286
May 24, 2013, 11:50:06 AM
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.
287
Lenses / Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« on: April 30, 2012, 04:24:31 PM »And if you don't make your living shooting wide open, but you still need/want that creamy bokeh, then it makes more sense to go with the Sigma 50/1.4. I tried comparing some images from the 7D+Sigma50/1.4 (that I used to have) and 5D2+85/1.8 and I can't decide which combo produces cremier background blur ... probably Sigma, but 85/1.8 is sharper.
I guess I'd need to see the difference between the Sigma 50/1.4 and the Canon 40/1.4 to make that call. I seem to spend a lot of time defending the 50/1.4. It's a great lens!
288
Lenses / Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« on: April 30, 2012, 01:51:59 PM »But, I wouldn't call it an incremental upgrade, either - in the case of the 50L, it's just that the 'upgrade' you're getting isn't something that is readily measured in a test and plotted on a graph, you're paying for the smooth, creamy bokeh that the 50/1.4 just cannot deliver.
I suppose if you make your living shooting wide open, and you need that creamy bokeh, then it probably makes sense to go with the 50mm f/1.2 at 3x the price of the 50mm f/1.4. But for the rest of us, that extra money could be better used elsewhere. By all accounts, the 50mm f/1.4 is actually the sharper lens after about f/2.8. If that's where you shoot, and don't go for the wide open apertures, well it's your money.
289
Lenses / Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« on: April 29, 2012, 11:59:42 PM »The "L" lenses are overkill for a 50D, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing. Save up until you can buy a camera with lenses.
Disagree on both accounts. An L lens is just going to make any of the Canon bodies that much better, clear on down to the Rebels. And if I could only have one lens for my 5DmkII, it'd have to be my 50mm f/1.4. The benefits of that lens are well documented on here.
290
Black & White / Re: Black and White Landscapes!
« on: April 29, 2012, 03:49:18 PM »
A few of mine:
White River Falls, monochrome, plate 2 by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
What I Meant To Say by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
Prophetic by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
IMG_1420-Edit by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
White River Falls, monochrome, plate 2 by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
What I Meant To Say by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
Prophetic by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
IMG_1420-Edit by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
291
Lenses / Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« on: April 29, 2012, 03:38:53 PM »
Yeah, normally, I'd say upgrade your glass first, then worry about your camera body. However, a 50mm on a 5DmkII is a beautiful thing. You'll never go back to a cropped sensor. Honestly, though, this is a tough decision.
One more thought: Going from a 50mm f/1.4 to a 50mm f/1.2 is a marginal upgrade, at best, in terms of IQ.
One more thought: Going from a 50mm f/1.4 to a 50mm f/1.2 is a marginal upgrade, at best, in terms of IQ.
292
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please advice on my next camera
« on: April 27, 2012, 12:15:37 PM »
Option 3. And you can thank me in the morning.
293
Lenses / Re: Confusion In buying Canon Camera. Help!
« on: April 27, 2012, 01:11:01 AM »I am confused in buying SX220 and SX40. I am getting more than 20% discounts on dealaboo.com in both the Canon cameras. I am a newspaper journalist and need a clear results for the front page images. any recommendations should be highly appreciated.
Let's see: You're a "journalist", you're looking at point-and-shoots, and you just happen to mention the discounts at a specific dealer. Oh, and this is your very first post on CRF.
Hey Admins, we got anudder!
294
Lenses / Re: 5dmkii upgrade question
« on: April 26, 2012, 01:58:43 PM »
I love to spend other people's money. But in the end, only you know the budget you have to live within right now.
I'm not sure I understand your question though. You're giving a figure of 2900 and another for 3700, but I'm not understanding what's included in both.
But in the end, only you know the budget you have to live within right now. I'm not sure I understand your question though. You're giving a figure of 2900 and another for 3700, but I'm not understanding what's included in both.
295
Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.4 worth the upgrade?
« on: April 26, 2012, 10:11:25 AM »Moving to a FF Camera, you will want to look at the 85mm f1.8 to to use in place of your 50mm; it will provide a similar field of view that the 50mm did on your Crop Body. More here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
On the FF, your 50mm should be providing about the same field of view as the 35mm did on your Crop Body.
That's only if you want the field of view to be the same. I stuck with my 50mm f/1.4 when I recently moved to a full frame, and I actually prefer this FoV on the 50 over what I had on the 1.6 crop.
296
Lenses / Re: Canon 50 1.4 worth the upgrade?
« on: April 22, 2012, 04:36:30 PM »
Yes, go with the Canon 50mm f/1.4. The difference in sharpness and overall IQ is well worth what you'll be paying. The AF issues are well documented, but there are some tricks to getting more consistently in focus shots.
297
Landscape / Two from Eastern Oregon
« on: April 21, 2012, 11:17:17 AM »
Somewhere On My Way Home by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
Where I Once Stood by Rick.Scheibner, on Flickr
298
Lenses / Re: First dSLR, lens recommendations
« on: April 17, 2012, 12:55:58 PM »I completely disagree with putting a 50/1.4 on a camera and using it exclusively. Whatever you do, don't do that.
Nobody said anything about using it "exclusively." My advice was to get a 50mm and use it while you're learning the craft of photography. Huge difference. And lest you think this was my own original idea, it's practice that has been bantered around by many others before me, both here and other sites as well.
I stand by my original suggestion: Using a 50mm prime while you're learning will help you become a better photographer. The composition in my own images have been suffering somewhat lately, so I'll be using my own 50mm again in the near future.
299
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm f/1.4 and AF Reliability
« on: April 16, 2012, 03:45:28 PM »All lenses have inconsistent autofocus, and the lower cost ones are the worst.
In a round-about way, that was probably the point I was getting at. I know enough about my lens flaws to be able to capitalize on it's strong features.
Quote
Extreme care is needed to make sure that movement or vibration is not affecting the results, just someone walking on a wooden house floor will cause noticible AF issues.
Another excellent point. Whenever I see a focusing issue, I try to determine whether it's not sharp where I aimed it (misplaced focal point), or not sharp anywhere (movement/vibration). After 1000's of images taken between my two dslr's, I've finally figured out the difference.
Quote
Its a good idea to take several shots when you can, about one in 3 or 5 can be out enough to where its really bad.
Yes, "when you can." When I shoot small children, that plan goes out the window.
Maybe we've come to expect too much of AF?
300
Lenses / Re: Canon 50mm f/1.4 and AF Reliability
« on: April 14, 2012, 08:10:35 PM »
Been there, done that.
I've done a lot of tests, so at this point I'm ruling out technique. I definitely ruled out focus-and-recompose awhile back. I've learned better than to do that. I did utilize some microfocusing adjustments in my 5DmkII by about 3 steps. Even during that process, I pulled out a few stinkers.
I probably led you (and others) to believe that I was getting poor focusing results every single time. That's not the case. Out of every 10 shots wider than f/2.2 or so, 2-4 would show up with a misplaced focal point. Enough to where I couldn't say with 100% certainty that I was going to nail every shot. But when I manually focus and use live view, my keeper ratio jumps up dramatically.
I've done a lot of tests, so at this point I'm ruling out technique. I definitely ruled out focus-and-recompose awhile back. I've learned better than to do that. I did utilize some microfocusing adjustments in my 5DmkII by about 3 steps. Even during that process, I pulled out a few stinkers.
I probably led you (and others) to believe that I was getting poor focusing results every single time. That's not the case. Out of every 10 shots wider than f/2.2 or so, 2-4 would show up with a misplaced focal point. Enough to where I couldn't say with 100% certainty that I was going to nail every shot. But when I manually focus and use live view, my keeper ratio jumps up dramatically.