January 29, 2015, 03:43:10 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 107
1
Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 28, 2015, 03:36:18 PM »
And All friends who do not want to clean the greasy LCD screen like me--0-I just use Canon Eyepiece Extender EP-EX15 = Less Than $ 20 US Dollars to add on between camera and original eyepiece n= BINGO , + I can see super clear Viewfinder, because of extra lens in the Eyepiece Extender.

Just be aware that the trade off for not having to clean your LCD as often is a 30% reduction in viewfinder magnification.

My eyeglasses provide eye relief (should ideally be called nose relief) as well as reduction in viewfinder magnification for free...  ::)
On that note, the 1D models have that extra eye relief but not the corresponding reduction in magnification. Is that because of a larger pentaprism than 5D/6D models?

2
Photography Technique / Re: Beginner Tips for Home Studio and Portraits?
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:11:57 PM »
1. Practice/Experiment

2. go to creativelive.com and consider purchasing/watching Lindsay Wagnar's studio training

3. Practice/Experiement...everyday

best of luck

+1
Lindsay Adler's tutorial is live, right now, for free.

3
Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 28, 2015, 01:21:21 AM »
Left is leading right by 40 to 34 at the moment.  Is it because...
1) Right eye dominance is less common than claimed here.
2) A camera just feels better held with the left eye to the viewfinder.
3) Left handed people are more likely to read posts about left versus right, so we are a very biased group.

My money is on option 3.  Maybe we need another poll, but with a misleading title to draw an unbiased (if annoyed) set of responses.

Another left hand, left eye shooter.

1) isn't necessarily correct because 'eyed-ness' isn't directly correlated with preference of using eye for composition. I find it equally convenient to compose with my left eye. The problem lies in the fact that my nose is brushing against the LCD, my right eye is under serious threat of being poked as I BBF with my thumb and doesn't provide any compositional advantage as it is completely blocked.
2) for the reasons above, I doubt this is the case for the majority
3) interesting observation. I wonder...

4
Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 27, 2015, 10:27:12 PM »
LOL, Surapon! This post once again justifies Rusty's signature line' "Yes, but what would Surapon say?"  ;D ;D ;D
It is a funny post which nevertheless accurately describes the science behind it. You are a genius, sir!

I am also right eye dominant. However, I use my right eye in the VF because (1) it keeps my nose away from the LCD screen but more importantly (2) it allows me to keep my left eye open and help compose. I was trained to use both eyes in a scope from using old-style microscopes in medical school. Also, as Surapon said your vision is affected if you keep an eye closed, which is why during eye testing at the optometrists the non-tested eye is kept open but shielded.

CaptainZero:
The test is not quite what you did. You need to keep looking at the pencil- it helps if the background is close enough so it is reasonably well in focus. For example, line up a point on your computer screen with the pencil, and look at the pencil with both eyes open. Make sure the pencil isn't too close to the screen or else the effect will be too negligible to notice. Let's say pencil at 25 cms, and the screen at 3 feet. For right eye dominant people, the point on the background and the pencil are still lined up when you close your left eye, but when you close your right eye the background seems to shift to the left. It is still possible you are in the minority without a preference for either eye.

I am right eye dominant and right handed.
That sounds pretty weird compared to the rest of us ;)

So I'm weird too?  :D I'm also right handed and my right eye is the dominant one. Therefore I use my right eye to look through the viewfinder.
Another reason is that I like to close the eye which I'm not using which I only can in this combination (right eye open, left eye closed). Maybe if this also worked the other way round I could try to use my left eye more often  ;)

I believe right eye dominance is much more common that left eye dominance. This trait is completely independent of right or left handedness (and here too, right handedness is much more common). Therefore, as a combination of independently sorted traits, right eye-right hand dominance is more common, although in lesser frequency.

5
Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 27, 2015, 03:18:03 PM »
Do you use your dominant eye when composing through the viewfinder or do you force yourself to use your non-dominant eye in order to try to stimulate the other half of your brain?

Sorry, but that's not how it works.  The left side of visual space is represented on the right side of the brain (and vice versa), so each eye projects to both hemispheres of the brain.

Ok, it feels weird explaining this to you, but there is something as eyed-ness or ocular dominance (not to be confused with Ocular dominance columns, for others reading this post) (see Porac and Coren, 1976). You can easily test it out by holding a pencil vertically in front of you and having something on the background matching its position. When you close one eye, you see the background shift in reference to the pencil but not so for the other eye. The latter is said to be your dominant eye. Some people don't have this preference.

6
Site Information / Re: Underneath my name
« on: January 27, 2015, 03:03:57 PM »
This thread made my day!  ;D ;D ;D
(ok, so I am easily satisfied)

7
Canon General / Re: Photographer Petitions Canon for Left Handed Camera
« on: January 27, 2015, 02:49:10 AM »
LOL.

Have you ever thought about playing a piano? How about making a left handed piano for you, Mr. YAMAHA please? Even if Steinway make one for you, will that make you a better piano player?

Have you ever requested TOYOTA to make a left handed Corolla for you, since you can't change gear with right hand?

People always say left-handed person is smarter than those right-handed. What do you think?

I am right handed, with tennis elbow for many years. Since then I have to use left hand to brush my teeth as suggested by Doctor. How much difficulty is it to use a regular camera for a left-handed person, compare to use left hand to brush teeth?
 
LOL. ;D

Are you suggesting that it is possible, with some practice, for a person with complete paralysis of the right arm to use a regular dSLR camera quite easily (as I suppose it was for you to brush with your left hand)?
If so, I'd love to hear how you think she might do that.
Oh, and you might have missed the introduction of automatic transmission in cars, including the Toyota Corolla...

8
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 25, 2015, 08:18:56 PM »
Well, yes of course -- there is that difference.   The problem becomes whether I want to trade or not, and what I can trade for is limited.   It began as a trade for the 24-70 f4 IS, but then decided the 24-105 will stay in the bag instead because I don't gain enough with the 24-70 f4.   So, now the options fall at 16-35 f4 IS, but I have to put some cash with it for that lens, which I didn't want to do if possible. 

Now, as I work thru it all and look at the options (duplicate FL, and other factors) it seems the only option that remains realistic = 16-35 f4 IS ... sometimes it takes writing it down, listening to others, and then making the obvious choice that should have popped out in my brain  immediately.   So, looks like I'll be testing that new 16-35 soon enough if I can 'taper down the cash part" a bit ... thanks for the responses -

Too soon to start congratulating you? :P

9
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:11:03 PM »
Interesting comments -- 

My gut reaction is, stay with the 24-105 as it likes that extra range, and it's shooting very clean images.   I guess 24-70 was tugging at my brain after hearing all the good reviews, and hearing some not so good reviews about the 24-105 (which I happen not to agree with as much) ...   so, will probably continue the 24-105 and maybe put a few more bucks into this trade and pick up the 16-35 f4 IS lens instead -- (that 'might' be an option).  I do have a tendency to shoot at the long end of whatever lens is on the camera for some reason.

I shoot very little real wide work tho, and limited indoors work as well, but maybe that will change if the 16-35 f4 hits my bag.  I do have a 20-35 lens, so it would benefit me 16-20, altho the 20-35 is not an "L" lens, it is quite sharp and give great color performance -- an old lens, not available anymore.  Great lens tho ... I'd never sell it.

Guess I'll lean toward the 16-35 f4 and see what happens ... at least it's not a duplicate range.  Any comments on that lens - it compares to the 17-40 f4, but reviews on the 16-35 f4 seem better. <still puzzled>  But have probably answered my own Q here.  Always helps to listen tho, makes one think in a positive direction.


There's going to be only one type of comment in response to the 16-35, and you can guess what that is.
Mediocre zoom with overlapping FL vs tack sharp ultrawide with IS? It's a no-brainer, in other words.

10
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 25, 2015, 06:23:14 AM »
Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

+1
Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.

You don't need to, you can work out the tilt you want before you lift the camera to your eye, the 'J distance' is the key and tilt tables give you the values you need, the shift is easy to do through the viewfinder and focus will follow on from your tilt angle and desired plane of focus angle. It sounds much worse than it is but once you start playing with the TS-E's it becomes second nature.

You know, I think you'd mentioned the Tables when I started off with the TS-E and then I completely forgot about it and was making my life difficult....
Thanks a bunch!

11
Lenses / Re: POLL: Which of these UWA options would you buy?
« on: January 24, 2015, 08:56:33 PM »
Given that many people with FF cameras have a 24-xx L-series zoom...

In my case, I had the 16-35/2.8 II and swapped it for the TS-E 17mm as my ultra wide lens...

Neuro, do you use your TS-E exclusively on a tripod, or do you often find yourself shooting handheld?

Almost always on a tripod, though I have shot handheld a few times with the TS-E 24 (using shift, not tilt).

+1
Can't imagine myself holding that beast of lens+body combo with one hand, in front of my face to use live view, and changing the tilt movements with the other hand.

12
Lenses / Re: 17-40 ---> 16-35 f4
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:50:17 PM »
I use the $2,000+ 17TS-E almost every day, it is lauded as the best ultra wide lens made by Canon, I recently got a new 16-35 f4 IS for $999. At 17mm the zoom has every bit as much resolution as my TS-E and the contrast is much better.

The 16-35 f4 IS is a very very good lens with sharpness and contrast that rivals the very best available, throw in IS, the 77mm filter thread, and the keen price, I am more than happy with the purchase.

i will be getting the 17TSE I know its a super good glass but since you own it is the 16-35 f4 a better buy. I will not be switching a prime for a zoom thou.

They are very different lenses that do different jobs, but as a 17mm 'prime' the 16-35 f4 IS beats the pants off the 17TS-E. Of course if you need tilts and/or shifts then the 16-35 is useless!

After selling my 16-35 f2.8 MkI and using the 17TS-E as happily as I was I wasn't actually planning on replacing my ultrawide zoom, but after seeing it on CPW for $999 I thought I'd give it a go and I am very happy that I did, the IQ from it is staggeringly good and the functionality with the zoom, weatherproofing, AF, IS etc just makes it a supremely good package. I know it is really the 17-40 replacement, and as such it is a large cost increase, but to my mind it is worth every penny and some.

The 17TS-E does stuff the 16-35 never will, but unless you really need that functionality then the zoom is a vastly better buy. And unless you must have the 17 fov I'd recommend the 24TS-E over the 17 any day.

What do you use your TS-E for?
I have generally don't use wider FoVs than 24mm for landscape and the 17TS-E is great for buildings (outside and inside) and the Rokinon 14 is great for getting really close or small spaces. For that reason, amazing as it is, I haven't been able to justify the 16-35. Since I hope to get into real estate photography, I think the 17mm is one I need to hang on to even for non-entertainment purposes :)

13
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:41:08 PM »
IMO, the 24-70 is nothing special.
I had it for a while, and it's just ok. The macro is pretty unusable for the close subject distance you will have to use.
The wider end is probably a lot better than the 24-105, though.
However, in your case it doesn't seem like you have anything to lose by getting the 24-70, and actually a bit to gain. So why not try it out? If you don't like it then you can always sell it...

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Ice sculptures - any tips?
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:36:06 PM »
Very nice results candyman.

Thanks!
Wished I had more time in a less crowded environment.

Very nice shots (the light on the motorcyclist is superbly captured), but I will restate what I said in my (deleted) post. If you had a wider angle lens, you could get closer and not have to wait for people to move.
Also, the effect of getting up close can often be dramatic.
For stationary subjects, the 4-stop IS of the 16-35 is more relevant than that f/4.

15
Lenses / Re: Where are the new Canon 50mm and 85mm lenses?
« on: January 24, 2015, 03:03:01 PM »
The Canon 50mm primes are the most disappointing set of lenses in Canon's portfolio. I've owned and used professionally every one of them except the 50mm f1.0 L and all of them have been disappointing when compared to the results from other Canon prime lenses. The build of a 50mm f1.2 L is impressive and it's a great lens, but it's just not as sharp as it's price tag would indicate (even stopped down). Shortly after it was released it's new value plummeted and stayed quite low for a long time. Then one day Canon raised it's prices and bumped it's price point because it was erm...f1.2 and therefore worth more. The saddest thing is that it's really tricky lens to use and one which most people go for if they are dabbling with a pro prime lens itch. The 35L and 85IIL are far better performing lenses. 

I'm sure that Canon have a new set of 50's in development, but when is anyone's guess. 

As to 85mm lenses....Canon already have those covered and they are both awesome.


Interesting take.

I feel like the 50 1.4 has a MUCH better rendering profile than most other non L canon primes. The 85 especially suffers from fringing wide open, and has a veeeeery flat profile. Its a great lens and af is blazing, but i sold it because it was too long for crop and all that purple fringing drove me nuts.

A 50 1.4 with IS would simply kill. I think we would all buy one. But i would want it to keep the beautiful rendering of the current version, not so much the still good 35IS.

I am curious- would you mind expanding on that? I have tried to love the 50/1.4, but failed on three separate occasions. It just seemed to lack contrast and color and it wasn't very sharp below f/2.8 or so. Due to the lack of contrast and sharpness, the out of focus effect looked extremely bland.
It seems to me like a lens that might work with sufficient post-production, unlike the 35L or the 135L which just pop without much help from Lightroom.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 107