April 16, 2014, 10:16:02 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44
1
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: Today at 10:12:25 PM »
That's all fine and dandy... but neither will approach the airspeed is of a swallow carrying a coconut

I think Arthur et al. (1975) show that at least two swallows will be required.


Do the experts here think the overall land speed of the unicorn will match or at least come close to that of the dodo? 

What do you mean by overall land speed?
No offense to Drizzzt's excellent deductions, but if we are talking about also running over terrain that horses (uh- unicorns) cannot tread easily, like swamps, that will severely alter results.
By the way, thanks to Drizzzt for clearing up the issue about the dodo's speed. I had maligned the dead guy in an earlier post ("1/125 isn't enough to shoot a dodo with the 135L, let alone a hummingbird").

2
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: Today at 09:12:02 PM »
The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?

3
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: Today at 09:04:02 PM »
Just an observation from a reader, but you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do in their photography.

If some like to shoot with zooms, how does that affect you?
If some like to buy expensive pro gear but are not pros, how does that affect you?

In this thread you have used denegrating terms "outgrowing" and "waste" and such several times, when describing what is a personal choice for all of us. I did not understand your original post about the 50mm Sigma and in reading your responses it reads like you consider yourself some how better than the rest of us.

You like to shoot primes.  So do I.  I don't even own a zoom.   But I would never make someone else feel badly if they choose to use a zoom. What other togs do and how they shoot affects me little.

Just an observation.

+1. AP is definitely speaking for me, at least.
I commented earlier about how this thread is vague and directionless (did I mention never-ending?), but didn't really mind it at that time.
But it does seem that the OP has a flair for making passive-aggressive attempts at offending people and their gear.
I say, passive-aggressive because there is always the switchback as below:

Quote
If you are not using that lot to generate some income then there is something wrong !
then
Quote
I do agree though if you have the money then why not its up to you.
   
Quote
specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible
then
Quote
as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

I am afraid the only thing for me to take from this thread is whom to avoid if I am looking for a professional photographer in UK. 'Professional' means more than 'making money' to me.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon 50L - Love or Hate?
« on: Today at 06:45:46 PM »
I think the choices are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I love the look of the 50L, but wouldn't spend that much on an FL I don't use so much.
For me, the nifty fifty is fine until a more general purpose 50mm comes out or 50A prices go down a bit.

5
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: Today at 06:23:24 PM »
However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps).

This makes sense, except Canon has really handicapped the 50 1.4 for some reason. The sharpness isn't great and nor is the bokeh (and I am not even talking of 50L levels here), and clearly no adjustment was done there intentionally. It doesn't even have a ring USM.
Indeed a allrounder standard lens has its place, and I am sure an updated 50mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.8 IS is a matter of time (although I know I'd prefer a 1.4, the majority of people might not, and that is what matters).

Thanks for the explanation, jrista! It did seem to me the issue might be focus shift but then I felt Eldar has probably seen all the AFMA drift at f/1.4.

7
Software & Accessories / Re: The best tripod ...
« on: Today at 03:22:56 AM »
I'm thinking of buying me a tripod and a tripod head... when I started thinking about tripods and heads.

You have two super-telephotos and you are just thinking of tripods? Do you mostly use monopods, or are you really strong? I am frankly quite surprised.
In these forums, people start looking for tripods as soon as they order their first telephoto (I know I would).
I am sure you will choose nothing but the best considering the quality (and heft) of your gear.

8
Lenses / Re: Landscape lens for backpacking
« on: Today at 03:18:20 AM »
Please do think this out well and make your decision. The best landscape photos are make when the light is real low. In low light a FF camera is much better than a crop. Pick your camera for the toughest need, not for the bulk of the need.

This is great advice.

9
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: Today at 03:09:36 AM »
My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.


I have a technical query here:

As far as I understand, the purpose of AFMA is not to 'fix' defective lenses, but calibrate a specified lens to a given camera to account for manufacturing tolerances.
Once the AFMA is done, the camera knows how much to compensate for this lens, and everything is hunky-dory.

But in what condition can AFMA drift as is happening in Eldar's case? Is it because something is moving within the lens and a gap is getting bigger or a cog is becoming more loose?

I am particularly interested since I just acquired a 35A (so far it looks like it is focusing right on target as shown below- spot focused on "6" using a peripheral point and center point respectively), I haven't run it through FoCal yet.

10
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: Today at 02:11:49 AM »
I see the discontent on this forum about Canon not yet having a perfect fast 50mm, a tack-sharp UWA zoom, etc., and I learnt a few days ago that Nikon brought out their f/1.4 autofocus primes, 24mm and 35mm, only in 2010. That must have made for a lot of irritated professionals! 

11
Lenses / Re: Landscape lens for backpacking
« on: Today at 02:00:20 AM »
I am lucky to say that I have a permit to hike the John Muir Trail this August and cannot wait to bring my camera along with me. I currently have a 40D, 24-70 mk I, and 15 fisheye. I would like to get wider shots than the 24-70 on my crop, and am kind of forced to make a decision: get a FF body or a wider lens. I'm not 100% sold on any FF body as being the one for me (new or used), so I'm leaning towards new glass. Weight and price are not of concern to me as this is going to be one epic trip. The obvious choice seems to be the 16-35 for superior IQ over the 17-40, despite weight and cost. But are there primes I should consider as well? I certainly wouldn't hesitate considering one, especially if the IQ and weight are superior by comparison to the 16-35.

Thanks!

The 16-35 is definitely a better choice for at least two reasons:
1. Since you are backpacking and don't have a tripod, the lens with better sharpness (esp. at corners) at wider apertures will make a big difference.
2. More light will also make a difference due to the lack of light sensitivity inherent to a crop sensor.
I haven't felt there is a huge weight disadvantage over the 17-40, and I am not a particularly powerful person.
It is certainly a good investment IMO, and a very versatile lens both on APS-C and FF.

12
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: Today at 12:43:08 AM »
Houston rodeo 2014, cowboy mounted shooting.

13
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: Today at 12:42:12 AM »
Houston rodeo 2014, cowboy mounted shooting.

14
Lenses / Re: Filters Question
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:15:53 AM »
Hi all,

Just want an opinion:

My main lenses right now are all 77mm but I'm going to get an 24-70 f2.8L II in a few months...

Is it better to get a larger filter such as an 82mm over a 77mm and just use a step up filter when using it on smaller lenses?

Thanks

I'd get both 77mm and 82mm filters (actually that's what I did).
It is a hassle to use C-Pols with step-up rings since you cannot use the hood.
If you don't use hoods, then yes, getting an 82mm future-proofs it.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 15, 2014, 06:13:58 AM »
The Art is on preorder. Could not resist ;)

Nice :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44