March 01, 2015, 08:17:47 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 - Studio1930

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
Sports / Re: learning bike shoot
« on: August 22, 2012, 09:35:13 AM »
most of you guys handhold to pan or take sports shots or do u use monopod for more stability?

I use a monopod with sports shots.  I pan with a high shutter speed so as to not blur the background since my clients want to see it for dog sports but I use a very narrow 200 f/2.0 lens to knock it out of focus.  For motor sports I would slow the shutter down to allow the panning to blur it when desired.

1DX with 200 f/2.0 - straight out of camera - no editing - shot jpg (just stamped):

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO levels
« on: August 21, 2012, 06:29:48 PM »
The above post is a good explanation of how it works, but I don't think it addresses the question of whether or not the in between ISO ranges are analog boosts or digital multipliers.  I think it is probably dependent on the camera in question (meaning that some of them do it differently).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO levels
« on: August 21, 2012, 04:40:01 PM »
I thought that all ISOs value where pushed from 100 ISO.

Sort of. But there's analog gain prior to the conversion to digital (which is what 'native ISO range' means), and there's digital gain after ADC (expanded ISO settings).  I believe that 'tweener' ISOs are also digital manipulations of analog gain applied in full-stop increments.

I have wondered about this as well.  So are you saying that full stops (100, 200, 400...) are achieved by an analog amplifier but the in between ISOs (125, 160, 250...) are achieved by an analog amplifier and then multiplied or divided by a factor digitally which is what reduces the dynamic range?   ???

This chart is not showing that full ISO has more dynamic range than in between ISO except for the 5DM3 and they don't match full ISO increments.,EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,EOS%201D%20X

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1D MKIV VS 1DX Cameras
« on: August 20, 2012, 10:26:30 AM »
I currently own both the 1D4 and the 1DX.  The 1DX is a completely new animal and my keeper rate is now much higher for sports. The auto focus tracking is in a whole new class for the 1DX and I will soon be selling my 1D4 and getting a second 1DX.

I use several different modes of auto focus on the 1DX which allows me to frame my shots more accurately and more quickly than the 1D4.  I also have the different scenarios programmed into the C1, C2 and C3 settings which allows me to change dozens of settings on the fly with one button (without looking up from the view finder).  There are many other little things I have found that make the 1DX much easier (or better) to use than the 1D4.  I have not yet tested IQ but I plan on doing a side-by-side comparison this week.

Also, my AFMA settings have been much closer to zero with the 1DX as compared to the 1D4 but that might just be my camera bodies and your mileage may vary.  The higher ISO is very usable on the 1DX.  For indoor sports I don't go above 4000 (5000 if I really have to) on the 1D4 but the 1DX allows me to go 16000-20000 without issues.  Full frame is a bit different but bigger glass can help.

Should I centered the bracelet not caring so much about the reflection and leaving more space for the text?... Now that I look, it seems a bit off.....

Perhaps the shadow direction?

There is no shadow.  That is a reflection.

Each person here will probably give different answers as to why they would choose one over another.  Only you can decide what works for you.  You may want to rent both and try them with the type of shooting you do and see which one works the best for you (if you can still rent them).

It depends on your subject but in general f/4 indoors is not going to work very well unless it is WELL lit or if you use flash.  f/2.8 is marginal unless you have IS or a ton of light.  If your subject requires a 1/200 shutter or faster then you will benefit from f/2.8 and IS. When I shoot indoors and I don't use flash, then I use IS or a really fast lens like f/1.2.  Acceptable ISO needs to be factored in as well as usage (web only , print, large print...).

For what I shoot, I need IS and f/2.8 or my really fast f/1.2 lens.  Your mileage may vary depending on your subject and shooting style.

Shot below was a f/2.0 (or f/2.2) with IS on (mode 2) and it was shot outdoors.

ouch.. 6 out of 6 missed focus?? even my old historic 30D wouldn't do it.
using my 5d3 and the focus is nail on everytime (95%+).. my 1d2 is also very reliable at AF. hitting focus around 85%

I have the 24-70 and i think that lense is horrible at AF, most of my missed AF is from that lense, thus i rarely use it

I agree.  My 24-70 is the worst lens in my bag for AF.  With that being said, my 1DX nails the focus 98% of the time after I learned how to use it properly.  My 1D4 nails the focus about 75% of the time.  All of my lenses are calibrated using ReiKan FoCal software which also validates all of my focus points (a few points are not that good).  I also have determined where the sweet spot is for the aperture on my lenses by using this software.  Most are around f/8 and no higher.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D III w/100 Macro - "Insect Shots"
« on: August 16, 2012, 11:36:29 AM »
Love that first one.  Very nice work.

Very nice work!  Thanks for sharing your setup info. :)

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 15, 2012, 12:29:08 PM »
135L hands down. It's has less distortion, more compression, is much cheaper, and is Uber Sharp.

The 85L is awesome too but it still may distort faces alittle more when getting too close on FF and the bokeh is more "creamy" on this lens.

I prefer more compression but Distortion can look good on certain subjects.

Yeah but he already has the 70-200 II, which honestly is just as sharp as the 135L.

Owning both the 70-200 vII and the 135, I can say that MY 135 is much sharper than my sharp 70-200.  Primes are almost always sharper and the 135 is on par with the 200 f/2 (which I also own) but the 70-200 II is not quite that sharp (especially at different focal lengths).

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 15, 2012, 12:24:34 PM »
Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion?  Just curious...

Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?

On bright days, 1/8000 s has sometimes been insufficient for me, even at ISO 50.

Thanks thats the exact response I was looking for.

I often use 3, 6 or 9 stop ND filters on my 85L to allow it to shoot on bright days.

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: August 15, 2012, 11:33:49 AM »
I own both the 135 and the 85 f/1.2.  I can say that if you could only have one then the 135 is the way to go.  The 85 is picky and can miss the shots more often if you are shooting at anything under f/4.5 due to the razor thin DOF (and I do mean razor thin).  I have to shoot waaaaay more with the 85 to make sure I have keepers and I am using 1 series camera bodies.

The 135 will produce a better portrait due to the compression and it is super sharp.  It will focus waaaay faster but I do find that both lenses don't do well in low light (funny since they are f/1.2 and f/2). 

If you have not seen this, check out this comparrison on focal lengths and how it affects the face.  I now try to shoot portraits at 200mm.

I have connected my 1DX to my laptop with a straight through cable and transferred images without a problem (once I figured out the crappy canon software and configured a static IP).  No hub/switch required.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16