July 28, 2014, 05:37:32 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 - Chosenbydestiny

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16
No offense to those who own Tamron lenses, as I've owned a couple of them (28-75 and 17-50 non VC) myself in the past... They always seem to have a yellowish hue to them, most subjects kinda looked like they had hepatitis ;) I tested the Tamron 24-70mm VC at a booth at Photoworld Asia awhile back and though I saw richer colors, the yellowish tint was still there for the portraits I took. By testing, I mean exposing properly with AWB, custom white balance, and kelvin. There's just not much of a way around it when in camera, but there is (for the most part) in post. So, if you shoot a lot of people like I do, and want minimal post, I'd avoid third party. Not saying they're bad for everyone, just bad for me. ;) My vote goes to the older Canon 24-70 because the colors that came from it were quite good. I owned the Canon 24-70 for a long time and didn't see too many people complain about it until the Mark II came out. =P The 24-105 I've never owned but I'm sure it has it's own specific place in the world. ;)

Sorry for your loss. If you think you'll never shoot action seriously at all the 6D isn't bad. But there are far more advantages to the 5D mark III than just AF which is already huge by itself. Example is dual card slots and the way controls are set up... IQ is about the same in terms of ISO performance with the 6D being a touch better, but I like the colors from the 5D mark III a little better. But If its worth it to you and know you'll save a a lot of money then a 6D is actually not a bad camera and I appreciate mine for what it can do.

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: April 22, 2013, 11:43:53 AM »
... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.
They will probably go bankrupt before the end of the year.

Yes, and massive investment into R&D for companies that don't profit as much as Canon are a way to avoid bankruptcy. I'd be even more scared of owning a Nikon or Sony in this day and age. Sony also doesn't have the best track record for releasing products that are both successful and groundbreaking ;) Uhh...Betamax anyone?

Bad Rumor.

1.8 + OS = dont think so!!!!

IKR!!! It's almost as ridiculous as having an f1/.8 zoom, hahaha. Oh, wait.... They did come out with an f/1.8 zoom just recently. ;)

Let the man enjoy his gear, I'm sure he worked hard to get them. ^_~

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: April 19, 2013, 04:41:19 AM »
So lets see if I understand this... The 7D2 MIGHT be 21 megapixels, or it MIGHT be 24, or it could possibly be 18. And the 70D MIGHT have one of those sensors.... or it could be something else.....

Yeah, I know... sounds like a company that knows what it is doing, doesn't it?

I love it when this site gets interpreted as if the url is canonfacts.com


Did anyone else hear that?  :o

I'm really excited about this lens, and I don't even own a crop body.  I'm excited about the implications for the future.  If this lens can be produced and has good optics (which will be the real issue), it raises so many interesting implications for the future.

A 27-55mm, or even 27-50mm f/1.8 FF lens would be absolutely amazing if it had good optics.  Once the technology is out there, reverse engineering means that this advance will soon be in the hands of other manufacturers.  The very nature of putting out an APS-C only lens means that the price has got to be somewhat reasonable, as there are not (to my knowledge) many APS-C lenses over a thousand dollars US.

+1 Though this might not be the most appealing range for most, it's a game changer that will influence really good stuff in the near future. I'd be happy with something like a 24-50mm f/2 for full frame actually, seeing stuff like this being released makes me confidently look forward to more developments.

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H
« on: April 17, 2013, 01:18:09 PM »
I remember back in the day in San Francisco, there were these independent electronic stores along Market Street.  They were generally rip off stores designed to get tourists.  One of the stores had a large sign out that said...


The capitalized letters would be like 3 feet tall and the for was a tiny word easily mistaken for the word "of".  They wanted to make it look like they were liquidating their merchandise when that is their everyday strategy.

Another business type that does permanent going out of business sales seems to be the Persian Rug market.   Great deals...every day!

Haha, most of them are along fisherman's wharf now right? Reminds me of my trip to HK, I'd walk around in Central with my DSLR around my neck and I'd get approached with something like "Come in, we have cheap lens... CHEAP LENS!!".

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit of EOS 70D Info [CR1-CR2]
« on: April 16, 2013, 12:00:13 AM »
This sounds like a sweet upgrade from the 60D.  I bought the 50D over the 60D because of the body-design and materials. Even though it was lower-spec in some ways. Add WiFi, GPS, weather-sealing, 6.5fps and Digic 5? I'd seriously consider it if I wanted a crop-camera..


It is full of the latest "bling" that consumers crave - who cares if it takes good pictures or not, just as long as they're better than my iPhone.

+1 and built better than an iPhone, because one day we'll all shoot photos in the middle of a blizzard, lol. One of my cameramen dropped his 60D from a 20 foot jib over a year ago because the plate was loose, still works today. That's just another story on top of many survived situations in a "normal" setting.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D MKII - Which is Better for Video?
« on: April 15, 2013, 08:53:50 AM »
I've shot video with both, and the moire is about the same. It just "feels" like there's a slight bit more on the 6D but even then I ask normal people if they notice or care about it and they really just don't. So I wouldn't throw a temper tantrum over moire just yet, if you want pro results then you gotta pay pro money. There are more advantages on the 6D for video over the 5D mark II, very important advantages at that. Most noticeable practical differences are the amount of video modes, and the visible audio meter while recording. Overall audio features (like the headphone jack) not as great as the 5D mark III, but definitely better than the 5D mark II. That's why we always use the 5D mark III as a main camera, and close ups for lapel mic'd shots. And of course, the primary yet somehow not as practical reason of getting the 6D over the 5D mark II.... Better noise performance at high ISO. It performs quite well in that department. (Just remember that quality of light will always determine better IQ over high ISO performance.) All in all, yes, 6D is better for video.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L
« on: April 13, 2013, 12:16:19 PM »
I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets  :P

An L prime won't help you much in terms of sharpness and color for a studio shoot. In fact, you may want to consider a zoom like 70-200 f4 which is fairly cheap somewhere between the 85mm 1.8 and 135mm f2 and is also an L. A lot of my photographer friends who shoot for big magazines like Playboy use just a 70-200 f4 with their FF on a tripod for studio work. For near the price of a 135L you could buy the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4 and have the best of both range, low light capability, and you'll have an L. For studio, everything else really is just bragging rights. ;) Think about it.

One of my friends used to shoot for Playgirl magazine, and he found that if he need to use his (then) 80-200mm the pictures were never popular  ::)

Well, the original post clearly asks for two focal lengths that actually fall into your friend's unpopular range, if you were listening. ;) He seems smart enough to know what he wants, I'm sure you're aware that distortion from wider lenses aren't normally welcome for studio portraits, editorials, product shoots, etc. I was merely adding the idea of a complete solution that would give him everything for the price of the largest stretch of his budget. The 85mm gives creamy bokeh from the correct distance, is more compact than the 135mm and is just as good for portraits. It gets the job done. The difference in focal length is also not as big as most may think. Very similar characteristics despite the somewhat better color saturation on the 135L. But you can blur someone's ears away with both portrait lenses. ;) With the 70-200, he'll have that L glass he craves, for industry standard studio work in the most popular studio lengths and the utility for wherever else he might need it. I own, or have owned all of the above. The 135L is a wonderful lens, but you really have to make sure you always have the shooting room from that range on up. It is why professionals designate it as a headshot lens, and a good candid lens for events. With enough room and an unlimited choice of spots to shoot from, it can do everything. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works, so having something somewhat wider around can save you. Also, keep in mind that there is a focus limiter. There's a chance you'll forget about it when shooting a full body shot and coming in for close ups, a mistake that can cost you a good shot. If bokeh is all the OP is really after, the 85mm 1.8 bokeh is quite good on full frame, the 135mm is better, but not 3x the price better. Remember that bokeh isn't everything, lights and reflectors separate you from the typical bokeh look. Any lazy amateur can shoot bokeh all day long. A master of light manipulation will not rely solely on bokeh shots, be versatile. When shooting portraits in most cases, It's easier to move forward than it is to back away. 85mm is a better distance to direct and pose someone from without yelling or getting someone else to do it for you. There is a reason why these focal lengths are commonly designated to specific jobs, they just do those jobs so much better than other focal lengths. Eventually, you'll look for them all.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L
« on: April 13, 2013, 07:36:30 AM »
I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets  :P

An L prime won't help you much in terms of sharpness and color for a studio shoot. In fact, you may want to consider a zoom like 70-200 f4 which is fairly cheap somewhere between the 85mm 1.8 and 135mm f2 and is also an L. A lot of my photographer friends who shoot for big magazines like Playboy use just a 70-200 f4 with their FF on a tripod for studio work. For near the price of a 135L you could buy the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4 and have the best of both range, low light capability, and you'll have an L. For studio, everything else really is just bragging rights. ;) Think about it.

Hi buddy, I have a 500D body and similar lenses line-up as yours plus a few cheap primes. They're still doing everything just fine. (40+ shots explored on flickr and a few sales on Getty Images). Personally I wouldn't upgrade any time soon. Hold on to your money or invest in something else (like setting up a home studio or a trip to an exotic photo location overseas). Just my two cents...

+1 There are many other things you can invest in, unless you're making money with photography then you can justify making big purchases. ;) If you're seriously loaded with cash, no one can stop you but then again you probably wouldn't be asking either O.o Personally, if I had all the money in the world I still wouldn't mind keeping a 450D, because then I'd just hire a professional chap with a 1DX to shoot photos for me instead while I enjoy not holding anything, LOL. Anyways, the point is, like fear says, always put the quality of your life before your gear.

Lenses / Re: Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L
« on: April 12, 2013, 09:16:59 PM »
For full frame you'll want both eventually, the 85mm is a great start but if you have the space to work with and can afford it, I like the "character" of the 135L better than the 85mm 1.8.

I am aware that SSD will significantly increase the start up times and read/write times but I have a specific question regarding the the performance of Adobe CS6, Lightroom 4.4, Final Cut Pro etc, with an SSD:
I currently have a Mac Book Pro Mid 2010 (OSX 10.8.3) with 16 GB DDR 3 RAM, 750GB HDD, 2.9 GHz intel Core i7 processor, and all of the above programs work perfectly, I have no issue at all, but what I want to know is will upgrading to an SSD will have a significant performance improvement after those programs have been launched?

It is a little like a DSLR, there are many components that make it better.

I am no fan of anything "Apple" and I recommend the high end Lenovo or Dell machines for heavy image, engineering apps and HD video etc.

That aside, it will give you a boost upgrading to an SSD if all the components are correctly in place and aligned. The CPU plays a major part, the video card again is extremely important, your RAM and the type of RAM etc. Plus a lot of people forget the bus, if you connect an SSD to a SATA 2 bus then performance will be limited. I think 3 (GB/s) is the latest (not sure though), so no matter what the SSD claims is the read/write speed if your laptop cannot handle those speeds you just won't get them

My laptop currently has two SSDs in it and could have four, but for me the main advantage with SSD (apart from the speed) is how quiet they are. Really makes a difference to your day if you work somewhere very quiet.

So would I recommend an SSD, definitely. Do I recommend upgrading a current laptop from a 750GB spin drive with all the headaches that that entails? That is the major question imho. Personally, I probably would wait until you want to upgrade your entire laptop. But if you are comfortable technically moving from a 750GB spin to a SSD then why not.
Thanks for your reply ... unfortunately it does not answer my question. My question is very specific, i.e. "will upgrading to an SSD have a significant performance improvement specifically for CS6, LR 4.4 & Final Cut Pro, after they have been launched?
I also use a Dell Alienware Mx14 (2012 version Core i7) which has a dedicated graphic card, yet the MacBook Pro outperforms but my question, about SSD replacment, remains the same for either systems.

Your Alienware is nice but it is not the top end Dell or Lenovo I was talking about, they are different beasts entirely. Anyway, my answer does answer your question. Which bit are you unclear of? I say, in extremely brief summary of what I wrote before, that it depends on numerous factors not just the SSD.

I see some good points, but buying a completely new computer doesn't solve or directly answer the OP. I'm sure he or she needs help with his or her existing equipment. I own both low to high end Apple imac and macbook pros and top of the line Dell computers (both XPS laptop and XPS desktop from when I used to work for Dell), as well as a computer built from scratch. By upgrading my old 2009 macbook pro with an SSD I noticed improvements in both the OS and applications for startup. Not so much in final cut and adobe premiere overall performance but it seems that there are less spinning beach balls overall. I do a lot of onsite editing for wedding clients so any boost in performance is very much welcome. I'd even go as close to saying, without scientific testing, that the transcode speed has increased by about 10%. Since I only have 3-4 hours total to cut a wedding video, shaving off about 20 minutes, not including the time saved by being more stable, has helped a lot. Now, by putting an SSD in my high end Dell, I have noticed similar performance, even a little bit better video encoding performance. I have a hybrid drive... momentus XT which I installed on my iMac, and it also performs better than the stock drive but not as much as I expected. Little things like zipping files seem faster. I will say this though, with the right hardware, editing a music video styled project is extremely more efficient with Final Cut X compared to other NLEs on high end systems, which isn't supposed to be compatible with windows.... And when it's installed by unsupported methods, it doesn't work as well ;) Been there, done that.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 16