October 24, 2014, 11:37:16 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 21
226
Lenses / Re: 85 mm Lens
« on: September 26, 2012, 07:13:21 PM »
Its not on your list, but the 100/2.0, USM is a hell of a lens as well.  As sharp, or narrowly beating out the 85/1.8.

I've had the  85/1.8, USM, its a great lens... but I always liked the 100mm focal length better.  Yes only 15mm, but it makes all the difference.

On 2-1/4 square, I was using the 250/5.6 Sonnar.  That equates to about 135mm in the 35mm FF world, but... I was shooting very tight head shots and had the room to work.  These days, 100 does it for me.

In fact, I've been using the 100/2.8, USM macro for portraiture.  Its tack sharp, and I don't miss not having the 2.0 aperture.  A 100mm lens, at f/2.0 has very shallow DOF.  Unless you're shooting for some very impressive effect, such as an angled shot, one eye in focus... you can barely get one eye totally in focus at f/2.0... you're usually stopped to about f/4.5 or f/5.6 for the majority of shooting.  You want eyes and noses in focus, ears can go fuzzy.  Shooting at f/2.0 you get eyes (if you're lucky).  Best to stop down a little....

227
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon A2E
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:38:42 PM »
I still have mine.  I think its going to my friend Susan's kid in a week or so. 

228
Lenses / Re: Lens Filters -- preference?
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:35:12 PM »
Call me practical, but I've been using Hoya HMC filters for ages, never a problem.  They have a better grade, but the HMC is very very good. 

On the Leica M, I'm using B+W multicoated filters, since they are more available in the small (odd) Leica sizes.

I prefer the Sky 1B in Hoya, and plain ol' UV in B+W (shooting monochrome on the Leica anyway)

229
Lenses / Re: All street photographers share your gear here!
« on: September 25, 2012, 08:44:46 PM »
New Leica body is a grand cheaper than the M9, has the essentials .... I wanna see it.  I might be good to go with that.  I've got four lenses sitting here that need a digital body.

230
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?
« on: September 25, 2012, 08:43:25 PM »
Cant say specifically for digital Hasselblad, but for the most part, you're getting better dynamic range, as well as stunning IQ.  Thats what MF does for you.  It also cuts your depth of field by a good amount.

Of course if you want detail, use silver images on 6x6 or 6x7 and good optics... you've got detail. 

231
Lenses / Re: Which canon macro lense 60mm, 100mm, 100mmIS, 180mm
« on: September 25, 2012, 07:11:08 AM »
 Its a matter of  IS or non- IS

If I'm out in the back garden, hoping for something to interest me, I wish I had it....

BUT - really, shooting like that, the slightest breeze is more of a problem than my own shake.

I'm probably playing games in my own mind thinking IS would help... since my enemy is the breeze.

Of course, inside, I'm using a support, there is no breeze, and things aren't moving (which IS does not help anyway).

When folks say, the 180 is sharper,  the L version of the 100 is better, etc etc.... dismiss it all.  I've used the 60, and both newer 100's.  They're all fantastic.  Not used the 180... but any differences are most likely pixel peeping hair splitting ones.


232
I'm still ga-ga over the Domke bags... got some from the 70's yet, when Paul Dolan and then Sterling Clark were my EPOI reps (Ehrenreich, pre-Nikon USA).   Got more these days, they're just great bags.  You can get 'em in non-steal-me colors too.

233
I've found that what worked ok with my XTi was huge overkill for the 5DII, if that means anything.  I'd dial in a two clicks of saturation + on the XTi, but keep it "default" on the 5DII

234
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark II eyepiece
« on: September 23, 2012, 06:13:03 PM »
I have not tried it.

Manual focus off screen image only... yes, I'd say, because the image is 30 percent smaller.

Manual focus with focus confirmation?  No, you still get the green dot.


235
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Hands-on Video (in German)
« on: September 23, 2012, 09:38:32 AM »
Maybe they thought the market base didn't ever shoot architectural subjects?

236
Lenses / Re: Old manual focus 50mm: Sharpness
« on: September 23, 2012, 09:30:46 AM »
Any of the 50mm macro lenses are very good. 

If I were doing it.... this is how I'd go.  Find a clean older Nikkor - non-AI or AI.  Those can mount reverse and will stop down, OR you can mount it forward and still do infinity focus.  There are plenty of ok decent F-EF mount adapters there, and the lengths of things allow the Nikkors to be used at infinity.

If you like to focus wide open then stop down just as you take the picture, the Zuiko's have tabs on the lens that allow that when reversed - with accompanying camera shake potential from touching the lens.

To me... Nikkor.  They're good, they're cheap(ish), and they'll infinity focus if you need them to.  Non electronic mounts are about $25 range.  You can get the old 52mm filter thread to F mount reversing ring for about the same money.

237
Lenses / Re: how to test a lens in the shop!
« on: September 22, 2012, 03:32:28 PM »
Its easy.  You ask "what is your return policy, if I find that this lens is not up to my expectations".

Other than that...  what can you really do, beyond rudimentary examination?

Does it rattle?  Is it clean?  Is it full of dust?  Are the controls smooth?  Are the switches positive?  Does it focus without making undue grunts and groans? Does it zoom?  Check rattle at both ends and middle of zoom range.

Then go home, and check it for focus accuracy, centering, etc. 

I've never gotten a "bad lens" yet from Canon, but have had one go back for focus adjustment - thats not bad, just adjustment.  My 300/4 is out a little, but well within the correction range of the camera.  Thats it.  Lets see... 18 Canon EF lenses, one needing correction (50/1.4), and one I can now correct in the camera.  I suspect I'd have not sent the 50 back to CUSA if camera correction was available at the time.

Chances are very great your lens will be just as it should be.

238
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Blown-out Highligts in Stage Lighting
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:39:00 AM »
Stage lighting is a real pain to work with.  Stages are always lit for audience effect, not for photographers (unless the performance is being filmed or televised).

One thing that does come to mind, is the skin tone on the female singer.  I'm wondering if she is actually a bit over exposed.  Not to sound racially motivated, but her skin tone in the images is perhaps lighter than it should be, suggesting a little over exposure.  I know its very hard to estimate, because skin tone varies a whole lot in individuals.  She looks very nice in the images, but I don't know how she actually appeared.  Everyone, please think of what I said as a technical comment from a guy who has shot more than his share of mixed race weddings... jeeze... ugh.. the lighting, not someone trying to make some racial statement.

I've shot my share of jazz bands too.  Often, stage lighting is moody... extreme, dramatic, sparse, and not what you want.  My fallback for those jazz bands was always an M3 Leica with 35mm and 90mm lenses, and either 2475 Recording or later the Illford 3200 high speed stuff... processed very very carefully (for grain reduction).

I think you could have used a stop less exposure and corrected in post... maybe a stop and a half.

This is maybe strange, but I'm thinking about bird photography for a moment.  I remember three weeks of shooting birds down at Flamingo in the Everglades.  Had a terrible time with some white herons.  They simply did not meter.  This was film days, but I was shooting K200 in 35mm and 120 sizes.   Out for processing.... back in three days.  Total crap.  Had to find the birds... shoot again... still crap.  The only determination I could make was the birds plumage was reflecting in a way that the meter could not see.  I was using a Pentax digital spotmeter, and the small area meter on Canon F1 cameras.  They literally glowed... not unlike "glowing" of certain laundered white clothes under UV lighting.   I'm wondering if some of that is going on in the digital world, as represented by your images.


239
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark II eyepiece
« on: September 22, 2012, 09:00:12 AM »
They have a fix!

The EP-EX15-II will reduce magnification, and provide a longer relief, and (help) keep your nose off the screen.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/547886-REG/Canon_3069B001_EP_EX15_II_Eyepiece_Extender.html

240
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Something wrong with my 1DX
« on: September 22, 2012, 08:57:09 AM »
lens aberration for sure....

I need some visual bleach after that one... yikes

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 21