October 20, 2014, 11:04:14 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 - AudioGlenn

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
31
Lenses / Re: Transitioning to Primes
« on: September 14, 2013, 03:50:25 AM »
I started out with the idea that I wanted to shoot only with primes.  But for the type of work I've been doing lately, I discovered that zooms are more useful for my style of shooting.  I sold my 35L and 50mm 1.4 after I got my 24-70 II.  Honestly, I regret having to sell my 35L.  It was nice for those special times when I need the low light capabilities (mainly for video) but those occasions are few and far between. 

I agree with others' posts about having both in your arsenal.  I will start building my prime collection once again after I get a 16-35 f/2.8L II.  Starting with the 100mm Macro L, then an 85 1.2, TS 17mm L, possibly a new 50mm whenever that is announced or a newer/sharper 35L (no rush on either for me), and eventually a 200mm f/2L. 

32
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
« on: September 12, 2013, 07:15:53 PM »
I sold mine.  I don't see the point of carrying a prime that can't do more than my 24-70 @f/2.8.  I was only somewhat satisfied with this lens at 2.5 or smaller apertures.   Any apertures bigger than that gave me horrible color and contrast.  Sure shooting at 1.4 gives you shallow DOF but I never liked how it looked.  I'll be saving for the 50L or 85L.  If I'm in need of really shallow DOF right now, I'll use my 70-200, step back, and zoom in to 150-200mm. 

33
Lenses / Re: I just ordered my new 70-200 f2.8 MkII today!
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:44:02 PM »
Congrats!  It's one of my favorite lenses!  I don't envy the waiting period though.  It's always torture for me, even for the little things!  =)

34
Lenses / Re: Size of filters for EOS Cinema lenses?
« on: September 06, 2013, 10:42:57 PM »
It would be close, as 110mm is just around 4.5" in diameter.

When are you Americans going get with the rest of the world and go metric?
It makes life so much easier.....................

Why the big fuss over which measuring system?  People can just as easily do the conversion in their heads (or at least with a calculator).  It's pretty simple math.

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 or 1Dx
« on: September 01, 2013, 12:07:33 PM »
actually, I think there are advantages to keeping your mk3 around. 

1) 2nd Body/Backup when needed
2) less lens switching
3) ability to slim down the mk3 when the 1DX is not ideal to carry around

And lots of other reasons others have stated here.  We should continue listing reasons to own BOTH bodies for the OP.  Keep it my friend.  The 3 reasons I listed might just be enough to justify keeping it =)


36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How strong is the hotshoe?
« on: September 01, 2013, 11:39:47 AM »
just save yourself the worry and pick your rig up by the body handle.  that's a lot of weight to bear for such a small contact point.  Is it really THAT much more work to do that?  or pick it up by the lens. 

I don't think it's a dumb question to ask but it does sound like you should take care of your gear with a little more thought.  Who wants to risk not only breaking the bottom of a $600 flash but also dropping over $3500 worth of gear along with it?  not me...

37
Lenses / Re: Movement in the mounting with 70-200mm f2.8L IS II on 7D
« on: August 30, 2013, 11:12:21 AM »
mine moves a little bit too. it works fine

38
EOS-M / Re: Mount EF, EF-S or L lens on EOS-M --- Your thought???
« on: August 25, 2013, 02:54:09 AM »
I bought the EF adapter (for $85 off of eBay) so I could use the M as a 2nd camera angle for video with my other lenses.  Would I use it at a wedding?  ...SURE!  for video.  for Photography, probably not. for casual photography, I'm fine with just the 22mm f2 on it.  I too like it for its compact size.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Which Canon Picture Style(s) do you use (for photos)?
« on: August 21, 2013, 09:01:53 PM »
If you use RAW and lightroom, it doesn't matter what you set the camera to use for jpegs.  Lightroom does not read the camera setting for picture style.
 
I use Adobe standard for imports to lightroom.

It matters if you use your histogram, the histogram is generated from the preview joeg and that honours the picture style set, even if you don't save a jpeg to your card one is still made and used. Neutral gives the jpeg the histogram closest to the RAW file histogram in post.

Set your camera on a tripod and shoot the same scene in RAW only and change the picture style between shots, look at the histogram on your camera, they are very different.

nice... i will try that

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Which Canon Picture Style(s) do you use (for photos)?
« on: August 21, 2013, 09:00:22 PM »
Title says it all.  I've been using Faithful for the most part.  In Lightroom, I use the sharpness and clarity sliders EVERY time.  I found that using Auto picture style gives me a little more sharpness in my preview. I shoot RAW so I know this is not THAT big of a deal.  Just wondering what you guys are using normally.

For stills I just leave it on Standard. Unless I forget because I was recording video for a friend and it's set different. Oh, and for video, the Cinestyle actually seems to work quite well for corrections in post.

Yes I use CineStyle when shooting video, too.  Have you played with the Canon Video picture style at all? 

41
EOS Bodies / Which Canon Picture Style(s) do you use (for photos)?
« on: August 21, 2013, 07:17:55 PM »
Title says it all.  I've been using Faithful for the most part.  In Lightroom, I use the sharpness and clarity sliders EVERY time.  I found that using Auto picture style gives me a little more sharpness in my preview. I shoot RAW so I know this is not THAT big of a deal.  Just wondering what you guys are using normally.

42
Thanks FourmMuppet. I'm looking to upgrade to full frame since I already have a good crop camera. As far as lens go I have an 85mm 1.8, 17-40L, 100-400L, 18-55, 55-250. Still gonna use the 60D for wildlife for the most part but wanted to make sure the 6D could keep up or do better as for as birding goes.


I think it will be a great upgrade for you and the controls will feel similar.  Just wondering though, any special reason you're keep the 55-250 since you already have the 100-400L?

43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera for keen 9 year old.
« on: August 19, 2013, 03:39:55 AM »
And maybe get him the DMV manual on driving... because it is important to know all of the traffic laws and the theory behind the three point turn and parallel parking.

Wow...all that sarcasm from the guy who can't figure out what lens he needs.  Maybe you're the one we should be recomending some theory books to!

I see nothing wrong with suggesting a different approach to see if the kid really has interest in the topic.  Although i do disagree. I think a 9 yr old would stay interested with the "toy" more so than with the book. I vote for the used rebel with a kit lens.

44
Lenses / Re: Can 24-70/2.8 II replace 35/1.4?
« on: August 16, 2013, 06:48:02 PM »
I have had the 24-70/2.8 II for a couple of months and I realise now that I have not used the 35/1.4 since. Obviously an f1.4 can do things a f2.8 can't but is DOF really an issue for a wide lens? And I have the 5D MKIII so light/ISO is not that much of a problem either. I was just about to put the 35/1.4 up for sale but I simply can not make up my mind.... Opinions are more than welcome.

I sold my 35L about 2 weeks ago due to non use.  I just couldn't justify keeping it after I purchased my 24-70 II.  Combined with a 5d mk3, I just didn't need/use it.

45
Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 02:10:08 PM »
Question:  I bought both a B&W (skylight) filter ($45) AND a lens hood ($20) for my EOS M + 22mm f/2.  They are both about the same depth.  It seems I don''t really need both  and they are adding significant depth to my handy little camera.  should I return one?  If so, which one?

Honestly, I'd return both.  The lens hood for the EF-M 22mm f/2 is essentially useless - it's not deep enough to provide any protection from flare, given the size of the front element and the AoV of the lens.  I haven't done the estimate on the EF-M 22 hood, but the similarly-designed hood for the EF 40mm f/2.8 isn't deep enough to protect a 14mm lens from flare, much less the 40mm lens for which it's designed.  Futhermore, since it's a thread-mounting hood, any force applied to the hood won't be transmitted to the barrel as with a bayonet-mount, but rather to the front-focusing element with the STM motor connected to it.  Not very protective at all.

As for the filter, IMO the big advantage of a pancake lens is it's thin projection from the body.  Making it thicker with a filter doesn't make a lot of sense to me (in fact, I would prefer the 'old' side-pinch cap design, since it's thinner than the center-pinch cap that comes with the lens.

Thanks for the reply, neuro. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24