December 19, 2014, 08:46:32 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 - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 80
Reviews / Re: Lens cap review: (Exploding) Hama 77mm lens caps
« on: November 30, 2014, 10:10:05 AM »
I've always left the Canon lens caps in the box safely tucked away in the attic.  Then I buy the Tamron lens caps.  They're center pinch and built like a tank.  And then... (LOL!) I don't use them!

The only time a lens cap is on my lenses is when they're stored in the lens case/bag.  What's the point of attaching a lens cap when the lens is on the camera or in use?  It just gets in the way, falls off, gets lost or causes a missed shot.  That's what the clear filter is for, protecting the lens when it's actually in use.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: GoPro on Canon Lens Hood
« on: November 29, 2014, 05:04:59 PM »
Buy an extra hood and put a helmet mount on it.

I honestly question the grip strength of the hood bayonet mount with a GoPro attached.  Maybe reinforce it with gaffer tape?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: GoPro on Canon Lens Hood
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:59:07 AM »
Keep in mind the go pro will pick up every click of the shutter.

Meh... it will also pick up every comment of the photographer, background yelling and wind.  My guess is the OP will probably strip off the audio.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: GoPro on Canon Lens Hood
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:24:55 AM »
Or wear the helmet type device and get it off the camera entirely.

Lenses / Re: I *HATE* UPS.
« on: November 29, 2014, 11:13:21 AM »
But all the padding in the world doesn't change the rate of deceleration.

Actually, it changes the effective deceleration because it prevents a 2nd impact which is worse than the initial impact.  Just consider the high school physics lab where you package and drop an egg off the roof...

I guess I am just sensitized because I have received SO MANY technical items (Yamaha PA mixing boards, etc.) where the package had almost disintegrated by the time it arrived.

Again, if something is being shipped that can suffer damage due to transit impacts and bumps, it should be packaged accordingly.  It's not the carriers' fault if the item isn't packaged to protect it adequately.  I have always assumed a package I ship will be dropped at least 6 feet onto concrete in a shipping hub warehouse conveyor system.

Post Processing / Re: Post processing opinion/advice
« on: November 29, 2014, 10:42:39 AM »
Thank you everyone for your efforts. REALLY appreciate. Am seeing so many different 'minds'.

I really like to compare development approaches, I wish there would be a "develop that!" raw file of the week, people would have a go and share their .xmp sidecar so everybody could see what's been done.

Maybe we should set up such a thread in the postprocessing section?

Lets do it! You start it, I will actively participate…!!

That is a great idea! :D

100% agree. It would be really useful on many levels. Totally support it!

VERY good idea!  Count me in as a supporter!!   :D

Post Processing / Re: Post processing opinion/advice
« on: November 29, 2014, 10:41:55 AM »
I didn't use the RAW - just processed the original JPG.  To my eye, the photo's main subject is not the sunset, but the lions.  Therefore the lions need to be clearly visible.  Again, just my opinion.  So all I did was lighten the darks and desaturate the colors a bit.

The image above *might* benefit from an increase in the black level or contrast level.  But I haven't played with it myself so I won't comment further.

I can see this image both ways.  In fact, I would probably create two versions - one like dak723 where the lions are easy to view and another that showcases the sunset more with the lions darker or in silhouette.  (If that's possible.)

I think (and I'm only guessing here because I'm no expert) that the sunset would have come out better if a graduated ND had been used at the time.  This would have helped balance the sun and avoid blowing out the highlights quite so much while allowing the lions to expose better.  In other words, it would have given more DR to work with in post.

Lenses / Re: I *HATE* UPS.
« on: November 29, 2014, 10:13:13 AM »
I realize you were frustrated about wasting your day but I don't think UPS is to blame.


My driver even gave me his personal cell phone number.  I'm self employed out of the house and he'll call me or even take my calls on his personal cell to help deliver a package.  He hauls ass.

In general, UPS ROCKS for me.  I realize that everyone has a different experience but my driver knows I appreciate him.  I don't expect him to read my mind.  I put up a note (to any carrier) if I need the package and I'm in and out that day or a send my UPS guy a text.  I HELP THEM HELP ME.

In your case, I gotta say that it's not the driver's fault that you have a 3ft drop onto concrete.  Fix that dude!  Add a sloping ramp to a padded box.  Put up a note if the delivery is that important.

I don't want to wait longer to get my packages because the driver must waste his time handling other high maintenance people.  UPS and FedEx (not USPS) work extremely hard to improve efficiency, tracking and save time to get packages delivered fast and safely.  (USPS couldn't care less.)

And the package likely had to endure worse treatment during the journey than at your door.  It's up to the shipper to ensure no damage occurs, not the carrier.  When I open packages, I get mad at the shipper, not the carrier.  Poor packaging is the reason things arrive damaged.

Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 28, 2014, 09:52:57 AM »
The links still show up for me.  But I don't click links much.  I hover over them first and usually I'm not remotely interested in the destination.  As far as I'm concerned, I figure if CR is getting paid, no big deal.  Heck, I barely even noticed them until the comment brought them up.  The CR site works pretty well and it's not free to host.  In the end, we all win since this site benefits us all.  If one doesn't like the link, ignore it and don't click on it.  I think most of us know it's par for the course these days anyway and don't assume the poster went to all the trouble to link to a non related site.   ;)

Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 28, 2014, 01:00:12 AM »
The link to hidden camera came on its own! I did not do that.

Same thing happened with "EF Lenses" in my post above!  Weird.

They appear to be generated by "Viglink".  I think it makes money for CR?  Or someone anyway.

Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 27, 2014, 11:43:02 PM »
That's great Sean!  I think based on what everyone has contributed, this choice doesn't break the bank and will put a smile on her face.  The 70D can be used like a Rebel but it has a lot of creative potential if she wants to exploit it.  It is an impressive camera that makes her look like a pro both to the casual observer and another pro.  The price also gives you extra room to consider another lens sooner.

With regard to the lens choice, once she is comfortable with the 70D, you guys can discuss where another lens would help her most.  Does she like to shoot wide or long?  Portraits, candids, events, low light, sports, macro or something else?  And if you think her photography will continue to evolve and expand, I suspect a FF camera like the 6D will be in the cards someday.  If that's the case, you might want to choose EF lenses so they can be used with FF down the road.

Hey, don't be a stranger!  Keep us in the loop on how everything pans out.  We hope she is overjoyed and you come away with a big win!  Have a great weekend!

mkabi - I agree, I think a lot of folks are indeed looking for that and the serious efforts to achieve that result are well worth it and very creative.

But for every crew of professionals that understand how to use the tools at their disposal, a thousand other folks end up discovering that the $3500 DSLR + a couple of $1000+ lenses end up making very poor videos and they don't understand why.  Meanwhile, $1200 for a prosumer HD camcorder makes amazing video that can go in the pocket.  I mean, obviously the pro crew with $15K of gear and good editing can do amazing things but I think most folks simply want decent quality video of whatever they are shooting to have for fun and family that doesn't suck and will still look good 20 years from now.

And for all those folks, I think the DSLR market is a bit misleading in the hopes of selling some very expensive still cameras that also do video.  I shoot thousands of still images all the time and every time I decide to do a little DSLR video, I am never happy with it.  The video I make with a 3 year old Panasonic HD camcorder OTOH, is fairly acceptable.  At least it's not shaking, out of focus with jerky zooming.  All things I have always endeavored (and succeeded) to do smoothly in all my camcorder videos for many years, even before I got heavily back into still images in 2009.

If you had professional gear obviously it would be easy. Now the problem is that I'm guessing even renting a single proper film camera and lens would be their entire gear budget for the year. That said, they could have done a lot better than they did with even modest amounts of money

You don't need a film camera and a lens.  In fact, that would pretty much suck for the same reason that DSLRs suck; they're typically set up for cinematography, not video—in other words, under the assumption that you're going to be moving the camera around rather than zooming, and that you're never going to shoot close-ups from more than about twenty feet away.

What you need for weddings is real ENG/EFP gear.  The most expensive of the three cameras I recommended above can be bought used from Canon for $2200.  Yes, you can certainly go up from there and spend tens of thousands of dollars, but you really don't need to spend 80 grand to do a lot better than DSLRs (or cinema cameras) for ENG/EFP work.  You can get reasonable EFP gear for about as much money as a decent DSLR and lens.  What matters is that you buy gear that is actually designed for video work instead of stills.

dgatwood - THANK YOU!!!  For saying what I've been saying for years.  DSLRs are NOT ideal for video!!  Very poor form factor, very weak feature set to support the hand held video use they are marketed for.  Cinematography, YES!  Hand held video, NO!!  I constantly marvel at how Sony, Canon, Panasonic and a whole list of other electronics companies' camcorder divisions spent 20+ years perfecting the handheld camcorder in a compact handheld form to make beautiful stabilized videos in low ambient light with rich feature sets only to see DSLRs come along and steal their thunder with shaky unfocused mono audio videos that look like they were made with 20 year old technology.  (Except for the high resolution.)

The only way to get decent video out of a DSLR is to spend another $2K - $5K on equipment to mechanically stabilize, balance and smoothly move a DSLR and use external mics to improve the audio.  Then take that video footage and spend more time in post using software to make it acceptable.  And once you've mastered all that... you've become a cinematographer!!!

Lenses / Re: Lens as a gift. Non Photographer buying... :)
« on: November 27, 2014, 06:32:19 PM »
There is a good price on the Canon Refurbished 70D direct from the Canon store online for $649 + tax.  (~$700)  It shows $699 on the page but once it's in the cart, it will show $649 at checkout.  Canon's online store is very weird in how it works and adds prices.
Just thought I'd let you know if this was something you were considering this week during all the sales.

As long at there are parents of kids, there will be a need for some camera, any camera, that can capture their sporting events from a distance.  P&S and Smartphones can't do this and probably never will.

As long at there are professional sporting events, paparazzi and any other high dollar activity that requires high quality images to make money with studio or otherwise, there will be professional cameras with lenses to match.

So predict all you want about what will happen in 3 years to the DSLR format but these general real world facts will never change and the needs will be ever present.  Personally, I predict with 100% certainty that cameras up to these tasks will still be produced that can be sold at a profit and those cameras won't sell unless we consumers want them.  So whatever works as good or better than what we have now is what we will be buying and talking to death here on this forum!  Yippee!!!  Here's to the FUTURE!   :D

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 80