January 26, 2015, 07:36:49 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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 46
526
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.

527
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.

528
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?

529
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.

530
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?

531
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."

532
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.

533
Lenses / Re: Lens filter: step-down adapter ring, or not?
« on: April 19, 2011, 11:09:01 PM »
If you are using the hood, there will be precious little room between a 77mm filter and the hood, and it will be annoying to get on and off.

To clarify, that's getting the filter on and off.  It will be impossible to get the hood on/off with a 72-77mm adapter on.

534
Lenses / Re: Lens filter: step-down adapter ring, or not?
« on: April 19, 2011, 11:05:22 PM »
Get a 72mm UV for sure.  Having to move a UV between lenses will get old real quick.

For the CP it depends on how often you use it, and how small your fingers are.  If you are using the hood, there will be precious little room between a 77mm filter and the hood, and it will be annoying to get on and off.

535
Phase one does it on it's P40+ & P65+ digital MF backs.

http://www.phaseone.com/Digital-Backs/P65/P65-Technologies.aspx

536
Lenses / Re: EF 8-15 Fisheye Coming Soon?
« on: April 19, 2011, 06:03:24 PM »
Canon doesn't make many useless lenses but the fisheye lens really is. It is nothing but an expensive toy. I will never pretend to understand the appeal of this lens. It's much too wide and un-natural looking. Since the lens serves no practical purpose, I'd buy it if it were $200-$300 which is what it's worth anyway.

May I suggest not buying one then?

537
Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2011, 09:32:04 AM »
Digic V, 5DIII specs, new kit lens...

Things are heating up for an official announcement. I'm still saying June, but wouldn't be surprised to hear from Canon in May about a "release" in September. Of course, it'll probably be November-January before people actually get them in their hands.

This is not just my conjecture -- it's my raving-mad wishful thinking. :)

A June announcement sounds a bit early to me.  A September release, and Nov-Jan availably does sound just about right to me; and would be right on the 3 year mark.  I don't recall Canon ever announcing/acknowledging a body that far before the release date though.

538
Lenses / Re: EF 8-15 Fisheye Coming Soon?
« on: April 19, 2011, 09:25:42 AM »
a sales winner?

realy? ..i never found fisheye lenses very attractiv.
we rarely sell fisheye lenses in our store, compared to other lenses.

I'll be getting one the day they're available. Anecdotal, sure, but I for one am excited.

I may not be getting one immediately, but I want one.  Bad.

539
Canon General / Re: Camera Gear Costs More Right Now
« on: April 15, 2011, 05:21:13 PM »
But more importantly, what camera was used in that image? an AE-1 with something attached?

Canon Flex or Flex R2000 + external exposure meter.

540
Canon General / Re: Camera Gear Costs More Right Now
« on: April 15, 2011, 04:37:01 PM »
So they're making more profit but more money isn't going to Canon?

 >:(

Price gouging is rampant.

Before this all happened I was going to pick up an 85/1.8, was $419, now $599+.  Big box retailers (BestBuy, etc.), followed closely by Canon direct have become the cheapest option for anything they have in stock.

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 46