Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?

« on: May 22, 2013, 04:23:53 PM »

The 200mm 2.8 is nice incognito, but it gets warm in the sun . . . tradeoffs.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 22, 2013, 11:22:03 AM »

The rumor didn't say the same sensor, just Olog-hai there preemptively complaining.

well we are not all braindead fantasy freaks who believe in miracles... gaffer gamgee.

my last 5 predictions were dead on.. i would be glad to be wrong this time... but i doubt it.

the first APS-C camera from canon to have a new sensor design will be the 7D MK2.

Oh, that was a prediction, it read like complaining.  Wasn't it?

I know it's totally necessary to defecate on Canon within the first 4 posts of every thread, I was just trying to help that along. 

My 60D miraculously still takes great photos .  . . must be some kind of magic, no?

18

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:12:50 PM »

If this is accurate, I don't know why there would be a need for  much "final testing" if the 70D is to have the same sensor as the 60D.

I'm also not sure why everyone assumes that the 70D and 7D II will share the same sensor if the 70D gets a sensor upgrade. Canon has three sensors in three full-frame bodies. It's very possible we could see a new 22-24 mp sensor in the 70D and then an 19-22 mp sensor in the 7D II.

The rumor didn't say the same sensor, just Olog-hai there preemptively complaining.

19

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:05:50 PM »

If it has a sensor in it, I'm switching to Nikon!

Oh snap, F1 beat me to it.

20

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 21, 2013, 09:38:24 AM »

You have to look at the intent.

The aspect of altering photos that gets to me is when a photo is faked to be misleading. It can be done with or without photoshop.... like a news story about a car accident where children are hurt and someone throws a big stuffed animal into the scene to try to make it a tear-jerker.

If the altered picture is so silly as to be unbelievable, I can accept that it is in good fun, but not the sneaky ones that attempt to deceive.

For example, big storm and flooding hits New York... Photos start to appear like the shark swimming in the subway and on flooded streets.... those are attempts to deceive. The one of the Statue of Liberty hiding behind the pedestal as a huge wave crashes against it or the ones of Godzilla are obvious fakes with no intention to deceive.

If I took a moonlanding picture, added something to the image like a wire, and started to claim that it was proof that the moon landing was faked in a studio, that would be an attempt to deceive..... while Lucky the cat in the picture is obviously not.

Darned straight it's unbelievable.  That's obviously a sound-stage at Area 51.

  *Ducks*

21

Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:23:37 AM »

I've been waiting two years for Manfrotto's tripod that dispenses super dry, slightly dirty martinis.

I think it's the Queen Olives that are holding the whole thing up.  When are they going to know their customers?  We'll take it now, with Manzanilla olives instead, just put it out already!

We won't wait forever . . . we'll have to sell all of our Manfrotto and go to Miller 

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you trust your camera?

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:12:13 AM »

I didn't trust my 5DII - I always took multiple shots so I could pick the the best.

I trust my 1D X - I always take multiple shots because I leave it set to 12 fps, and even a brief press of the shutter fires off 2-3 frames.    I agree that sorting through them is a bit annoying, as I really don't need to delete due to missed focus. But with kids, it helps because I almost always get one with no blinks.

Why didn't you trust the MK2?

The last performance of my wife's I shot (using the 200mm f2., I got lost while post-processing because I had sets that looked like I'd already done them and they were untouched.

----

As for trust issues; I'm *very* easily biased by threads like the one on the Tamron 24-70 . . . I haven't had any truly bad shots with it, but I haven't really pushed it yet.

Primes (85 1.8 & 200 2., I trust implicitly and have done some fabulous things with them.  Haven't touched the 50mm 1.4 much since going FF and I don't use my 60D as much (I like the 80-85mm fov).

23

Canon General / Re: It annoys me when camera phones try to take credit for professional level gear.

« on: May 15, 2013, 09:05:08 AM »

It does S___ me blind when people compare camera phones to pro gear stating categorically that they are just as good.

Take a look at the "no 7D2 in 2013" thread..... I posted pictures of the moon from a 60d and from an iPod to end a ridiculous "gear does not matter" debate. Although phones can take great pictures, particularly in the right conditions, once it gets a bit more challenging there is no substitute for a "real" camera.

Which iPod?  From the camera in the iPhone 4S up, the pictures decidedly do NOT suck . . . I digress, it's still not the same, but they're getting less crappy

Why is anyone 'discussing' this?   The only people disagreeing are doing the same thing as the advertisers: distorting the truth.  Why does Mercedes Benz advertise: ranked highest in INITIAL quality?  Because Lexus has lower long-term defect-to-units-sold and saying that doesn't sell cars.

I will, however, advocate better cameras in smartphones as it will . . . hopefully  . . . some day . . . replace the fax.  I have a image-to-PDF application that I use before erasing my whiteboard or for personal things I have to send to someone during work hours.

24

Lenses / Re: Who has pre-ordered or will order 200-400

« on: May 14, 2013, 10:12:25 PM »

Just when I got that 400 mm f/2.8 IS II...

Lol, and I got the 600 II.  But that meets my needs more than the 200-400, since 840mm f/5.6 is better for me than 560mm f/5.6. 

I'd still like an updated 100-400L, though, as a more portable option.

You're going to find a need for one and you know it.

Stop kidding yourself

25

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Color Bombs Kill Cameras

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:56:18 AM »

I represent the lawfirm of Bruckner and Weaselbomb.

Have you or a loved one suffered from the ill-effects of The Color Run (TM)?  Have you lost equipment? Sneezed rainbows? Peed blue?

We can help.  Call us today for your free consultation. 

You may be entitled of a cash settlement for de-pigmenting procedures.

We also handle people who are stupid enough . . . err . . . bullied into eating cinnamon.

26

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Need advice for getting a battery grip for the 60D

« on: May 10, 2013, 08:44:40 AM »

28 lbs for a battery grip? Man those things are heavy!

Get one from the US, they're only like 2 pounds here

 

27

Software & Accessories / Re: What makes a Polarizer worth it's price?

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:46:54 AM »

I use kaesamann B&W filters because I want to get years of use out of them. Plus, I've noticed less cast with them than other tiffen and Hoya filters.

x2 -- I use the kaesamann B&W CP filters as well (have two but need a third now)

As I buy better and better glass, I worry about introducing unnecessary changes to the image.

Some people say that cheap stuff is ok, others say even a clear lens will cause problems . . . I basically got the opinion of a few educated people I know who's work I respect and used that and forget about worrying.

28

Portrait / Re: Need advice, what can I do to improve?

« on: April 25, 2013, 04:30:37 PM »

She's staring at the camera in all of them.  I prefer candids and the fourth wall is very important to me.

If you're going to do that, you're going to need her to convey some emotion . . .

Shoot raw (if you're not already).

Bump the shadows and take down the highlights (especially #7)

29

Canon General / Re: Why do you do Photography?

« on: April 25, 2013, 03:39:25 PM »

Three answers come to mind:
"To Win Friends and Influence People" (or to meet girls ).
To not would be to rob the world of a genius.   
When you have the camera, no one is pointing one at you.

30

Software & Accessories / Re: ColorChecker passport, what's wrong?

« on: April 25, 2013, 10:39:42 AM »

The software never worked right for me.

At this point, I use it only as a grey chart to set the white/black points.

Honestly, unless I'm under severe lighting conditions, I prefer to color-adjust my photos/sets by hand in lightroom.