August 29, 2014, 08:28:54 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 - bvukich

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

Portrait / Re: Swimwear Shoot with EOS60D and new diffuser
« on: April 25, 2011, 12:27:10 PM »
That's the one I was hoping it was :)  I love low tech, DIY solutions.

Time to get some Taster's Choice.

Software & Accessories / Re: Neck strap alternatives
« on: April 25, 2011, 10:23:54 AM »
After using a home made version pieced together from surplus store bits for several years, I now use a Blackrapid RS-Sport.

Works great.  While I haven't worn it hiking, I have worn it mountain biking.  Works well. I would just suggest moving the camera higher up on your hip for activities involving a lot of motion, it will keep the camera from swinging too much.

Portrait / Re: Swimwear Shoot with EOS60D and new diffuser
« on: April 25, 2011, 02:43:24 AM »
Those look much better.

What diffuser are you using now?

Lenses / Re: Why is a 50mm the easiest fast prime to produce?
« on: April 24, 2011, 10:22:48 PM »
Wider lenses must bend light to a much greater degree.

From my understanding, this results in much thicker and more curved lenses.  This also makes it a lot more difficult to control CA and various forms of distortion because they are all more severe.

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond
« on: April 23, 2011, 05:53:27 PM »
So, if Canon cares about my opinion (and it might very well not),

They don't.  They care about the opinion of the market in aggregate, which in general, disagrees with you.

I'd rather not have a camera with more pixels.

Then don't upgrade.

Buy, or don't buy, whatever suits your wants and needs.  Whining about it on a forum accomplishes nothing (although we're all guilty of that at some point).  If what Canon offers doesn't align with what you want, perhaps there is some other vendor that is more suitable.  Expecting/demanding that Canon depress it's offerings to the lowest common denominator is as unreasonable as it is unlikely.  Besides, you must surely be aware that nearly every digital camera ever made allows you to capture images at lower than full resolution; so why bother trolling with those same tired old arguments?

About a year. It was in a spot I would drive by to work as well -- an armchair dumped in a patch of small sequoia trees. When I finally did get a shot I wasn't happy w/ it and went back the next day; the conditions were just the same ! (After a year of waiting, two days in a row) -- just to find out that the patch got cleaned up that morning and the chair was gone :(

Bummer.  :(

I like decay and abandonment.  There are several, what can be only described as ruins, on my way to/from work as well.  Old, old, farm houses with nothing but the field stone walls left, old grain silos, various out buildings; all in assorted states of decay.  There are tons of them throughout Wisconsin.  Someday I'd like to tour the state and do a photography book of them.  I even have a great title/tagline for it, "New world ruins in old world Wisconsin."

What's the longest you've ever waited for the perfect photo?

And I don't mean wait in a general sense; I mean actively waiting, checking conditions, for the perfect photo at a particular location?

For me it's three and a half years and counting.  There is a golf course that I drive by twice a day, that has a long perfect tree-lined fairway perpendicular to the road that has been calling to me.  There's about a week window in late fall where the sun is in just the right spot for the picture I see in my mind.  Golden hour, just as the sun is kissing the trees, long shadows. The conditions are never quite right though.  Overcast, raining, snow, all hazards of fall in Wisconsin.  I'll get it though, if it takes me another 20 years.

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