September 30, 2014, 08:05:33 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 44
61
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 03, 2014, 03:57:46 PM »
While it's a much-debated comparison (and I'm not sure there's any definitive answer), 180º sounds far wider than the usual human field of vision. Stare straight ahead, don't move your eyes and head, move your hands apart until they disappear. For me it seems not much more than 90-100º.

That's interesting :). Some say that 99% of what we see is produced by brain. Everyone's brain developed a bit differently, we are all unique. So, we don't have to agree on one number here :).
How wide can you see with one eye, while staring straight ahead? From center to the edge. I think it is ~85º. We can't be that much different. Tell me it's at least 70º :).

62
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 03, 2014, 03:07:01 PM »
I think that human vision is closer to 10mm really, a lot wider than 40mm.
If not, then maybe I'm not human :o.

Around 80mm, what I see in the viewfinder is the same size as what I see in my other eye... but in regards to my angle... I almost have 180 degrees of coverage... so I think that makes me more of a herbivore than a carnivore...

Yes, I'm talking about FF equivalent focal length. It is close to 180 degrees.
I don't find it boring at all :).

63
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:44:54 PM »
My brain.  :o
Other than that, it is the 40 shorty...
Oh yes! My 40 shorty is so unused I'd completely forgotten about it. Picked it up as a novelty item when it was announced, used it a couple of times, and then....ummm

-pw

That's weird. I use mine all the time, it's a great body cap.
Things may change when I'll get a fast 35mm. Still waiting for that 35/1.2L :)).

I'm really happy I managed to constrain myself and didn't buy it. I guess it helped that I had a 40 mm Voightlander. For some reason I was never really happy with that focal length anyway. Perhaps because it is the closest approximation to normal human vision which renders it a bit boring.

I bought one for my daughter... I really like the lens in theory, but I never personally use it.

I think that human vision is closer to 10mm really, a lot wider than 40mm.
If not, then maybe I'm not human :o.

64
Lenses / Re: advice for new lens?please
« on: August 03, 2014, 11:16:20 AM »
Assuming that we are talking about FF:
Travel
24-105L (do-it-all lens) or 16-35/4L (if you like it wide) - these two cost less than a single 70-200/2.8L'II IS USM
35/1.4L (it's worth it, can't imagine why would you consider selling it)
200L (with a teleconverter, 200mm on FF is only a short tele), if you really need a decent tele to drag along.

Street
35/1.4L
135/2L or/and maybe 16-35/4L (if you like it wide)

IMO, 24-70 and 70-200 are just heavy workhorses for event photography and journalism.
In some places it is forbidden to use big lenses, so I would carry 40 pancake for backup.

65
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 10:29:54 AM »
All I can say is that I'm in awe of some people here.  I get involved in print judging, and (annoyingly) most people don't say what type of camera/lens combo was used.  And, obviously, there's no EXIF data to review.  I'll admit it,  I'm just not capable of telling what type of camera or brand was used.  But some people here are so confident that there is a night and day difference.  I'm now worried that I must be missing something.  Some even suggest that my eyesight must be defective if you can't see it (ok, my eyesight is defective and I wear glasses...but I see fine with my glasses on). 

Help me!  When I look at a print, what should I be looking for so that I can determine with high level of consistency and certainty if it was taken with a P&S, M43, crop camera, FF, medium format or large format camera?  If it helps, most prints I see are approx 8x12.  I'd love to get this right so that I don't inadvertently promote an image taken with a crop camera over a FF camera.

This "dead horse" has a message written on him long time ago - "Superior camera can shoot poor snapshots too, so what?" :)). If you don't/can't exploit larger format potential, then you don't need one to do the job.

66
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 03, 2014, 08:53:44 AM »
My brain.  :o
Other than that, it is the 40 shorty...
Oh yes! My 40 shorty is so unused I'd completely forgotten about it. Picked it up as a novelty item when it was announced, used it a couple of times, and then....ummm

-pw

That's weird. I use mine all the time, it's a great body cap.
Things may change when I'll get a fast 35mm. Still waiting for that 35/1.2L :)).

67
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 02, 2014, 10:50:04 PM »
OMG that's great. Not even 4 years ago. Funny how a sponsorship will change your "opinion."  Arias has ZERO credibility to me now.

+1

Don't be too harsh on him, he is a nice guy. I do (did) agree on most points of his photographic philosophy (before he lost his way :)) ), like learning the full potential of one lens before buying another, or that "glass before body" is BS (there has to be a balance), FF + nice and cheap primes work amazingly well!

69
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 01, 2014, 06:17:45 AM »
Who cares what Zack Arias has to say. His main talent is self-promotion, i.e. he's not much of a photographer. His major source of income seems to come from being a guru/media whore/pitchman. If he wants to maintain that income he has to stop acting like a hopped-up loon.

His understanding of photo history leaves much to be desired. Back in the day many magazine covers were shot with 35mm cameras (gotta love Kodachrome). Photojournalists stopped using 4x5 and 6x6 during the Vietnam War era.

Now-a-days no-one except pixel peepers care about sensor size. No. One. Cares. Got that -- No. One. Cares.

Professionals are shooting paying work with everything from iPhones to 8x10. The impossible Project is now making New 8x10 Polaroid film  https://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/8x10inch/fi_8x10_1_imp_2_mum

So please don't bore me with senseless sensor wars. No. One (except you). Cares.

:)
Why should we care what careless people think? (except when their carelessness affects our quality of life)
Why careless people need others to support their careless beliefs? (except when they do it for money)
Why bother fighting for carelessness? It makes no sense. (except when you're a troll or doing it for money)

70
Canon General / Re: What is your Least Used Piece of Gear?
« on: August 01, 2014, 05:01:53 AM »
My 2x TC :)

71
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:17:49 PM »
There may be many reasons for not seeing FF advantages clearly, like bad vision, small snapshots (too small to care), money, herd effect, bokeh'fobia or other psychological conditions. :) None of those can beat physics.

72
Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:07:46 AM »
To be honest, anything could work, even stitching. It is only a matter of convenience. TS-E may be the best choice (as a specialized lens). However, any decent gear combined with good post-processing skills could easily outweigh the best possible equipment, if you know what you're doing. 16-35/4L is a decent multipurpose option.
Stabilized UWA lenses are great for handheld video, but there's no way it could replace a decent tripod. At long exposures (like 0.5+sec) IS only compensates for vibrations, the movement stays + without a tripod it would be difficult to keep the perfect level alignment (if not impossible).

73
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: July 25, 2014, 04:37:37 PM »
My intention is to use my "good old lens" along side with the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm  for the EOS-M. Never have any thought of replace them and going back to "stone age".With the Summiron, I will have a 56/2.0 ( 35mmm equivalent). With the Elmar, I will have a 80/2.8 ( 2 stops faster than the zoom). Together, with an adapter on each lens it will only take up 3.5 inches of space. Leica have a ring that allows you to put two lenses together in back to back position. The Elmar is collapsible. That will make a very small travel outfit. I do not even need to buy the two lenses.  Another reason is the Bokeh on both lenses are excellent due to the perfectly round aperture with 10 0r 12 blades.

Too bad this idea does not plan out.

That would be a nice "stone age" travel kit :).
Actually, you have 56/3.2 with the Summicron on EOS-M, and 80/4.5 with the Elmar. The bokeh would still be nice, but nothing like FF. That's the price of the crop.
56/2.0 and 80/2.8 is from light gathering point of view, not background burling effect. that is the same reason why Canon call the 22mm  as 2.0 not 3.2.

Not really. There is no "point of view" for it to be 56/2 and 80/2.8, it doesn't work that way. Crop is affecting everything - the light (1.6x APS-C gathers 2.5 times less light, simply because it has 2.5 times smaller sensor area), the bokeh and perspective (because of the longer distance) and overall image quality (stronger aberrations, diffraction and noise; less sharpness and contrast).
Canon calls it 22/2 because it is 22/2, but its FF equivalent is 35/3.2, not 35/2.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 25, 2014, 04:02:36 PM »
Here's hoping they have a much simplified mode dial on the 7D2....

Could I suggest the following layout.....

Add C1-5, and I'd be happy. :D
Even better!

Yes! (but make it six, just in case)
Such a thing might even take the steam out of my desire for a Fuji.

Yes but how would you guys remember what your five or six custom settings actually are ? I have trouble remembering which one of three to use.

I would trade the mode dial for something useful. :)


75
EOS-M / Re: Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?
« on: July 25, 2014, 02:46:06 PM »
My intention is to use my "good old lens" along side with the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm  for the EOS-M. Never have any thought of replace them and going back to "stone age".With the Summiron, I will have a 56/2.0 ( 35mmm equivalent). With the Elmar, I will have a 80/2.8 ( 2 stops faster than the zoom). Together, with an adapter on each lens it will only take up 3.5 inches of space. Leica have a ring that allows you to put two lenses together in back to back position. The Elmar is collapsible. That will make a very small travel outfit. I do not even need to buy the two lenses.  Another reason is the Bokeh on both lenses are excellent due to the perfectly round aperture with 10 0r 12 blades.

Too bad this idea does not plan out.

That would be a nice "stone age" travel kit :).
Actually, you have 56/3.2 with the Summicron on EOS-M, and 80/4.5 with the Elmar. The bokeh would still be nice, but nothing like FF. That's the price of the crop.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 44