March 06, 2015, 05:04:12 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 - Nishi Drew

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17
Not a peeve or anything, but along the line "you look like a pro, take our photo"

Just recently was on a mountain trip, and at this lookout point was a good place for some group shots with some friends.
It was night time and even with the ambient light I naturally had to put the shutter speed down, go F/1.4 and ISO 3200, my 5DII can handle the image ok, but this couple that was also there wanted me to take their photo as well.
And with the guys camera, a Rebel T4i with the kit lens, no way it would make a clear and exposed photo, and I knew it would struggle even at 3200 and I wouldn't go past that.
But lucky how everyone's Canon around here, I just slapped my 35mm on his camera and got at least the extra 3-stops necessary to get a shot, and I've never met a more pleased couple of people for taking their photo. They kept telling me how I was an amazing pro and what not, felt pretty good  :)

Especially as I wasn't very inspired that day and the rest of the photos weren't great.
Otherwise, I've gotten used to the "wow nice camera" part and just play along with agreeing that it's nice, and say what I like about it and what it can do, after all I do like my gear for what it can do

Lenses / Re: Handheld vs. tripod with the Great Whites
« on: November 17, 2013, 06:47:27 AM »
According to a majority of white lens owners here in Japan, you apparently cannot be recognized past amateur level unless you use a giant tripod, from "big white" to a 70-300 with IS, even if what you're shooting absolutely doesn't need any such support, but you're willing to lug around an F/2.8 zoom all day but shoot at F/16 only... err....
Seriously it's insane, was just at a nice place for autumn leaves viewing and I lost count past 50 of people with the 70-200 series of lenses, mostly 70-200LII too, and few of them are any sort of pro, just part of a photo group/club. It was interesting to see that a majority of users are Canon here, and more Olympus/Panasonic mFT users than even Nikon.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS SL1 in White Coming Soon
« on: November 15, 2013, 12:18:07 AM »
See the 40mm pancake? It's FF compatible, what if this camera is FF now!!!

Ok sorry no, that will never happen but hey, Canon making a big deal about this while other manufactures have amazing and unique cameras out...

I honestly don't think the loud shutter would be a problem for street photos… the city is noisy, no one can hear my 5DII

And I didn't expect the AF to be stellar, but seems it might be better than the 5DII at least (what isn't?), however I plan to get the Mark 3 soon anyways, and that's another league above of course.

What's this though… UNDER 300 shots per charge, haha I need 3 batteries to match a DSLR?
No way it's lasting through an event, I'm going to be switching more and likely missing shots!
And the slow shutter sync is another factor, I like outdoor strobe shooting.

Now, I do get the temptation of wanting one as a second body, or just general purpose, the A7 is so affordable from start and just thinking about the possible drop in value over time is exciting (well, RX1 is still up there but...).
For what these two cameras are, they're probably really good and would fit the bill with many shooters, but for what I do and even like to do casually, although the smaller size is appreciated, it's not quite there yet. Sony will eventually bring out another camera in the future so I will see how that goes too, by then perhaps AF and battery technology would have improved enough

Lenses / Re: 85mm
« on: November 14, 2013, 07:03:26 AM »
The trick to using these ultra-fast aperture lenses with a lot of color fringing wide open is to shoot in conditions that are low-contrast, with few bright highlights.  The 85L is not a lens that works well if shot wide open in direct sun.

Right, like a bride in a white dress on a sunny day... someone was showing off their collection of 85L wedding shots all shot at F/1.2 and oh dear, the dress did look interesting with a purple outline haha.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic range Nikon/Sony vs Canon
« on: November 09, 2013, 05:10:34 AM »
Meanwhile, the photographers that didn't really care went on to take marvelous photos with whatever cameras on hand

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Teaser
« on: November 08, 2013, 12:51:13 PM »
The viewfinder housing looks like a rebel, there seems to be a dial above the grip, like a rebel, and seems to have an EF-S like lens... like a rebel would...

And at this time of year before holiday season and no T6i yet, what do you bet?
It would make sense that nothing came up yet as Canon would have wanted to generate interest for the 70D first, then perhaps the new rebel would get the new sensor as well?? I wouldn't care for one but it's fun to speculate

EOS Bodies / Re: Now enjoy this....
« on: November 08, 2013, 07:15:32 AM »
The top bit reminds me of a rebel... hmm, it's about the time of year we have a T6i, for christmas is near and Sony/Nikon and their announcements already so it's Canons turn to bring out something fashionably late~

Let's see, Nikon's interesting attempt at retro with their Df, and Sony's FF mirrorless Cameras... yeah

Also that lens looks like an EF-S series
ALSO there's definitely a dial above the grip, yep, it's a rebel, move along

I was thinking "darn this thing's gonna cost over 4K" and oh dear LOL, ten times higher... how accurate do you want to be with the colors when everyones watching your stuff on uncalibrated cheapo screens anyways?
I want my screen to be near perfect but even for printing standards...

Well, what better display to match your $23,000 C500 and $10,000 set of lenses?
Yeah yeah this is for big budget studios and productions yeah...

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 07, 2013, 07:56:31 AM »
I like the concept of the camera. No video, only stills. I have not ever used the video mode on my camera. Actually, it would be nice if Canon could have used that space for more still photography features. Thats why I bought the camera in the first place.

Sorry, that's just a ridiculous statement, video doesn't "take up photo space", it's not extra hardware or neither does it take away from overall ability/quality or is in place of having "more photo features" (like, what more do you want??). It's just the live view mode made possible with the type of sensor that later lead to a recording ability, video. Taking video out doesn't help a stills oriented camera be any better at taking photos, it just can't do another basic feature technology today is expected to have.

As for how the Nikon DF is, well, they came close but it's still too fat and reminiscent of a very modern camera. Where's the slim, not too tall and simple film camera? Even if Nikon were to nail the look of an FM series camera better, that price! Sure, Canon sold tons of 5DIIs around that price, and this camera is probably better, but it's not cutting edge, and nor is this 2008, it's gone down in spec compared to modern releases but demands a premium. Meanwhile Fujifilm with their excellent cameras with sensible pricing. Not FF? Well the X100 rivals or even beats my 5DII for image quality and ISO performance, and the X series don't resemble any true retro camera, but they got the design right, it's nice to use and looks nostalgic enough, I did insult it for a while until I picked one up, used it a little, and fell in love~
If Canon made one, I always liked the New F1 but that's a lot of bulk and weight, something today's DSLRs already have, so like what a lot people seem to want, an AE-1? But seriously, if Canon did something similar they'd be bashed for copying Nikon AND be insulted for being late to the game...

Canon General / Re: How to teach a friend Photography...
« on: November 07, 2013, 05:34:07 AM »
I just tell anyone to keep on taking photos and not stop, that's how I learned, went to a class back in high school and learnt all the basics but nothing retained and my photography was unaltered. I began taking interest more later, finding photos that I liked and tried to recreate them, eventually shooting subjects in styles I liked. The needed basics for exposure and settings catch up, then after that, understanding of different cameras and lenses and all the wonders of lighting.
I went to a photography course in University as well, right when I was getting into wedding photography and portraiture, but oh goodness it was a joke, of course all the 101 basics I already knew already, but the instructor was reading out of a  textbook just covering all these technical things, even though he talks about his glory days of shooting dozens of weddings. Rule of thirds and interesting subject matter to photograph were covered, but I felt that if I were learning photography from start right there then I wouldn't have learnt anything or improve in it.

Ultimately with anything, self interest and persistent continued effort will lead to success in learning.
Also the two photography teachers I've had in classes NEVER showed any of their own work, only what they found on the internet, so bringing credibility and as a show of experience/knowledge it's good to show your own photos for examples.

I've gone about with people that were interested in photography and just walk through town and take photos of stuff and people, I help them out if they want to take something a certain way, and give (hopefully) useful comments on what I think could work good, or maybe the photo is already good and just let them know that. Sharing and talking about each others photos, what you/others like is important experience for growing, while criticizing too much is often harmful because photography is an art form, and unless someone wants to go pro for a certain field, they just need time, and with a lot of shooting will get to a style and perspective they can feel confident about.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Major IQ advantage of FF?
« on: November 07, 2013, 03:45:08 AM »
Of course full frame is better.

Why would you not shoot full frame? If you do not go overboard and limit yourself to say a 6D and a decent lens what would be the cost difference between this and crop? Not enough to matter in the long run.

However, better lenses are required, though shooting F/2 on APS-C is close to shooting F/2.8 on FF, which means the stopped down performance advantage with equal DOF is there with FF, but lenses tend to perform better on APS-C in regards to taking the good center IQ of a lens. I've compared shots with my 5DII + Sigma 35mm and a friend's X100, the images come so close to performance with image quality and ISO performance, my lens was sharper wide open and of course, I could go twice as shallow, but the colors and overall picture the X100 can put out with plain Jpegs are just marvelous, this made me reconsider the relevance of full frame for a while...
But, I'm comparing an FF from 2008 and a crop from 2010, so, smaller sensor cameras will outperform older larger sensor cameras, but in terms of latest tech the bigger sensor will outperform the smaller in ISO performance, color depth, DR etc. but it's all an eventual catch up game I believe

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are DSLRs so Big?
« on: November 06, 2013, 01:46:36 PM »
Why are DSLRs so big? Try putting a 70-200 f/2.8 on a Sony A7 and see how well it balances and handles :)

Large & heavy full frame lenses need a large body otherwise it is a royal pain to try and grip the camera body + balance the lens.

I actually far prefer the balance of the 400f5.6 on my Rebel T3 over the 5D2 with battery grip. The 5D2+grip weighs almost as much as the lens itself, meaning you pretty much have to hold the whole thing with two hands all the time, whereas with the Rebel it pivots on the Tripod foot and is much easier to swing around from carrying it by your side to lining up a shot. It feels a lot more nimble with a lightweight camera on the back.
I don't believe there's any reason a smaller body would be a compromise in control. Look at current Fuji models, they have more buttons and dials than any Canon. At any rate, I think it would be amazing if Canon would at least start developing light weight versions of their high end cameras. From what I've heard a lot of photographers tend to have pretty sore arms after a long day of shooting.

Errrrr on a tripod yeah, it won't matter especially with it mounted on the collar. Try handholding and it's a world of difference, you ever do an all day event or wedding shoot? The 70-200 F/2.8 is an all around great lens to use but man, back when I used a rebel with one it was a pain, halfway through the day my wrist was not working the way I wanted it to. Weight unbalanced towards the front, front-heaviness, is a lot more of a pain to deal with than getting a bigger heavier camera that actually balances out the whole setup. The bigger grip is comfortable to hold and the whole thing is easier to swing around. And really, ~ 800 grams is not bad for just the body when carrying a load of lenses and other gear, once you add a flash as well then shaving off several more grams on just a single body like with a mirrorless camera (lets say A7) doesn't do much.
Fujifim's cameras are that way because their lenses are also small and lightweight, and neither are they FF, which helps reduce the size and weight big time.

Aside from grip and balance though, DSLRs on their own aren't that big, even a 5D series, take the lens off and hey it can fit in a coat pocket :)
It's the big lenses, get a pancake lens like the 40mm F/2.8 and it's all compact enough.
The only reason I'd be excited about a mirrorless FF mount is for adapting all sorts of lenses to... lenses I don't have anyways though... small and lightweight bodies would need equally small and lightweight, but still fast and high quality lenses, and I'm not looking at Leica as they currently don't offer AF

I wished they have never included the video features but focus on improving image quality instead.
You know stuff like iphone trying to do multiple things at once aren't good at everything

There a particular problem with image quality? DSLRs have gotten better and better in the recent years, Nikon started adding video later than Canon and look at their D800, decent video but amazing IQ. Why NOT include video when you can and every other camera's got it? Knowing Canon, they haven't put much effort into improving video on the DSLRs since 2009 anyways, so the inclusion of video capabilities can not be blamed for the lack of desired progress in sensor technology. BUT, I can understand the sentiment for Canon bothering with video when they should be working on a lot of other stuff as well, just that I've been kind of making a living off of the 5DII and it's video

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« on: November 01, 2013, 01:04:28 AM »
If we're getting at the new RAW capabilities of both cameras, I say get the 7D, hack it and try it out(if the ML hack is available yet I don't recall). The extra cash saved over will get you a great lens or two and maybe a few cards and much needed batteries. Otherwise, if it hasn't been discussed, doing the necessary edits to RAW then transcoding the files to workable ProRes files should save plenty of edit time and space, and consequently costs as well.
Take a laptop to a shoot and constantly get those full cards cleared off to a larger HDD, that'll be extra gear and stuff to do but better than buying a boatload of expensive cards

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 17