December 21, 2014, 06:02:18 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 174
1486
Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:17:58 PM »
To actually contribute to this thread, I view street photography as walking down the street, downtown area, and taking photos of whatever.  For this I typically use a 50 prime, most often my 50 f/1.4.  If I went to shoot something far away and get a compressed look, I take my 135L.  That's as long as I'll go for this type of photography simply for convenience.  I take the grip OFF my 5D3 and use that, because I hate walking around public with 1D bodies when I'm not really shooting anything that would require a 1D body.  I want to find an HDR image I did downtown back in June at night, so I will look for it.

1487
Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: August 26, 2012, 11:59:50 AM »
For street photography I use a Canon S5 IS from waist level. Nobody seems to notice it or care about it. If I feel more comfortable in the area I'm shooting, then  I use my Rebel XTi with the Jenna Zeiss 35mm or the 50mm Planar.
I don't want to use anything bigger because people gets defensive, sometimes aggressive and not cooperating at all :D

So you don't carry a 1DX and 1D4, strapped across each shoulder, with a 400mm f/2.8L IS lens on each?  ;D

1488
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 11:25:49 AM »
Well I'm gonig through some shots from tonight's Ashland U. vs. Wooster soccer match, and this is pretty cool.  I was shooting with a 300 f/2.8L I IS lens .

This is good! How was AF consistency compared to previously used 1-Series bodies eg 1D4 & 1D3?

-PW

I took 260 photos exactly and didn't miss one due to AF.  They were all sharp.  That's quite a substantial improvement over my 1D Mark IV, which at night I had say, about a 70-75% hit rate.  I'll still take it with me for extra reach, but I can't see getting any better than the 1DX for sports. 

1489
Who cares what the sharpest aperture is, really?  Do you change aperture because of sharpness?  Sharpness of what?  I use aperture to control my DOF or flash exposure.  If my lens is sharpest at f/4, I don't care because how does that have any real useful impact on your photography? 

Second reason I don't care is because just because my lens is sharpest at f/4, doesn't mean it's NOT sharp at other apertures.  So again, I don't care.

Sure I do. I shoot a lot of very high detail subjects (birds...loads and loads of fine detail). For me, its imperative to get as much light down the lens as possible while maximizing sharpness, and flash is rarely an option (more so because it takes too long to recharge, and I often have to fire off a string shots at 8fps to get a single keeper). Less light means more noise, more noise means more NR, more NR means less, often considerably less, fine detail. If I was using a sensor with larger pixels, the sharpness issue would be largely moot, since the pixel pitch would intrinsically limit maximum resolution anyway. I use a Canon 7D, however, which is about 1.6 times as dense as the 1D X or 1.45 times as dense as the 5D III. Those two max out at 72 and 80 lp/mm, respectively and can't resolve any more detail than you get at an f/8 aperture anyway. The 7D has a theoretical peak resolution of 116 lp/mm, allowing it to resolve most of the detail you can get from f/5.6. As such, I try to shoot around f/5.6 or slightly wider (which helps improve image crispness...or microcontrast...if the lens can resolve more detail than the sensor). I've found that f/4 is a great aperture for small passerines (song/perching birds)...gets me just enough DOF to capture an entire bird, maximizes light down the lens, nicely blurs out backgrounds...in other words, it maximizes the quality of my work. There IS an impact.

If f/8 offers you the same benefit, great! More power to you. But there isn't any need to go around dissing those of us who prefer to KNOW the technological capabilities of our gear so we can maximize the potential of our own work. Not everyone requires the use of f/8 to attain a deeper DOF.

3rd gear in a Porsche will get you there, but to maximize your vehicle's potential, you have to get to the higher gears.

Sharpness is the ONLY route of maximizing potential?  Secondly, nobody was dissing anyone.  That's great if you know where your lens is sharpest for what you do and you can use that information to get photos you want, sure.  Personally and for my work, it doesn't matter.  I'm not going for the absolute sharpest shots I can possibly take, I'm going for the shots with the correct amount of lighting and correct amount of DOF.  Sharpness is not a "higher gear."  If I'm shooting portrait shots and want a great amount of bokeh, and my lens is sharpest at f/5.6, and I shoot there because it's sharpest there, I will be fired very quickly.  That is why I personally don't need to know where it is sharpest.  I just don't.

1490
jrista,

It's probably a technique issue.  I'm terrible, I mean terrible, at thin DOF's!  I come from a sports background and learning to shoot at f/1.2-f/2 has been difficult for me, but I'm trying :)

1491
1D Mark IV works with everything at f/8 as far as I know.

1492
Lenses / Re: Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses
« on: August 26, 2012, 03:08:12 AM »
50 f/1.2L is sharper from f/1.2 to about f/2.0.  From f/2.8 and beyond, the 50 f/1.4 lens is sharper.  By f/8 it's noticeably sharper in your photos.  The 50 f/1.4 focuses faster.  I own both and am selling the 50L and keeping the 1.4.  Then again, I'm getting a 24-70L II as well.

The 50L wider than 2.8 is amazing, but if you're up close to your subject DOF becomes a technique issue.  It is better constructed as well.  Overall, it's the most disappointing L lens I own.  It just doesn't do better than even the nifty fifty narrower than f/4 or so.

The only reason you'd buy it is if you need to shoot a lot of f/1.2 to f/2.  I don't anymore, so I'm selling.  If you shoot at f/1.8 let's say, it is truly amazing and the bokeh approaches that of the 85 f/1.2L II.

1493
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:43:07 AM »
We could always dream of a 600-1200mm f/4.5-5.6L zoom lens, that's push-pull type  8).

1494
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:41:01 AM »
Happened Friday night, and I wasn't too concerned, since I somehow only noticed the scratches, not the crack at the time.  My heart dropped when I saw it in the morning  :'(

At least it appears the crack is in a separate piece from the main chassis, so hopefully it's fixable without resorting to black RTV.

Oh, the 24-70 didn't fair too well either... filter ring hit the cement (no filter).  No glass shattered, but now it's a 30-70mm that won't focus to infinity.

So you've invented a new Canon lens, that can't be used for landscape photography?  :)

Sorry, couldn't pass that up.

1495
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe After Effects
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:37:38 AM »
Awesome!  Thanks for sharing the link!

1496
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Your Ultimate Gear (wish)list
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:26:46 AM »
Own Canon Inc.. 8)

Access to any and all Canon cameras and lenses at any time, with people doing all of my post-processing :) :)

1497
Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8 took a bad fall... Any advice?
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:16:19 AM »
Oh they'll repair it.  You'll have to decide if it's worth the cost or not.  If it's not, then yeah, time from the Mark II :) :)  Could be a blessing in disguise.

1498
Who cares what the sharpest aperture is, really?  Do you change aperture because of sharpness?  Sharpness of what?  I use aperture to control my DOF or flash exposure.  If my lens is sharpest at f/4, I don't care because how does that have any real useful impact on your photography? 

Second reason I don't care is because just because my lens is sharpest at f/4, doesn't mean it's NOT sharp at other apertures.  So again, I don't care. 

1499
I bought two lenses and I prefer to take most of my shots near or on the mythical sweetspot in regards to aperture.  With the presumption of sufficient light, for my 50mm f/1.4 I try to stay between 2.8 and 4.0.  For my 24-105mm f/4 I make an effort to approach f/8, but that isn't always an option.

So that raises the aforementioned question.  What aperture range is the 100mm and the 70-200 the sharpest?  And don't hesitate to tell me that I was wrong about the 50 and 24-105... if indeed I'm way off.

Thanks a bunch.

Pretty much all of my lenses are sharpest around f/8.  That doesn't mean that lenses aren't sharp at other apertures.  That's just where they are sharpest.

you must have a bunch of very weird copies then

Cool.

1500
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 12:45:21 AM »
I'll post one more.  This is a 100% crop from across the field, at ISO 5000.  The 'grainy-ness" isn't noise likely, it's probably b/c I'm running out of resolution.  In this case, the 5D 3 has performed better.

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 174