September 30, 2014, 08:30:52 PM

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 - mrsfotografie

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 94
Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:57:31 AM »
The thorn in my side is a new version of the 400 5.6L. The oldest lens in the line up now yet to be re-worked
IS plus a closer min focus.
Thank you please Canon

I might be interested in that lens, also. But it would have to compete with a new 100-400L.

Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:51:19 AM »
I hope they don't improve the optics on the new 15-85. I want to keep mine  ::)

Be careful what you wish for ;)

PowerShot / Re: New Large Sensor PowerShot Rumor [CR2]
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:47:43 AM »
I think such a camera makes sense. Cameras now have to compete with smart phones on image quality, not portability.

Lenses / Re: A New Pancake Lens? [CR1]
« on: August 23, 2014, 08:03:38 AM »
The 44mm flange distance makes a non retrofocus (ie pancake) 24mm EF or EF-S lens unlikely.

Really? 'Pancake' does not have to preclude 'retrofocus'.

Sports / Re: The first Olympic game/ Field , in this world 776 BC.
« on: August 21, 2014, 05:14:11 PM »
Aphrodisias, Turkey...  ;)

Photography Technique / Re: Photographer's Block
« on: August 21, 2014, 04:07:35 PM »

I don't know that's entirely fair... You can grow as a photographer and you can fit more on your plate as time goes...

Asking a person WHY they bought a camera is fair.

I'll answer this question with a timeline.   Back in 2004 my first child was born and like most parents we wanted to capture every moment of our daughter's life.  Fast forward a few years, my wife and I were looking at the pictures we had taken with our Nikon 885 p/s camera and noticed that our pictures looked just as crappy as our parents picture books did.   Though we did 'capture' family memories, we wanted them to look better and figured it was the camera and not technique (noob mistake).   In 2009 I bought a rebel T1i and started with the kit lens and a 70-300 IS USM.   I stuck with that for a few more years.   2011 - both kids start to participate in sports, so now I can't get where I need to be for a good picture being on the sidelines.  Start really using the 70-300 but find that after 200mm the lens was too soft.   I found this website/forum and started to learn as quickly as my brain could absorb.   I lurked here for a year before really starting to participate in the forum.   My techniques improved dramatically and I made smarter lens choices.  I got lenses that complimented my camera: 10-22, 17-55, 60 macro, 70-200 Mk II L IS USM, 85 1.8, 50 1.8, a couple of flashes, a much improved tripod, and last a 1.4 mk III teleconverter.  I focused on technique and glass rather than updating a body.   During the last couple of years I explored macro photography, portraits mainly for family pictures, and nature/wildlife photography.   As my kids got quicker in sports, I grew my skills there by asking our local high school coach if I could take pictures during games from the sidelines.  He liked what he saw and gave me a season sideline pass so I could practice in return for the pictures.  I also take pictures for my daughter's diving team and son's baseball team.  Now, my kids have joined the 4-H club and I'm providing "event" photography for them - again, to build my skills.   I have a few realtor friends who've asked me to photograph their new listings for them.   They've called me back for more work, so I must be doing okay there.   And now, I'm not sure what else to do/try.   So far all of my pictures have been functional rather than creative.   That is the reason behind this question.   I want to break out of the functional mode of photography.  I want to jump start my brain to see the world in a different way and capture that world I live in.     That is why I have asked the question.   I am not a professional and have no plans to be, but don't judge me because I don't focus on one aspect of photography or you believe that I'm upset at how much money I've spent.

So why did I buy the camera? - to make sure my family memories don't look like crap.


edit - I still don't see why the equipment I have makes a difference to my question, nor if am I a photography professional or not.  But, if you feel it's pertinent to your analysis and recommendations, then you have your answer above.

I get how your 'functional' photography has dominated your photography and now you can't see how to be 'creative' outside that scope. I know of a photographer who was really into creative photography and has gradually moved back into 'functional' but great family photography. He's reduced his gear along those lines as well. Is it a loss? I don't know but as long as he and his family are happy, why not?

So please rejoice in your family photography if that is your main driver. Please don't push yourself to be the artistic photographer that you're not, if the only thing you find is frustration. And if you are that creative photographer... find the release, go out with a standard prime, away from your family and see what you can capture. You may like it and see that you have 'it' or not... it's all the advice I can give. But then again I don't have any kids - I can see how your kids can be a real motivator because after all your world revolves around them. Is it not?

Photography Technique / Re: Photographer's Block
« on: August 21, 2014, 02:52:33 PM »

I don't know that's entirely fair... You can grow as a photographer and you can fit more on your plate as time goes...

Asking a person WHY they bought a camera is fair. There are lots of reasons people buy cameras. And some of the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with photography.

Why do think there is a real need to fit more on your plate to grow as a photographer ??? Is there a check-list that needs to be filled ;)

The best photographers are specialists ;)

Photography Technique / Re: Photographer's Block
« on: August 21, 2014, 01:52:53 AM »
... I've worked on macro, sports, portraiture, real estate, architecture, and wildlife but right now none of those seem appealing. 

My suggestion is to stop 'working' on it. Your expectations may be too high, which at the moment is blocking your creativity. I would suggest to slap on a prime (simplify!!), relax and go out and play. When you lower your expectations, there's less pressure to 'perform' and that will allow you to free your creativity. :)

Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 20, 2014, 03:07:46 PM »
The other day when I was shooting motorsports, a stray stone from the tarmac hit my right hand when a motorcycle was doing a burnout. I was happy my face was protected by my camera, and my lens front element by a UV filter. Nothing hit the front of the lens but it could have been a different story.

I've also changed out a UV filter once because it had scratches on it - from cleaning with a piece of cloth that may have had a spec of sand in it. No harm done to the lens.

So yes, UV filters always except on some vintage (Canon FL) stuff that I own (not worth the extra cost). I have strictly B+W filters on my Canon EF lenses, Hoya and other vrands on the E-mount and FD/FDn stuff.

EOS-M / Re: Finally a 50mm for EOS-M...
« on: August 20, 2014, 12:51:19 PM »
I have a FDn 50mm f/1.4 + Metabones Speedbooster. Killer on the NEX-6 (Oh wait I sold that body - going to buy the alpha 6000 now as a replacement)  ;D

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases New Lenses
« on: August 20, 2014, 12:47:14 PM »
Samyang is COOL!!!!

I have the 14mm f/2.8 in EF mount, and the 12mm in E-mount. Bring 'm on  8)

darn, looks like a parasail of some kind.
why so big? Wonderpana system looks way more efficient and small - I have been looking at it, as it would fit both R/S/B 14mm and the Ts-e 17mm

Thanks for taking the time reviewing and posting it

The system is huge - no doubt about it.  Similar systems for the Nikon 12-24 are similar, though.  These lenses have such a huge angle of view...

The ability to use traditional filters is a big plus for the new Canon 16-35mm

It really is a huge setup but cool that it actually exists. Samyang keeps coming with an amazing array of products at an incredibly high rate.

Love your tie, by the way  8)

The idea of being able to do this is absolutely drool-worthy.
Will be interesting to see how well it performs and how much movement range it will have on a FF.

Dang!  Sony's the only system I don't carry... yet.

At least it's native EF-mount so this still has a place on this 'Canon forum' ;)

I wonder if it's also possible to adjust the aperture of Canon lenses.

I just discovered a hot pixel in a few photographs. I did a pixel remap and it's gone :)

So far I didn't do a remap on the mkIII. I only bother to remap hot pixels if they show up in photo's. However I've so far remapped the 40D I had, my 5DMkII and now my MkIII. Pixel remapping is a great feature.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:32:30 AM »
is that they are not able to make a reliable, consistent, AF, on their lenses for Canon.

And yet I've been using my Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS hard for nigh on three years, shooting birds, aircraft, fast bikes, moto-x. touring cars - all the stuff that stresses an AF system - and the AF has not missed a beat.

So that's some first-hand experience for you, right there: apparently they can "make a reliable, consistent, AF, on their lenses for Canon".

Same story - over a shorter period (but still over a year of hard use) - for my 70-200mm f/2.8 OS.

Siggy users aren't idiots, nor or they inherently easily pleased: we use the lenses because they're bloody good at everything they need to be good at.

It seems that people generalize on Sigma lenses. Sure, there are people that bought Sigma lenses with AF problems. That does not mean that everybody has problems. I use a 50Art and it is spot on. It is obvious that on Internet you read more complaints rather than praises. Not saying I ignore the problems that others have - not at all - , but statements should be more balanced.

I covet my Sigma 20mm f/1.8 - a unique lens. This shot couldn't have been taken otherwise (it's on the limit of everything).

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 94