December 20, 2014, 07:42:59 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 - CharlieB

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 21
136
Software & Accessories / card reader via bluetooth?
« on: December 20, 2012, 09:12:25 PM »
Just wondering, is there any BlueTooth device that is stand alone (say, battery powered) that will read a memory card.

The upcoming situation is that I'll be shooting remotely, will have access to power, but only a tablet to transfer to.  The tablet has no usb, just a bluetooth connection (and wifi).

For that matter, is there any stand alone WiFi card readers... that would do even better than BlueTooth!

137
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The seemingly amazing Sigma 35
« on: December 20, 2012, 07:45:57 PM »
Gonna play a little Devil's advocate....

I was in photo retail, in a pro oriented camera shop in the 1970's up to the mid 1980's.  At one time, our little 15x55 foot shop did 1/2 of one percent of all of CUSA's North American photo business, or, put another way we were in the top 200 of ALL Canon dealers, including mass merchandisers.  Canon themselves described our volume as "tonnage".

At that time, "the golden age", there were a lot of garbage "off brand" lenses, but also a few good ones.  One that I particularly recall was the Vivitar Series 1 70-210, and the Series 1 90mm macro.  Those were made by Kiron and/or Tokina and/or Cosina, maybe all three... dunno.

The point is (I'm getting there), these were actually very good lenses as compared to the "then current" competition, even from the likes of Pentax, Nikon and Canon.  They got a lot of praise from local press photographers, and photo educators (which all knew, and did lots of business with our shop).

My beef then, and the beef I still hold today is one of contrast and color that is consistent with the lenses from, say, Nikon or Canon.  While the very good accessory lenses were sharp, and even exceedingly so, or faster, or both... they just didn't have the same snap and color.  The two I just cited were rather blue and "flat" compared to the very warm Nikkors of the day, and even the rather neutral Canon FD lenses.  This was something the late Steve Kippert (my Leica rep) showed me, and its something that has stuck with me all these  years. 

I know these days, color and contrast are a snap to alter, but I'm still wondering ... based on the same settings, no alteration of the images, how does the Sigma 35/1.4 compare to the entire (and rather consistent) Canon line?

138
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: UPGRADING 7D to FF Please help!!!
« on: December 19, 2012, 08:23:27 PM »
I think I'm working in reverse....

I had the 5Dii first, then got a 7D.

Since then, the 7D has been the go-to camera for most occasions - which are social events (25-500 people). 

I like the built in flash on the 7D, and I don't mind it not being FF.

I still use the 5Dii, and find that the corrections to the PictureStyles are more drastic with the 5Dii than the 7D.  That is, the 7D might get two units of extra saturation, while the 5Dii gets only one (or none).

139
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: UPGRADING 7D to FF Please help!!!
« on: December 19, 2012, 06:33:24 PM »
For weddings, don't get too hung up on equipment.

For years, I shot weddings with a Hasselblad, 60mm and 80mm lenses (like a 35 and a 50 in 35mm format).  One flash in a medium (18") camera mounted box.   Worked, worked well, hardly ever an issue.  Every so often I'd have to grab a 2x and shoot the 80mm at 160mm for a portrait session at a wedding.  Worked just fine.

The vast majority of wedding venues will work well with moderate wide to moderate tele - so, while I've not done it (yet), I would not feel at all undergunned with my 5DmkII and a 24-105L and a flash in a box <--- gotta have, its just perfect for wedding portraits.

For fashion... all bets off... you can go for any look or catchy angle that suits the attire, locale and models.  I've been at shoots where most of it was shot with a 300/2.8 and 200/2.8... and those were full head to toe shots.  Other times, you shoot close.  Outdoors a lot of times you fly a silk for lighting and a small flash set to barely fill.

Going with something in the medium range for lenses is probably best, because you can rent anything out of the ordinary.

I'd not feel bad using a 5DmkII for fashion or weddings, but... the 6D is probably better - can't say, have never seen one.  If you have the $$ go for the 5DmkIII, but really.. I'd rather put the money into lighting than camera bodies.

140
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: December 18, 2012, 06:14:49 PM »
The reasons why the 6D is at $2000 are: 1. it need to recap ..... 2. It needs to recap the AF.....  3. It is intended to be a 5D II replacement....3. Canon wants higher profit.
Canon should be able to build a $1000.  Whether it will be sold at $1000, that is another story.

Not true. 

The reason the 6D is priced as it is, is because Canon's market research indicates that the market (you and me, the buying public) will support the 6D's feature set at that given price.  Which also happens to be the reason _anything_ is the price it is.  If the market won't support the price, you either have no more product soon, or you lower the price and hope your costs are well contained (and they should be based on the scale at which Canon can produce cameras).

wild guesses!

it is costly to produce a 24x36mm sensor for Canon and the internal charge is high.
Canon has locked them self into a corner with their internal costs of a  24x36mm sensors  who need to go outside the Canon  Inc  to be assembled together. Production of 24x36mm sensors is in the context small and costly

Mik, when you have 30 years experience in manufacturing and working with market research, come have a thoughtful discussion with me.  Until then, it might be better to learn instead of exclaim.

141
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you miss APS-C?
« on: December 18, 2012, 12:09:43 AM »
Miss it?  No, I'm still using it, and FF too - depends on the job at hand.

The only cameras I could really get sentimental over are the Leica M's. 

Everything else is just a tool.

142
Lenses / Re: help!! 40mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.4?
« on: December 16, 2012, 02:35:00 PM »
50mm would be on the short end of a portrait lens, on your crop sensor camera.

I you want a portrait lens... either the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 would be good.  So would the 50/2.5macro - which would give you some extra flexibility.  You really shoot very few portraits at wider than f/4 anyway due to depth of field considerations.

If you want a normal lens... the 35/2 or new 35/2IS fit that bill.

If you want an alternative, sort of all round snapshot lens with some higher speed, the 28/1.8 is excellent.

You're not likely to break the 50/1.8 unless you abuse it.

143
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please explain expanded ISO
« on: December 16, 2012, 08:40:35 AM »
I was once given this answer, by a former Canon employee:

Expanded ISO are settings that Canon are not prepared to put their name .....

I think I know who said that!

144
EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?
« on: December 15, 2012, 07:57:48 PM »
Id go with a Leica M9

145
EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?
« on: December 15, 2012, 12:26:07 AM »
The reasons why the 6D is at $2000 are: 1. it need to recap ..... 2. It needs to recap the AF.....  3. It is intended to be a 5D II replacement....3. Canon wants higher profit.
Canon should be able to build a $1000.  Whether it will be sold at $1000, that is another story.

Not true. 

The reason the 6D is priced as it is, is because Canon's market research indicates that the market (you and me, the buying public) will support the 6D's feature set at that given price.  Which also happens to be the reason _anything_ is the price it is.  If the market won't support the price, you either have no more product soon, or you lower the price and hope your costs are well contained (and they should be based on the scale at which Canon can produce cameras).

146
EOS Bodies / Re: New firmware to Canon 7D, v2.0.3
« on: December 14, 2012, 04:45:31 PM »
The 7D is working pretty well for me these days.  I'm ready actually use it shooting social events.


147
Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm f2 usm vs 70-200mm f4l (non-is) vs 135mm f2L
« on: December 14, 2012, 07:15:29 AM »
70-200/4.0L

For compression, distant scenery... you'll want the extra reach, won't need the faster apertures.

Should you do some portraiture, the speed of f/4 is not bad either, shooting someplace in shorter end of the zoom's range.  Serious portraiture - getting the eyes and nose tip in focus requires nearly f/5.6 anyway if the person is facing the camera and both eyes are to be in focus.  With the head turned, so the near eye is in focus, you can get the nose tip in focus at wider openings but.... have to deal with the far eye being out of focus, so f/5.6 is still where you want to be.

If you settle on a fixed 100mm lens, I urge you to consider the 100/2.8macro nonL as well, which is outrageously sharp, and you lose practically nothing over the 100/2.0  - Consider that for what seemed like forever, years ago, the Nikkor 105/2.5 was the defacto portrait lens, when film, mechanical cameras and manual focus was all the rage.  And, it did the job well, and deserved the praise it got.

148
Lenses / Re: Lens Advice Please
« on: December 13, 2012, 07:34:13 PM »
Or close ... 100/2.8USM or 100/2.8L-USM-IS

149
Lenses / Re: Lens Advice Please
« on: December 13, 2012, 07:33:37 PM »
The 24-105 will do just fine for regular portraiture.

Consider this - to keep the tip of the nose and eyes in focus... takes about f/4 to f/4.5 or so to do anyway.

How about something wide... 17-40?

150
So here it goes: When looking at a lot of sample shots, I'm wondering "would have that gear been necessary", and the inverse question "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment" and why is an expensive dlsr necessary at all?[/u].

Expensive, and DSLR are not one in the same, as there are a good many relatively inexpensive ones on the market.

Most of the small sensor point and shoot types have terrible image quality.  Even the least expensive DSLR will surpass that easily. 

I see the current Rebel T3 with lens for $399 at B&H, cheaper still at some other lesser known vendors.

For that kind of money, its not a whole lot more expensive than a "better quality" non-DSLR, and less expensive than the top end non-DSLRs.  I hate to call them point-and-shoot cameras when you get into the $300+ range on the non-DSLR's... they're just a cut better, but still way below what you'll get with an APS-C sensor.

If all you're ever going to do are moderate wide to moderate portrait type of shots, for your own fun, occasionally making larger prints, wanting creative control over exposure, there is nothing wrong with a sub-$400 DSLR... and I don't call that expensive.

I'd still be using my 10.1mp 400D (Rebel XTsomething), if it had not been stolen.  It produced image quality that was just wonderful for anything you'd ever want to view on a computer screen, or on any print up to about 11x14 or so.  I know, because I printed those... with very good results.


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 21