April 18, 2014, 12:41:26 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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 48
16
Street & City / Re: Share your Funniest Street Photo
« on: November 11, 2013, 08:03:37 AM »
Great thread idea and great pictures! Keep them coming!

17
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:22:53 PM »
Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.

I wouldn't know about you guys with the big lenses, but I know this is true for macro - shooting near 1:1 with a ff has a so much thinner dof that a crop is at least equivalent in terms of required iso, plus the crop has got the longer working distance.

Edit: One more note: High iso on ff is *NOT* equivalent to low iso on crop because the higher iso always has less dynamic range - so the advantage not only disappears, but a disadvantage appears :-o

Well said, sir! I had not thought of that!

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:23:00 AM »
A FF camera has a larger area, BUT...
[...]
Has shallower depth of field (NOT always a good thing, ESPECIALLY with long lenses)

This is a misconception. FF does not have shallower DOF. It only has the option for less DOF when needed.

Sure it has shallower depth of field 50mm at f4 on a 7D is roughly equivalent to 30mm f2.5 on a 5D. Same framing, shallower depth of field. When shooting birds in flight, I need usually f8 on a 7D to get the bird at least mostly in focus. On full frame? That's f13. To maintain shutter speed, that means ever rising ISO's.

Yes. The Hi ISO advantage disappears.


19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 10:14:50 PM »
I know that you get a more shallow DOF and better high ISO performance with a full frame over a crop, but with good lenses on either is there really much of an IQ difference all other things being equal.  I do get great results with my T1i, but I do see some ultra-great results out there that my camera just isn't capable of.  The sensible option is to remain with my crop-inspired lenses and maybe go to a 70D or the next Rebel, but the 6D seems pretty cool. 
I agonize over this stuff because I'm the opposite of a gear-hound.  I'm a minimalist who tries to do the most with the least so it's quality over quantity.  Thank you in advance for your wisdom.

All else being equal, a photosite is a photosite. A FF camera has a larger area, BUT...

Costs more
Has shallower depth of field (NOT always a good thing, ESPECIALLY with long lenses)
Wide angle lenses are WAY more expensive (there are superb crop lenses Tokin 11-16 for example)
lenses are not as long...
Heavier
Bulkier camera
Bulkier lenses

There are a lot of people jumping on the Micro four thirds bandwagon. check out Natureandphotography.com
The author there has ditched FF for smaller, far more usable gear. A camera is useless which is too bulky to use. If you ever feel like not picking up your camera because it is too heavy, consider the true price of FF...

20
Lenses / Re: Which Normal to Wide Angle Focal Length Matches Your Vision?
« on: October 12, 2013, 04:16:24 PM »
I see longer... My walkaround lens does tend to be  a 300 2.8... Although, I do also carry a 24-105 on a 5d mkII, because my wife likes landscape images...

21
Aye, tis a soft lens!!! I replaced it with a 300 f4. Then added a 300 2.8 to that. Now am looking for a 600 f4.

It was always soft at the long end, but it does get a lot better, I believe, if you stop down.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax K-3
« on: October 11, 2013, 08:45:29 AM »
If pentax had in lens IS

Also, as I just read this in-lens system suppresses moire so no aa filter is necessary?

Pentax IS is at the sensor, not in the lens as Canon and Nikon. It is the sensor vibration mechanism that sets up a carefully controlled amount of blur to avoid moire, whereas other cameras use the micro-lens AA filter on the sensor to create a small amount of blur to the same effect.

IS at the lens is usually reckoned to be more effective, but the pentax IS (like Olympus) can work on all lenses - saving the need to buy IS equipped lenses.

If I wasnt invested in Canon gear, I'd be tempted to try my father's lovely manual lenses on a Pentax, to see how effective the IS at the sensor might be. On the other hand, if Pentax launch a full frame DSLR, I might sell up and switch.

Pentax just may have its break here...

23
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 10, 2013, 09:07:50 PM »
I get tired of hearing about cloning is bad because it destroys reality or creates a lie...

24
Canon General / Re: Havasupai Falls
« on: October 10, 2013, 08:03:19 PM »
Im hiking down to Havasupai Falls in the Grand Canyon next week. I'm trying to limit how much I carry down with me. I'm trying to figure out what lenses to bring. I have Canon 5D MkIII. My lense choices are 17-40, 24-105. I also have 70-200 and 85 and 135 Prime. Any advice would be appreciated. I think I only want to take two of them.

Any other advice about the hike would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Dave

I hike at the GC this summer. The 17-40 and the 70-200 will be all you need. You may want the 24-105 on a second body or back up?

25
Canon General / Re: How to be a bad photographer.
« on: October 10, 2013, 08:01:54 PM »
G.A.S. can be bad if you are poor. I don't mind wealthy amateurs buying lots of gear they don't need.

Well, being definitely on the rather poor side I do enjoy reading threads about "should I get 2x 5d3 or 1x 1dx?" because it puts my personal GAS back into perspective :-) Also neither the article or I said that GAS *makes* you bad, just that it often goes along with it to compensate for the lack of skill and/or experience.

I'm absolutely in favor of people buying €6000 1dx or €10000 1dxs so Canon can lower my 6D to €1500 (which is still very expensive for me)... that's why I voted against Magic Lantern hacking the 1dx into a 1dc, rich people should cross-fund r&d and profits when they buy the premium gear, I'll stay 1-2 levels below that.

Nice scheme! May it drop the price of the 7D mk II!!!!

26
Canon General / Re: You know it is going to be a bad day when...
« on: October 10, 2013, 07:53:27 PM »
When on second day of our US national park trip ranger informed us, that parks are closed and we can't even get refund for our annual pass (bought two days before that day)

Yeah, I am first time in US and all I got was one afternoon in Grand Teton and one day in Yellowstone, i felt pretty miserable indeed and we had to rescheduled the rest of our trip ...

I was figuring that would get people. The time when I was shooting the sunrise, and the thing stayed total grey heavy overcast the entire time. No birds even showed up. Then, the edge bands of Hurricane something brushed by, and I got soaked, and had to hide in a overhang...

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Pentax K-3
« on: October 09, 2013, 11:48:38 PM »
This beast....

If pentax had in lens IS, and a longer brighter lens than 560 5.6, I would be totally tempted to spring for this beast...

Except, I have an odd fixation with the 7D. I eagerly await to pony cash over for the 7D MK II. But, Canon should take serious warning about this. Pentax has some very neat looking primes. Anyone shoot pentax too? (other than old m42 stuff... which is totally gold!!! I love that takumar thing...)


28
Only thing I cared about in the thing was the lens. Was the venerable 150-600 L FD I saw? :)

29
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2013, 11:40:03 PM »
What could you add to the 70D to make it more video oriented?

Hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder?
Faster frame rates below 1080p?
Higher resolution (4k)?
Smooth digital video zoom from full-frame to 1:1?
Quad pixel for 4-way AF sensors on every pixel?
Some sort of power zoom lens system?

A ton! No line skipping for FAR less aliasing and moire and better SNR. Focus peaking, live 10x focus box, RAW video recording, non-mangled up compressed video/HDMI out video, zebras, zoomed modes including 1:1, 4k, etc. etc.

I know it's popular if you are a still shooter to laugh off video, but seriously why not expand your creativity to new world. 5D3 ML RAW video is pretty stunning! Some things work better as video, just as some work better as stills and many work equally as well.

Because I don't want to expand to video. I actually have shot video with the 7D, for pay, for a small independent video I will never name (it was that bad... but money is money... ). I don't like shooting video. I like stills. I want a camera completely optomized for stills, and I don't like paying money for video.

Video is a totally different world than stills; I can only do so much well, and working on video is somethign I would rather trim than have to deal with.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 09, 2013, 12:02:11 AM »
I, for one, am a bit tired of my bodies being "video oriented". My 5DII, 7D and 60D have not shot a second of video. I guess I'll just have to hang on to them until the pendulum swings a bit in the other direction.

I likewise am fed totally up with video. I want a stills optomized camera. I don't care about video.

However, I am sure that they are working on a new sensor for the 7D mk II. The 70D sensor will go for the XXXDs for a while and likely also the M-2....

Focus the camera on stills improvement and I will be happy. I want better AF, better build quality, and and at least two stops of improvement in ISO performance.

Video I don't care a rat for.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 48