March 04, 2015, 06:46:16 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.


Messages - Jim Saunders

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 65
16
Lenses / Re: Field of view - 24 TS-E vs Schneider 50 PC-TS
« on: February 09, 2015, 08:14:01 PM »
The TS-E 24 II (unofficially) takes the 1.4x and 2x III extenders and they work very well.

Indeed?  A 1.4x is easy enough to squirrel away, and might be just the ticket if 24 is a bit wide; thank you for taking the time to show me.

Jim

17
The obvious next question:  How do we make it work with studio lights?

Jim

18
Lenses / Re: Field of view - 24 TS-E vs Schneider 50 PC-TS
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:47:31 AM »
Having said that, the 50 is not well reviewed so I wonder on your motivation for going that direction.

I have a vacation coming and one scene in particular I want to get right; my recent experience with a rented 24 and my analysis of the take from it suggests that it is the right lens but I want to compare options.  That said I haven't seen much good press for the Schneider either which seems odd given its price tag.

Jim

19
Lenses / Re: Field of view - 24 TS-E vs Schneider 50 PC-TS
« on: February 08, 2015, 11:47:24 PM »
Bare in mind those are angle of view figures when focused at infinity, the specific lenses would have to be tested against each other for actual angles in practice.

This is why I ask; I don't wish to learn the expensive way about some damned gotcha that pertains to TS lenses.

Jim

20
Lenses / Field of view - 24 TS-E vs Schneider 50 PC-TS
« on: February 08, 2015, 10:41:57 PM »
So this might be a long shot, but how reasonable is the assumption that the Schneider would have (roughly) half the field of view of the Canon, assuming no shift in any direction?  I can (presently) get one or the other but not both.

Jim

21
Software & Accessories / Re: Photostitch ain't perfect, or is it me?
« on: January 27, 2015, 11:33:59 PM »
It isn't too bad, I'm sure there are people who are more adept at panos here than I am.  I got similar results from it, it is good for the price but PS really is better at it.  :-/

Jim

22
Lenses / Re: Upgrading lenses for college student
« on: January 23, 2015, 10:17:29 PM »
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) was good to me, even if the zoom ring goes the wrong way and it hums a little when it focuses.  Also I saw an article here about a Samyang (?) 50 f/1.8 which sounded competitive with the Canon one.  I tried a 28-135 briefly, I didn't see any reason to complain.

If you're near a camera store, try a few different lengths and see if there are any different focal lengths you like that you don't have.

Jim

23
Lenses / Re: 17-40 ---> 16-35 f4
« on: January 23, 2015, 06:49:15 PM »
I've used all three and the 16-35 f/4 is the only one I'll keep.

Jim

24
Lenses / Re: new TS-e lenses ?
« on: January 23, 2015, 06:46:26 PM »
Would anyone like to see a tripod collar included in the new designs?

I wouldn't, front movements are infinitely more powerful than rear movements and most of the collar designs convert the lens to a rear movement camera. The oft talked about parallax 'issue' is, really, a non issue talked about by those that don't actually do shift stitching and on the very rare occasions it might impact the image is simple to negate. Even the most often linked article pointing out the 'issue' is a bit of a fake, the example they use is not actually from a 135 format camera!

I'm interested in a Schneider 50 PC-TS but that is a good point; it comes with a collar with an integral ARCA-Swiss dovetail but I'm suddenly not sure how it attaches.  Thanks!

Jim

25
I have a Vello Freewave and little incentive to bother with anything else as result; if they're attractive there then I suggest they're worth a look.

Jim

26
Software & Accessories / Re: What monitor????
« on: January 16, 2015, 11:58:45 PM »
I have an LG 27EA33, it's probably out of production but it'd be a good deal if you can find one used.  In my experience with Win7 and NVidia display adapters, connecting via DVI rather than HDMI gives better results when calibrating a display.

Jim

27
Wedding Photography / Re: Bride + Softbox + OCC + Hotel Lobby
« on: January 16, 2015, 11:53:14 PM »
The first one is good, but the second one is out of the park.

Jim

28
Wedding Photography / Re: Bride + Softbox + OCC + Hotel Lobby
« on: January 16, 2015, 08:07:22 AM »
Off-camera cable perhaps?  Anyway she looks terrific in this; I'm not sure about the big reflections in her eyes but I'm also not sure what I'd do to change it.

Jim

29
Lenses / Re: TS-E Depth of Field newbie question
« on: January 13, 2015, 01:02:46 AM »
I don't have a good answer, but I'd like to hear what's out there.

Jim

30
The last one I don't mind, the first three give me the willies.

Jim

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 65