December 22, 2014, 02:28:54 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 - Phenix205

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 04, 2014, 05:39:14 PM »
I think this thread has gone nuts

Every time in the last few days when I opened up CR's homepage I saw this thread in the headline. Never clicked in until today after finishing all reports, replying all emails, and returning all phone calls .... the darn thing was still hanging there. So I clicked in. Wow, 35 pages long. And this photo is just hilarious. It took some big balls to get these nuts on.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 to debut at Photokina
« on: September 04, 2014, 01:11:29 PM »
I'd be interested in seeing Sigma release an 85 1.4 Art.

EOS-M / Re: Recommendations for lens to supplement EF-M 22mm?
« on: September 04, 2014, 07:46:31 AM »
A 35mm equivalent lens is a good one to get you started for a very wide variety of subjects. You may want to shoot with it for a while and decide whether you want to go wider or longer. The zoom 18-55 is flexible but it is not wide enough and is a slow lens. In the event that you don't like the camera after using it for a while, then you better save your money for a DSLR and good EF lenses. I personally only use mine for 5% of the time.

Landscape / Re: Rural Landscapes
« on: September 01, 2014, 10:05:12 PM »
5D3 + 16-35 IS. Handheld.

A tripod is something you buy for a lifetime, so buy a good one!
This was exactly the same advice I was given when I was looking for my first tripod system. I wish I had thought differently. The Arca-Swiss B1 I have weights about 1.5 lbs itself and is rated for 90lbs. I thought this would last forever even with a heavy telephoto lens. 12 years past, I never purchased a big white and probably will not in the next 5 years.  One big mistake I have made was thinking too far out in the future.

Buy the gear that suits your need within the next 3 years and then upgrade as needed. Things are getting better because of better technologies and smarted design. Nothing needs to last for a lifetime. Use your money wisely and happy shooting.

For the gear you have, I'd recommend Velbon UT 43D II. It includes a small bullhead, and is only 2.5 lbs. The folded length is less than 12 inch and extended length is over 60 inch. I bought one a couple weeks ago and just love it. I've used it with 5D3 + 70-200 II for longer than 20 seconds exposure and it is fine. If you are looking a light weight travel tripod, this is an excellent candidate.

I have a heavy duty aluminum Gitzo plus Arca-Swiss B1 and a whole bunch of Arca-Swiss compatible accessories including L-plates for each body. I didn't think of weight when I bought them, but right now the only use of it is for lens testing at home or for very long exposure using my 10-stop ND filter. The weight does matter if you carry it around for a few hours hiking. And it takes too much time to set it up and fold it back down.

I especially like Velbon's leg releasing system. Super fast to extend and fold. And the whole package is only $200. I do keep a close eye on it when the ball head drops into the vertical slot.

This is just my personal experience. Tripod, bullhead and various quick release plates can be the most invested gear with the least use. I would start with a less expensive light weight one and upgrade as needed.

Software & Accessories / Re: Kirk BH-1 or RRS BH-55 Ballhead?
« on: August 28, 2014, 06:36:46 PM »
Also consider Arca-Swiss Z1. I have a B1 since 2002, still working great.

Landscape / Re: Rural Landscapes
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:23:12 PM »
EOS-M with 70-200 II. It was very hard to keep it steady handheld with this combo.

Post Processing / Re: Merging Multiple Exposures
« on: August 07, 2014, 02:40:01 AM »
My workflow:  Adjust all the images in LR5, merge to HDR pro in CS6, 32 bit mode, set white as appropriate, render that, close it (yes to saving), mess with resultant file as it appears back in LR.  One is attached.


This is what I normally do. I used to use an ND grad for scenes that included bright sky/cloud, now I only do the exposure blending in PS as described by Jim.

Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 04, 2014, 03:55:12 PM »

Now it is the 300F2.8.  I use the longer glass - this is for my wife to use if she wants a mini-great white :)

Man, you've got a great supportive wife. My wife would say "why do you need another lens"?

Landscape / Re: The Antelope Navajo Under ground cave, ARIZONA, usa.
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:17:06 PM »
The color tone seems to vary quite a bit in the photos I've seen for this place. I've never been there so I don't know what it looks like in real world. Is it because of the time when the photos were taken or due to post processing techniques?

Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: July 31, 2014, 01:48:01 PM »
100 2.8L Macro and EOS-M (and associated lenses and accessories)

I only use the 100 for macro although I bought it for portrait. It is just not as good as the 70-200 II for portrait.

I never liked the M. The combination of M and 100 for macro is pretty good. I just used it yesterday to shoot a footage when a beekeeper came over to remove a huge honeybee hive.

Lenses / Canon Wide-Angle Zoom Comparison by Roger Cicala
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:56:38 PM »
I've been waiting for Roger's testing for a few weeks. It's finally here.

Quote: "I set a high bar for new Canon lenses. I expect them to be excellent and generally their recent releases have been. Since this was a wide-angle zoom, though, my expectations were lowered a bit. Canon has always struggled with wide-angle zooms. The 17-40 is a good, not great lens. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is better than the Mk I replaced, but I’d consider it, at best, adequate considering its price.

The 16-35 f/4 IS changes that. It’s a superb optic — as good as anything else available. Of course, a lot of people want an f/2.8 zoom. But for many, like me, f/4 with IS is just fine for wide-angle shooting."

Lenses / Re: Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?
« on: July 27, 2014, 09:59:20 AM »
I'd sell the 35 and 135 and keep the 15. For wide angle landscape, I don't see the need of AF. Plus it is wider than the 16-35 IS.

I don't see much use of 35 1.4 under manual focus mode unless you are using it for astrophotography. If you use 135 mostly for tripod portraits, AF may not matter but I don't see how practical it is while hand holding shooting people who may move (such as kids).

Video is totally different story. I'd keep them all for video.

Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 26, 2014, 08:16:57 AM »
Kai at digitalrev published his hands-on review video. Lack of beautiful bokeh at 1.4 seems to be a weak point of this lens, based on Kai. I was wondering what other users think of it.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10