March 03, 2015, 09:58:55 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 176
1501
I see your point.  It is clear.  I guess I just wasn't thinking that way when I read the original question.  I was thinking about working with a landscape or architecture photographer and me telling him I'm going to shoot at f/2 because that's the sharpest aperture for the lens, and then him taking my camera and lens away from me.  I can agree that at a fixed focal length, and consistent, fixed focal plane, a lens can be sharper at f/2 vs. f/8, or what have you.  I also interpreted as, ok, what aperture will make most of my scene sharpest?  I guess there are several ways to think about and measure sharpness.    I suppose if you picked a finite point in the landscape scene, let's say your focal point you chose, and shot at f/4 and then f/11, sure the whole scene would be in focus at f/11, but perhaps that point you focused on is sharper at f/4, than f/11.

Aye, the artistic needs should certainly outweigh achieving maximum sharpness. When it comes to landscapes, I'd pick f/11 on any normal lens, or I'd use a tilt/shift lens and use tilt to maximize focus to infinity at a more ideal aperture like f/4 or f/5.6. For architecture, its roughly the same deal...not much in the way of very fine detail in architecture, and you could probably stop down to your hearts content if you wanted to. For portraiture, if you need to get your full subject within DOF, f/8 is certainly going to do a better job making your entire subject sharp vs. f/4. Even if it limits the amount of fine detail that can be resolved, using a wider aperture would be antithetical to your primary goals.

Thank you!

1502
EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mk III dilemma
« on: August 27, 2012, 09:33:47 AM »
There are actually some stores in the UK that ARE selling it as a kit :)

1503
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: What size Softbox
« on: August 26, 2012, 11:20:04 PM »
If money isn't an issue I think speedlights are the hands down winner.  You can always put a couple of them together and use them as one light.  This way get the portability of the speedlight, ettl, maunal control, all from the camera, and the power of the studio lights.  But this type of set up might mean your kids aren't going to college.

True.  I use speedlights quite a bit.  However, I NEVER fire the flash directly at my subject indoors; I always bounce.  Studio lights, however, are slightly different and obviously can shine at your subject.  This is just my personal preference of doing things; the very little that I do these things :)

1504
Like this??   8) ::)

1505
EOS Bodies / Re: Any 5d vs 1dx low iso comparisons?
« on: August 26, 2012, 10:35:06 PM »
I'll do it tomorrow.

1506
As this problem is solved I have another riddle: how to avoid such phenomenons?


Warsaw by marekjoz, on Flickr

Shot @F4, 24mm, ISO 3200, 1/30s.
Hint: it's guessable by looking at the picture :)

Don't shoot through a windshield.
LOL! +1, totally a windshield.

Are we in the US in this photo??? Why can I not see a McDonald's in the distance?

1507
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 for sports/action?
« on: August 26, 2012, 09:58:23 PM »
I received my 5D3 yesterday evening (hand carry by a friend). The battery was flat so I left it the night over to charge.

Plopped the battery in this morning, played around with the menus and took a couple of shots of the rising sun.
Now I just have to re-adapt to not having a crop camera again. Guess the 70-200 will get more use now.

Damn, this looks like the beginning of a long and good relationship with this camera 8)

Thanks for all your comments, either way.

Awesome!  Have fun with it!  If you get bored go out and play with the multi-exposure and HDR features.  It can be really fun at night!  The color smoothness is really nice with this camera, at ISO's above 6400.

1508
EOS Bodies / Re: Any 5d vs 1dx low iso comparisons?
« on: August 26, 2012, 09:38:51 PM »
Like title says, any low iso comparisons? Like side by side same image with both cameras? I've seen some comparisons in videos, but its hard to really appreciate quality in a youtube vid. I'm trying to decide if I should start lusting after the 1dx, or just be happy with my 5d3. I've always liked the idea of the 1d body style and durability, but i need some more info. Does the 1dx have more DR at iso 100? Is the banding any better?

I'm trying to create an opportunity to do so.  I'm trying to find a bright situation with ISO 100, but with a shadow in the background or off to my side.  Sounds fairly easy to do I suppose.

1509
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 40D or upgrading lenses
« on: August 26, 2012, 07:27:47 PM »
7D would only be an "upgrade" for your birding.

What I would suggest instead is to upgrade your glass. Pick up a 50 1.8, there's no excuse not to have one. Replace your 150-500 with a Canon 100-400. The Canon is shockingly, amazingly, you-will-poop-your-pantsingly sharper. Ditch your 18-200 and replace it with an 18-55 IS II + 55-250. The IQ is so much better, SO SO MUCH BETTER, than with a single 18-200. So, to recap:

50mm 1.8
18-200 -> 18-55 + 55-250
150-500 -> 100-400

I think with these upgrades you'll see a massive improvement in your IQ, more so than anything else you could do other than go FF or dropping serious bank on some 2.8 zooms or white primes. The 7D would just be writing you checks your glass can't cash.

+1

1510
EOS Bodies / Re: Great nightphotography comparisons: 1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 5D2
« on: August 26, 2012, 07:24:49 PM »
Here's a high ISO sample from 1D X: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8936.0;attach=23632 (made by bdunbar79).

If you look at the OOF building roof on a good-quality monitor you'll be able to see segments of 2 slightly different colors. Interesting if it might be somehow connected to the issue mentioned there. This is ISO 25600 shot, so I won't be surprised if something similar happens at lower ISOs on lower-end cameras (due to hardware limitation, for example; just my assumption).

All I heard till now are only statements, that 1D bodies give better colors and better flexibility in what you can do with those in post. It'll be great if someone smart comes here and shares his experience on different camera bodies as I am not able to investigate this by myself  :-\

You're right about the shadows on that shot for sure.  I however, cannot devote the time unfortunately to see if it can be corrected or not, or if any of that shot can be completely corrected.  I had 75 photos to process quickly and unfortunately all we can do is view the IQ at face value.  If you do have the time, I am more than willing to give you the RAW file.  Just let me know if you'd like it.

1511
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX IQ
« on: August 26, 2012, 07:16:13 PM »
In my signature file or web icon, I made up a flickr account with all of my photos that I shot at the first 2 soccer games so far.  Feel free to PM me with any criticisms for improvement.  You gotta remember though, like Mark, most of these are in a paper or really small photo on the AU website.  The photography website is coming very soon, but still only about 10-15 photos per game will go there.  The point is, I have a free place now, sort of, to post all of the 1DX, 1D4, and 5D3 sports photos and I'm willing to share all of them with you.  I'd like to post-process a lot more, but turnaround time is fast, but, I can spend extra time because parents and fans often want electronic copies of the photos, so in that case I could spend more time post-processing. 

Ashland's main site is simply ashland.edu, then go to the athletics link.  Thanks everyone.  Looking forward to any discussion/conversations.

1512
I see your point.  It is clear.  I guess I just wasn't thinking that way when I read the original question.  I was thinking about working with a landscape or architecture photographer and me telling him I'm going to shoot at f/2 because that's the sharpest aperture for the lens, and then him taking my camera and lens away from me.  I can agree that at a fixed focal length, and consistent, fixed focal plane, a lens can be sharper at f/2 vs. f/8, or what have you.  I also interpreted as, ok, what aperture will make most of my scene sharpest?  I guess there are several ways to think about and measure sharpness.    I suppose if you picked a finite point in the landscape scene, let's say your focal point you chose, and shot at f/4 and then f/11, sure the whole scene would be in focus at f/11, but perhaps that point you focused on is sharper at f/4, than f/11.

1513
Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: August 26, 2012, 04:46:47 PM »
Hi all,

I shoot street photography usually with 5D3 and a 50 1.4 (thinking to upgrade to 1.2) and I have 2 600EX-RT with me, in case the shadows are to big.

Mostly I ask for permission to do portraits. And most of the times I do head shots or from chest up.

I was thinking also to get 1-2 more prime lenses for shorter and longer focal length.

Please write here what gear do you use, and also if you have experience with the primes 24L vs 28, 50L vs 50, 85L vs 85.
Is it wort paying $$$$ more for the L lenses? ( I know that L's are better, but is the difference day n night like at some zoom lenses?)

I do like the 24L and 85L a lot.  I don't like the 50L.  For my uses the 1.4 is better/sharper as I mainly use this focal length narower than f/4.

1514
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Speeding up 1DX foc lock... Any tips?
« on: August 26, 2012, 03:20:10 PM »
In real low-light, I agree that it doesn't lock focus any faster than the 5D3 or 1D4.  It's pretty subjectively doing so even in well-lit areas.  I wouldn't personally state that one of the 1D X's major advantages is AF lock speed, because I guess I haven't really realized that yet.  There are other major things I like.

1515
It was pointed out again, and again, and again, and again, and again..........

I just still don't understand what it even means though.  The depth of field changes for each aperture.  How can one aperture be "sharper" than another?  At f/1.4, my background isn't sharp.  What exactly are we talking about anyways?  I can understand a portrait shot, say at f/1.8, vs. f/2.8.  Is that what we mean?  The face is sharper at 2.8?  Shooting at the same focal plane?  On the other hand, at f/11, my whole scene is sharp.  It just doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense to me, unless we're talking a flat surface focal plane, at the same distance. 

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 176