August 27, 2014, 11:08:05 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 233
1786
Canon General / Re: necessity of photography school
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:56:56 PM »

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."
Ansel Adams

I am sure he had a few bad exposures.

I wonder what he would have said about DxO scores. ::)

Probably a lot considering how much time he spent in the lab fiddling with emulsions and developers and practicing arts of advanced dodging and burning and so on. Heck, he might have even been the head of DxO scores division.

He was both an artist and outdoors guy AND a big time techie, lab guy.

1787
Canon General / Re: necessity of photography school
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:49:52 PM »
A few photography school related questions.

for those who went to school, do you feel like you learned a great amount, or was it more of a business decision to have a diploma.

And from 1 to 10, where would you say you were at before and then after 1 = not knowing you can take off the lens on a slr.  10 = Neuroanatomist

And lastly, could you have learned the same from the internet and experienced friends?

Edit- I do consider photography a form of art and when I said learn, I meant more than just the tech aspect.   
   

First, you need to say more, what are your goals, what do you want to do? Does making a living out of it matter in the end? PJ oriented? Fashion? Weddings? Nature? Street? Abstract? Everything?

I'd go to school for something else, photography isn't the easiest way to make money. Many who make money in it or who became big names never took any photo classes at all or just a few the side too. Sometimes business skills and to be a huge self-promoter can matter as much as anything else, depending upon what your goals are. Depending upon your aim you could fill up electives with either more PJ-oriented or more art-oriented creative photo classes on the side, some lighting classes and such might help if you might ever want to go that way, try to nab internships and tag along or third shooter assignments, go to serious clubs, try to get involved in circles of the sort of photography you want to do. I'm not sure how many schools have pure photography majors, I'd guess that at most liberal arts schools it would be more like a general art major with an extra focus on photography. Work for the school paper or become involved in the campus art/photo community on the side. Having a PJ degree might help a bit but that is a tough business these days, you could get a lot of experience just working, in a serious fashion, for school paper if it is a big one.

But it is hard to say without knowing what your actual goals are.

1788
Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:41:17 PM »
If Canon did adopt Apple's pricing strategy that would mean when a new Mark II or III comes out, the new product with the better technology comes out at the same price as the old porduct.  :)  In any event, if Canon is going to put stores in the US, then I hope they put one in the DC area.

It would also mean that they will stop worrying about internal market segmentation and go full bore and less conservative. Soon we will have 4k unclocking code for the 1DX, sensors with much better DR, AutoISO that works in non-1series cameras, 7D2 arrives with better AF than 1DX.  ;D ;) ::)

1789
Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:30:44 PM »
Well, at least we now know where they plan to put all that extra cash they are making (trying to make) out of us gearheads with their recent pricing "strategy".  :o

hah

Quote
But that bitching aside: Of course it would be nice to try out some of the more exclusive lenses. The best thing I have seen in stores within 100km of my home town is around the level of a 5Dmk3 and 70-200 2.8 IS II. But if they are now trying to become Appleish (i.e., sell stuff not merely for it being good, but for it being hip, and that at a premium), I am not interested.

In my area we already have stores that demo everything and have classes etc. so all this might mean is that now their prices go up.  :'(
Unless they get sales to increase 10x and then can lower prices on everything heh.

1790
Canon General / Re: Canon Experience Stores Coming Soon [CR3]
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:27:52 PM »
I guess another option is to go fully down the Apple route and use price fixing to ensure everyone sells at RRP :o

DIdn't they just start doing that this month or something?

1791
Lenses / Re: Just bought a new Canon EF 70-300L IS USM lens.
« on: January 10, 2013, 10:49:30 PM »
First, congrats on your new acquisition.  Use it well!

Ah, you've re-sparked my dilemma.  I love my 70-200 f4 IS for its IQ and utility.  But, now that I've got a FF, I miss the reach.  The 1.4x helps but I keep looking at the 70-300 L.  I'd have to sell the 70-200 to help "fund" a 70-300 L, and that's what's got me nervous.  I don't want to look back and wish I'd kept it.  It is reassuring to see the comments about the 70-300 vs a 70-200 with a TC above.  Just "thinking aloud" but I would say my very improved high iso performance on the 5diii could more than offset the loss of the constant f4 I've got now, but I keep debating with myself.

Anyone want to put themselves into my shoes and think what they'd do?

JP :-\

I think it's good enough to give up the 70-200 f/4 IS (a lens I never though to give up). Tried a Tamron 70-300VC too. That was very good for that sort of lens but just no way I could give up my amazing 70-200 f/4 IS for that. With the 70-300L I was able to sell off my 70-200 f/4 IS (I did delay the sale for six months  ;D it's a hard lens to let go, but it was virtually never getting used and that was way to much money on the shelf).

I'd stick with the 70-200 f/4 IS is if it is to be both your main walk-around long lens and primary wide field sports lens paired with a long prime and you consider that shooting to be quite important (although not quite enough to get a bulky 70-200 f/2.8 for that alone).  Otherwise I'd seriously consider the swap.

I think it's f/4.5 to 155mm, so so long as you don't need M mode for action the constant f/4 isn't quite as much of a loss as you'd think, although f/5 200mm certainly isn't f/4.

1792
Lenses / Re: Need an affordable 300mm
« on: January 10, 2013, 10:40:24 PM »
What sorts of things do you want to shoot?

1793
Lenses / Re: Need an affordable 300mm
« on: January 10, 2013, 10:39:37 PM »
Hello everyone,

I recently upgraded from the 7D to 6D, and am looking to get some length back in my lenses.  I had been using a 70-200mm f/4 IS, and liked the length at 200, so around 320mm on FF.

I will be renting for this go around, and then probably purchasing something in this range.

My thoughts are one of the below options:

Rent a 1.4x TC for my 70-200 f/4.  This will give me a 280mm lens at f/5.6, based on ISO 12233 crops, it still looks pretty sharp, but autofocus may be iffy.
Rent a 300mm f/4 IS.  Less versatility but a stop faster, and sharper.
Rent the 70-300L, good zoom range, sharp, but f/5.6 at 300mm.
Rent a 100-400mm, same speed as the 70-300mm, but the IS likely isn't as good.

If you've had a chance to use any of these options I'd greatly appreciate your feedback!

100-400L if reach is the main thing but you still want some degree of general use out of it

70-300L if you can live with less reach and want something smaller, lighter, sharper, with a bit better AF and IS, the best all arounder, sharper than 70-200 f/4 IS + 1.4x TC with 50% faster AF than that combo

70-200 f/4 IS if you realllly want constant f/4 70-200 for sports (if you are THAT serious about sports you probably wn the f/2.8 anyway though) unless it is your only sports lens in which case 300mm beats constant f/4 so 70-300L

300 f/4 is good for field sports, best of all of these, and it takes a TC for wildlife, but obviously super restrictve as a walk around lens


1794
Lenses / Re: How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?
« on: January 10, 2013, 10:31:42 PM »
At times, the 17-40L has been notorious for that (a few years ago many people complained about one side being worse and every single person always mentioned the same side so I wonder if there had not been some bad runs on it a few years ago). I exchanged my first one. Pretty huge difference.
Also exchanged a 24-70 II, they do seem to vary a bit in terms of how even all the edges are and how f/2.8 performance is, difference wasn't as radical as with the 17-40L though where one was just awful on one side and DOF was configured really weirdly.
Haven't returned anything else, L or not.

1795
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inside the Canon EOS-1D C
« on: January 09, 2013, 02:07:35 PM »
If Apple Inc cannot bring the jailbreakers to justice what hope of Canon Inc? They have better luck stiffing the grey market imports.

4K video should not cost that much!

The real danger, as some have said, is that they could start encrypting firmwares in future bodies and make it 10x more difficult to make ML for say the 5D4 or 7D2 and so. So many believe it is best to let sleeping dogs lie. 1DX/C doesn't get publicly unlocked and Canon doesn't make it a true mess to code for future non-1 series bodies.

1796
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Inside the Canon EOS-1D C
« on: January 09, 2013, 04:47:04 AM »
For me the base problem i can see here is not with the people that are purchasing this camera and their wealth.

It's more to do with the fact that canon has priced this camera at the point it has to not hurt sales of their other products like the 1DX and the C100 (both of which retail for around $7k).

If they reduced the price of the 1DC to say $500 more than the 1DX who honestly would buy the 1DX anymore?
Let alone the C100.
So instead they put it up with the C300 and claim that its double the camera than the 1DX and thats why its double the cost.

I don't understand why Canon cant just put 4K into the 1DX, call it the 1DX Mk2 or 1DX "C" or whatever at the same price point as what the 1DX is now and thats the end of that.

They would create a second "DSLR video Revolution" as they like to call it, and the other manufacturers would have to play catch up again.

Oh well greed/profits always win out in the end.

Indeed they could've made a 5D3 perhaps too that would've flow off the shelves in a way that made the 5D2 look like it never sold a copy, instead they are not just one of many and no longer own the very market they had created. It's not the way to become a huge, dominant company. I guess it is the way to be ultra-conservative and slug along just being one in the crowd though and getting some intense profits per copy at low copy sales though.

The only reason they even created the revolution to begin with is because they didn't even have a clue. The second they get a clue they kill it off. I was afraid once we first heard rumors about C cams and C100s it was over.

But who knows maybe going this conservative route gets them more money in the end. Or maybe not. Anyway they have made their decision.

1797
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 07, 2013, 04:57:33 AM »
2 Lenses? In the movie, there's only 1 'precious' ring.

You asked for 2, but you gave 3.

Then you say you have insurance, so it doesn't really matter what you take or not take.

What's this question about?

+1
 ;D


anyway i will bite and say that if I could only save one lens and only one it would be my 300 2.8 IS and 24-70 II and 70-300 IS

 ;D

although, photo-wise, it would be the computer and HD to grab, insurance does nothing for all the pics you ever took going up in smoke a lens can always be replaced or you can use something else less expensive if not

1798
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests
« on: January 04, 2013, 03:57:29 PM »
You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands :)

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.

24-105 has added reach, but also added distortion and a 70-200/300 lens delivers much better 70-105mm quality plus a LOT more reach.


Thing is, 24-105 covers a lot of range as a quality walk around lens.  No doubt a pair of lens (like a 24-70 & 70-200) give you more in multiple metrics, namely quality & reach, but one len / one body has it's benefits for casual trips where you don't even take a bag...  That's why I like my 24-105.

I guess. I just figure that if I care enough to take a DSLR then I want better than the 24-105 delivers on FF (or wider and better (and for less) on APS-C). And walking around and travel and such are often when I come upon the best scenes where I'd want the most quality if anything.

I never, ever, ever got the whole leave the good stuff home when you are traveling (or even walking about)! That is when you are in interesting places! Why leave the good stuff home when you are around all these amazing and unique opportunities and then bring it out when you are back in the same old whatever? But to each their own. But for me, travel is when I'd most of all want the tops. I sooner use the convenient lower stuff for someones cat wandering through my backyard and the good stuff for the Seychelles or Paris or the Big Sur or what not.

Obviously many love the 24-105 though. It often comes up the tops in most favorite lens posts. (Then again it also comes up most often of any lens in least favorite lens posts too  ;) ;D). I tried to like it three times and quickly returned or solid it all three times. But obviously while many agree with me, very many also disagree.

1799
Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: January 04, 2013, 03:30:23 PM »
The Tamron is f/2.8 and has superior optics and image stabilization (> 1 stop). It will be better for low light and action shooting.

I took a few shots in the store with the Tamron vs my Canon 17-55mm, and it seemed quite a bit softer than the Canon. But then again, my 17-55 is very sharp, and it was the Tamron copy with the messed up AF too.  If I could be convinced that the Tamron 24-70 was the sharper lens and that the messed up copy that I saw in one store was just an anomaly, then I'd probably go for the Tamron. Otherwise I'd go for the Canon 24-105.

I've tried three 24-105 and all were softer than my tamron 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8 (or canon 24-70 II for that matter) be it f/4 or f/8, center frame or far edge. All three 24-105 did better than the 28-135 IS though for sure.

1800
Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-105 f/4
« on: January 04, 2013, 03:28:45 PM »
Tamron 24-70 VC as the 24-105 is good as a lens but mediocre as an L lens. Tamron also gives you the f/2.8 option. It does cost more though.

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 233