October 25, 2014, 03:18:03 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 - mrzero

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I do think this is a cool deal, and I hope CR and Adorama collaborate on more in the future.  I won't be using this one since I recently purchased the 24-70/4 IS, but I like the idea.  The price is good, the seller is good, and I'm sure the refurb lenses are great. 

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Next purchase?
« on: September 30, 2014, 05:02:57 PM »
TV stations can shoot from anywhere, since they basically own the games, and they choose to put their camera just above the last seat on the main floor, where I was for this shoot. But, here is what my sideline, or near sideline shots look like.  http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-9192014/i-vLpGDMK
For these I did not use the 2x tele III

The only TV cameras up that high are used as part of a multi-camera setup that includes numerous cameras on the field level as well.  The still photographers and other video stringers are all on the field level, too.  TV and newspaper photogs shooting high school and college football games all universally shoot from the sideline, I know because I did it for years. 

First thing, get on the ground.  Even the first row of the stands is too high.  Second, get as close to the sideline as you can.  You need to eliminate all the sidelined players, coaches, cheerleaders, etc. from your action shots.  Trust Robert Capa's advice, "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough."  Third, you need to be in front of the line of scrimmage, so that the play is coming AT you.  All of your sideline action shots, you are behind the line of scrimmage, meaning that all we can see is backs.  And move ahead when the line of scrimmage moves.

Everything that everybody else has posted in this thread is correct, constructive criticism.  Try these tips and you'll save yourself a lot of money!

3
Lighting / Re: First Flash
« on: September 30, 2014, 09:47:42 AM »
Just get the 430EXII and start learning.  The most important thing you need is a tilt-swivel head so you can learn how to bounce the flash.  It is small enough to pack easily but you have to have the bounce head. 

The third-party stuff is OK if you know what you're doing, but when you are just learning, you need to be able to trust that the gear isn't sabotaging you. 

4
Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 05:24:19 PM »
This conversation brings up a question I have had for a while. Why not have a square or a cross shaped sensor?

Let me explain. Say you are camping near a lake. First you take a picture of the lake during a sunrise. You set the camera to landscape at 16:9, or whatever you want, and only the pixels in that ratio is used in taking the shot. Next your child wakes up and is sticking her head out the tent door. So you switch to portrait 4:5 and you can hold the camera in the same comfortable position as you do in landscape and take the picture. The day goes on with different shots with different ratios.

Obviously this would only work with a mirrorless camera and you could not have a lens hood with pedals.

I think some of the advantages would be you get to hold the camera "normally" for portrait shots, you only use the pixels you want (thus keeping the size of files to a minimum), there is less cropping in post, etc.

What do you all think? Stupid idea or does it have some merit?

The Olympus OM-D EM-1 mirrorless camera does not have a square or cross-shaped sensor, of course, but it does basically what you want (including portrait 3:4 without rotating the camera).  If you shoot RAW, it will use all the pixels of its entire 4:3 sensor image, but JPGs are cropped as you specify. 

So, yes, I would say your idea has merit!

Genius.  I want to take portrait photos without removing my baseball cap.  That's got to be worth a few grand more.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark-II in response to the D750
« on: September 19, 2014, 10:24:19 AM »
The 5DIII came out before the 6D, so it seems likely that we'll get a 5DIV before a 6DII.  Regardless, the 6D fills a niche between 5D- and 7D- series, and they aren't going to change it much.  Probably upgrade the AF system a bit since everybody complains about it.  It would be nice if all the points were cross-type.  Adding DPAF would be cool, but I'm not holding my breath.  I doubt that it will get more AF points.  Agreed that there is no reason to change the form factor.  No flip screen necessary.  I would like to see the dual card slots like the 5DIII and 7DII have, though.

A real dream would be adding an RT controller since it lacks the pop-up flash.  But that won't happen, because it would be too damn cool.

Regardless, if you're a crop shooter with some full-frame glass, when the 6DII gets announced you should pick up the original 6D at the bargain prices.  For the fun of it.

6
Canon General / Re: Canon Developing New-Concept Photo-Storage Device
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:11:33 AM »
This would be a great way to show off photos at home, just plug it into the flatscreen and fire up a slideshow while everyone chats and socializes.  Don't know about the NFC since none of my cameras have it now, but I'm sure most or all will in the future.  Might also be nice for mobile phone photos and videos.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Features on the iphone 6+
« on: September 12, 2014, 11:20:15 AM »
Remember when phones resembled bricks? And then they slowly became smaller and smaller until they could fit inside a matchbox? And nowadays the trend seems to be for ever larger phones - reverting them back to brick status. I love progress! 

Just rambling.  :)

They aren't bricks now, they are tiles.  Next, they will be shingles, then probably piping, and then drywall, then  just clear panes of glass.  When we've exhausted building material analogies, they will be implanted into our heads.

8
Lenses / Re: Anyone want to buy the 24-70/4?
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:40:18 PM »
I got my CPW notification of the refurb price at $750 and I bought it, before I even realized that the price drop was in effect.  I'm sure the refurbs will go lower eventually, on a 20% sale or something, but I don't want to wait.  Everybody expected Canon to drop the price of this lens eventually.  If they'd released it as a 6D kit lens in the US, the used prices would have been here already, although they're close now. 

I just want to put my 28-105 back on my old film camera, and get my small-light standard zoom spot filled.  The 24-105 IS STM rumor sounds interesting, but I'm tired of waiting.  I expect I'd be able to sell the 24-70 for basically my purchase price in a year if need be.

9
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:40:05 PM »
The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose.  Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization.  So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need.  If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags.  I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000).  Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting.

This already exists - it's called an EF 24-105 f/4L IS and costs around $600 if you shop around.

I said small, light, and affordable.  See: http://j.mp/1n45eEb  That isn't the 28-105 that I use, but the size is about the same.  I really don't want to waste bag space on a slow midrange zoom.  I know the 24-105 and I've used it. 

10
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Placing an order today (I think) - need advice
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:22:48 AM »
Also, I'm holding off until tomorrow morning to place the order until I figure this out.  I could place the order online, but perhaps if I make a phone call, I'll get a kind salesperson who can make my wallet cry a little less.

If you are in your last year of law school, this kind of optimism should have been beaten out of you by now.

11
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:14:42 AM »
The 24-105 could be a cheaper FF option. Some people were banging on about that here so I guess there might be a demand but seriously? So you fork out $1600 on a FF 6D right? Assuming you went body only. And then you go an pair it with, what I assume will be, a cheap kit lens with compromised IQ? Why? Why not just stick with a rebel and a 18-55 kit lens if you're a cheapo? Having a FF camera means you give a s___ about IQ. This rumor makes no sense.

I currently use the discontinued 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II for that purpose.  Surprisingly, this is one of the lenses that the 5d3 and 6d have included for Automatic Lens Optimization.  So Canon is obviously aware that there is a need.  If this new one is small, light, and affordable, it will find its way into many bags.  I'm hoping its street price comes in between the 28-135 (~$300) and the 24-70 f/4 (~$1000).  Great for outdoor, walk-around, f/8-and-be-there kind of shooting. 

12
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:55:26 PM »
Can somebody explain the appeal to me? Not trying to start a flame war, just trying to understand.

A 24mm pancake (which won't have IS) seems a bit redundant with the 24mm 2.8 IS, which by all accounts is a very good lens, has USM and which Canon cut the price to a much more reasonable level. The size seems kind of irrelevant once you put it on a 5D, 6D or other full frame body and for an SL1, you end up with a 37mm lens which is barely in the wide-angle realm.

Do people like these pancakes just because they are cute (no argument there)? What am I missing?

The appeal for a 20-24mm pancake on crop is definitely there.  Before I went full frame, my 20mm USM was basically permanently attached to my rebel.  The biggest drawback to me at the time was that it wasn't wide enough.  I would've preferred 16 or 18mm, with the 2.8, but I certainly couldn't have afforded the 16-35 2.8 L II at the time. 

A ~24mm pancake will definitely not have (or need) IS.  I would think it would be EF-S and also slower than 2.8 as well, for further differentiation from the new non-L IS prime.  But who knows?

As for me, I'm actually thinking about grabbing the new 10-18 and just modding the rear mount to fit the full frame. 

13
PowerShot / Re: Review: G1 X MK2 by DPReview
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:29:00 AM »

I'm reading it I feel great. What's that could be applied in everyday life the other. Which I have applied, I'm making my life much better.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: July 29, 2014, 11:13:27 AM »
I've been hoping for a 180 II, but was hoping for f/2.8, 9 bladed diaphragm, and the like, not DO.  Let's hope this is just a defensive patent.

Ditto.  And IS.

15
I have a question: in the link posted http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
the author says 4-6 shots are required for a 35mm image, but he is using a Zeiss Makro Planar, and a 1:3 magnification.
What I don't understand is, unless the magnification is greater than 1:1, why would I need to take multiple images and stitch. Can someone clarify?
Thanks!

The author is stitching multiple photos in order to extract the most detail from each negative/slide.  The explanation:

"Using an higher reproduction ratio is more time consuming (you’ll need more shots to cover the same area), but as a result you will be able to extract the most detail from the film. Here are some examples showing my Canon setup at various reproduction ratios, compared to the results of a well-respected flatbed scanner, the Epson v700..."

The exact numbers depend on the size of the negative/slide compared to the size of the digital sensor.  Using 1:1 for a 35mm negative would require stitching multiple shots on an APS-C sensor camera, or just a single shot on a full-frame digital camera. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10