March 02, 2015, 10:13:48 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 - bvukich

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46
Lenses / Re: Lens cap solution?
« on: May 05, 2011, 10:41:17 AM »
I really don't understand the rationale behind not having an in-built solution.

Simplicity.  Why turn a $3 lens cap into a $50 over-engineered lens cap management solution.

Leashes may be fine for some, but I find them annoying to me and distracting to subjects (although possibly a bonus if you shoot lots of cats and dogs).  Plus the leash costs more than a new cap.

Endigo has the same solution as I, always put it in the same place.  I've never lost one.

Software & Accessories / Re: Must-Have Phone Apps?
« on: May 04, 2011, 12:59:00 PM »
No suggestions for iPhone, but for Android I use the following:

DOF Calculator
A nice clean depth of field calculator, written by a CR forum member.

Photo Tools
A bunch of handy little tools all in one app.  DOF & Hyperfocal Distance, Field Of View Calculator, Exposure Reciprocation, Flash Exposure Calculator, Multiple Exposure Compensation, Sunny 16, Sunrise/sunset, Graycard, Color wheel & temp chart, Moon Phase, Sharpening & Enlargement, Photo Guide, Gallery For Inspiration, and several more.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]
« on: May 02, 2011, 09:10:29 PM »
yeah 24-105mmL  f4 II, like the difference between nikon 18-200mm and nikon 18-200mm II, they change the switch on the lens.

I expect little changes.  It is a very good lens already.

I would expect optical changes to be minimal, and a change to a more modern 4-stop IS system.

The 135/2L is, for the money, probably the best portrait lens made.  What exactly do you find lacking in it?

515 is a link farm.  Is what you meant?

Tried to find a picture of the holes on a 17-55 and found this:

Wow, I had no idea. I haven't seen that lens in person -- do any of the other lenses have that?

Not sure.  The 50/1.4 has two small holes, but they are blind holes (don't go all the way through) for a spanner.  The 28-135 has a single hole that looks similar to the holes on the 17-55, but I think the back of it is blocked by a snap ring.

A filter attached to the front of the lens won't affect dust inside the lens, by the way. Dust "gets sucked inside" from the zoom cylinder sliding in and out, not through some magical hole in the front of your lens.

Not entirely true.  On the 17-55 there are two small vent holes in the ring around the front element.  People that always have a filter on tend to get less, and smaller particles of dust.  People that don't, have found things as large as pet hair and jelly beans (just kidding) behind the front element.

EOS Bodies / Re: Question about RAW
« on: April 29, 2011, 04:08:45 PM »
Cool -- post some examples! I'm eager to see. Thanks


Crop that any tighter and she'll have a wardrobe malfunction ;)

The composition and pose were good on the original, her legs draw your eyes up the frame, and the lighting takes you the rest of the way to her face. You lose that with the cropped down version.  Plus you can't see all the noise from the S95@ISO800 on the full pic at web sizes.

You must have removed the second picture, that's OK; I like the first one better anyhow.

Honestly, I think that's probably the best picture I've seen from you.  It just really comes together good.

Those look good.  The first one looks like a regular flash with a snoot.  The second one could use a little WB tweak, but seems to work well as-is too.

Lenses / Re: 16-35mm f/2.8L v. 14mm f/2.8L
« on: April 27, 2011, 01:56:37 PM »
Just realized my above post is nearly useless without a why...

I'm at work, so don't have a ton of time to explain why.  This should be a good starting point:  Although 14mm isn't really ultra-wide on a crop sensor.

There are also a ton of people here that are way more knowledgeable than me that will probably chime in.

Lenses / Re: 16-35mm f/2.8L v. 14mm f/2.8L
« on: April 27, 2011, 01:45:08 PM »
If you don't already know you want/need the 14/2.8, then the 16-35/2.8 is probably what you're looking for.

But if you know you want/need the 14/2.8, then the 16-35/2.8 is in no way a substitute.

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published
« on: April 25, 2011, 12:31:23 PM »
They won't go in body IS and I'm glad. I like seeing the IS effect through the view finder. Much better for composition.


Given all the problems that Sony has with sensor overheating, and having the sensor move in general sounds like an engineering nightmare to me, It's not something I would desire to see Canon or Nikon pursue.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 46