October 21, 2014, 02:52:56 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 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17
121
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.

122
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.

123
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.

124
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.

125
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.

126
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.

127
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Firmware Update
« on: April 10, 2013, 11:32:09 AM »
I was hoping the firmware update would make the camera spontaneously grow a WB button.

+1 even models below it, like the body it's supposed to be a direct upgrade from (60D) has a faster way of setting white balance.

128
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Highest ISO for good quality video?
« on: April 06, 2013, 09:54:13 AM »
Before MK III:
For the best noise performance shot at 160.
For the best latitude shot at 100 with just a very little more noise. You may notice it if you shoot at very low light.
In emergency cases shot at 320 or 640 but you will cope with some noise.

With the MK III go up to 3200 without worries  :D
I dunno....I was asking because in the past, I wasn't too concerned about ISO going a little high, and I noticed my videos were plagued with noise, especially in the dark/black areas.

That's because you need at least a little bit of light, "shoots well in low-light" doesn't mean "shoots well in no light."  Adding even a minimal amount of light will reduce the noise even at the same ISO.

+1 The only reason why you'd ever need really ridiculously high ISO is so you can stop the aperture down a bit, I think for 99% of situations that matter, you won't need to record video past ISO2500 with an f2.8 lens or brighter. Most wedding receptions with a decent lighting setup by the venue I usually shoot candids from the crowd at about ISO1250 anyway. However, there was this one time at a bar where I cranked my 5D mark III up to ISO 20,000 to expose my drunk friend (expose, in camera terms, lol)....Even then, the grain isn't all that bad if you compare it to most other cameras and normally, people won't really care as long you can still see a fair amount of detail in the image.

129
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 refurb or new 7D as backup to 5D3?
« on: March 21, 2013, 10:47:45 PM »
Lenses behave differently on crop compared to full frame. You probably want another full frame camera to compliment your 5D mark III. If a 5D mark II is all that can fall into your budget, there's nothing wrong with that. I've used all 3 cameras mentioned and to be honest, as much as I loved the 7D I used the 5D mark II more because of how the image results looked in the end. It's really just a question of whether you need the servo capabilities of the 7D more than the image quality of the 5D mark II. Both are great backups.

130
Lenses / Re: Review of my bag - help me to reduce weight and overlap
« on: March 08, 2013, 09:38:23 AM »
I think the 100mm f2 and 135mm f2 are too close in features to own both. I'd pick one and sell the other. Just my opinion.

131
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 08, 2013, 09:32:39 AM »
The assumption that the 7D will have an integrated grip based on this tidbit of information is hilarious. Could it be that they're just hinting on a newer, smaller, battery with a slightly higher voltage? Come on, the LP-E6 is a good battery but it's also been out for quite awhile now =P

You have the support and detail backwards...

Reading what was posted.... the variation in the wild has an integrated grip... and the info about the battery is support, perhaps causation, and most likely conjecture.

It is not "Hey, it will use larger batteries... Wonder if they will need more room, i.e. integrated grip"

 There's an uproar from many forum members over one copy, that's what makes it hilarious. It's a small chance that they do go live with that copy. From a marketing perspective, it seems like they'd go backwards in that sense. Bringing back the era of 1D and 1Ds lines but with new names and APS-C instead of APS-H.

132
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 09:18:51 PM »
The assumption that the 7D will have an integrated grip based on this tidbit of information is hilarious. Could it be that they're just hinting on a newer, smaller, battery with a slightly higher voltage? Come on, the LP-E6 is a good battery but it's also been out for quite awhile now =P

133
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: March 07, 2013, 08:42:12 AM »
Great quote comes to mind: "The best time to buy a new digital camera is when it's NEW."

I wouldn't buy a 60D, T4i, or 7D today. They will all be replaced soon.
Wait or buy a 6D, 5DIII, 1Dx etc.

That's all well and good, but just because the (e.g) 7D is old tech doesn't mean you can't still take great pictures with it. If the buying price was the same as when the product was new I would agree with you, but if the buying price of those bodies has dropped due to newer models being imminent, why pay full whack for the latest and greatest? There are some that need and are prepared to pay full price for the latest tech. Fair enough. But that isn't everybody.

+1 The 5D classic is even older but at the right price with extra money to burn I'd still buy it again today and leave it plugged in at the studio, even if it's old and used. Almost every camera has it's own distinct character in the images they take. The original 5D is legendary and I still prefer the look from it's images from lower ISOs, it also has better looking analog'esque grain than a lot of the new full frame bodies like the 5D mark III. It can't keep up for tech today, but I wouldn't consider it completely useless. I'd probably go as far as saying getting any camera is okay if you can still buy new batteries for it.

134
EOS Bodies / Re: Announcements on March 22, 2013? [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 05:06:29 AM »
"and it will be a big step up from the EOS 60D in terms of technology."

Hope so. Not only for the 70D. Also for any other announcement further down the road and on every higher priced product level as well. Especially sensor tech for improved IQ at ultra high ISOs 51k and beyond. Am I dreaming? Yes. I never stop.  8)

Not that I want to side with the majority of pessimists in this forum, but a big step up in technology might just mean WiFi and GPS just like the 6D. I'd love to be wrong, the XXD line has been going downhill in popularity since the 40D (And of course, the release of the 7D). If they can bump both XXD series and 7D up a notch in sensor tech (the usual small bump for high ISO, but an even bigger bump in lower ISO DR) and more AF points with higher sensitivities I would at least be happy with that in addition to the spec of the "current" models.

135
At the amount the 7D has dropped in price currently it is definitely the best value for the money and not much more than the 60D. One small thing that I didn't see anyone mention yet is the AF manual adjustment feature that you gain with the 7D over the 60D. I'm sure the 60D can keep up a little more or less in more average sports situations but if your focus is off the entire time and you can't adjust it... You gotta go home. You can stay in the game with the 7D if your lens stops landing focus after knowing for sure that it should have, not that I'd be too paranoid about it but it's a good thing to have just in case.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17