care to shoot the messenger nor am I trying. The problem is, I never asked for the messenger to bring me a message about what it is that I'm doing. You, however have decided that it is necessary to bring all of us your message. We can all read and write which is quite evident if you have been a part of this thread.

And no, they do not NEED to make up their minds. YOU feel they need to. They do not NEED to enforce anything. Again, YOU feel they need to. They can continue to do exactly as they are now and you will either continue playing the game or you won't. Either way, it is THEIR business and they are running it how THEY see fit. If they wanted to exclude people in a more stringent fashion, they could and would do so. They haven't. As such, your sub-group of consumers appears to be the only one with a problem.

okay... since you seem to defy logic, lets look at another situation...  immigration... there are very strict and specific rules on what is and is not legal immigration and who can and cannot be a US Citizen.  Everyone can CLEARLY see that illegal immigration is a problem.  No one is denying that.  You have to have your head in the sand to not see that issue.  Now, the left wing of the aisle is saying that those who are here should still stay here even though they broke rules and immigrated regardless, and the right side of the aisle is saying they should leave or pay higher fee's and other requirements to stay... Clearly the system is broken or they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. 

Like this, they had the rules, and people with your mind set SAW that requirement of Full Time Professional Photographer or Image Maker and decided, eh, canon will NEVER know if I try to pull the wool over their eyes...  Those rules dont apply to me, and apply anyways.  You get accepted and now you feel entitled to the program even though the rules are clearly flawed and broken.  Now you are saying, that's OK, they NEED me dang it, they NEED my money...  Keep me in your system and i'll buy another camera...  All the pro's who thise program is meant for are selfish for wanting this to be exclusive.  If you really think their is nothing wrong with your thinking of the rules and how you apply to THEIR rules, then i'm not the one with the problem. 

PS., I'M not saying your not of a professional level or quality... that's not for me to decide, thats your customers... BUT, you clearly state your NOT a full time professional photographer...  Since that is the rule to join the program, I'M just saying, if they were to follow that rule, then you wouldn't qualify.  Nothing more nothing less.  I'm not attacking you or your status, i'm just saying IF you are indeed eligible to qualify in their program, and they are ok with it, then they need to change that rule so it's fair for all people, like you. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 130