July 28, 2014, 11:57:15 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] 4 5 ... 78
31
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 22, 2014, 12:38:43 AM »
To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.

I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.  ;)

I'd hate to be judged at all for spending my money ;)

32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Where do you buy 5D Mark iii?
« on: July 22, 2014, 12:36:39 AM »
I got mine from eBay for $ 2445. It is an import model and came in the kit box. Interestingly, I bought the kit lens at the same time from the same seller, but the lens came separately, and was a US model with US warranty card. I have sold the lens since.
Mind you, some people have gotten US models of the 5DIII for the same price in the same deal (I wish I did, but I wish more that my camera doesn't need any servicing), so it might not hurt to ask if the seller has some to sell to you.

33
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 05:12:02 PM »
I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.
Ahh, the placebo effect.  That may be a possibility, though there are differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 such as the larger physical aperture, better coatings, and much better USM & build quality that make using this lens a pleasure.  For scientific side-by-side comparisons, at least the ones I've seen, the photos are very similar, but they don't represent real-world shooting where flare resistance and the ability to get reliable focus lock matter.

Note that I say "a lot of people falsely claim"- I don't think everyone who praises a 50L is capable of appreciating its unique features. You and some of the proponents on this forum might have appreciated it for its worth- but I bet there's a bunch who praise it without even having used the lens (as I said, confirmation bias). There is also a bunch who have used it, but not appreciated the difference first hand.

I agree with you about the 50/1.4 in my experience. I feel the images below f/2.8 are quite bland for my liking and need serious enhancement in PP. f/2.8 and above is equal or inferior to my 24-70II. Therefore, it is on Craigslist and FredMiranda at the moment. And this was my 3rd 50/1.4- the first was on APS-C where it was inferior to my 50/1.8 at any aperture above f/2. The second one has slight front-focusing which wasn't working for me as my 5D didn't have AFMA.
So I think it will take a better photographer than myself to get magical photos with the 50/1.4.

34
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 21, 2014, 04:52:26 PM »
EF-S prime in the range 20-24mm
EF-S 50-150 f2.8 IS
200mm f2.8 IS
100-300 f4 IS
A replacement to the 22-55mm would be nice, it is a very handy focal range. 20-50 f4 IS would be ideal and would make a killer holiday lens

Oh how I would love an EF-S 22mm 1.4. Or even 1.8. That would be awesome. I just can't justify the cost of the 24L, but if there were an EF-S version for $500 or $600 I'd be all over it.


I lusted after a fast lens in that range for APS-C for a long time, and the 24L was too expensive for what it offered. So I decided to go full frame. I have the 35/1.4, but even the 35/2 will give you better angle of view and depth of field than a 22/1.4.

35
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 04:22:50 PM »
Having never used a 50L, I shall try to explain the conflict with a more generalized perspective.

Given the exact same situation, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that the 50L will produce a very different look compared to a different 50mm lens, say a Canon or Sigma f/1.4. According to many of its users, and according to Canon's information brochure, it is supposed to be superior for certain uses.

However, that does not exclude the possibility that a Canon f/1.4 lens can produce similarly superior look in a different condition, or through post-processing).
So, I don't see those who say "50L producing a superior look compared to 50/1.4 lenses under the same condition" might automatically be expected to identify which images were shot with the 50L in a bunch of "superior look" images.

I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.

I think all lenses can produce magical images- the 50L might have some factors built in that requires less of an effort while composing or post-processing. I know my 135L can create beautiful portraits with little help from myself, and I have to work a little bit harder getting the same results with my 70-200. Fortunately, the 135L has fewer critics because it doesn't have any obvious shortcoming, and is quite inexpensive for an L lens.

36
Lighting / Re: Anything Strobist
« on: July 20, 2014, 04:23:16 PM »
Thanks for your comment. I used a IR-type preset for that shot, crushed the blacks a bit and it turned out better in BW in color, which I find seldom.

They have an B&W movie look that looks beautiful. Keep doing what you are doing, don't change a thing. Looking forward to seeing more.

37
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 135mm f/2L
« on: July 20, 2014, 03:37:31 PM »
You took a shot with a 135 at 1/10 of a sec and it turned out sharp!!!! Either you used a monstrous tripod, or you are my new hero. :-)

Thanks for the review, some of us like this type of review much better than charts of numbers.

I have handheld the 135/2 @ 1/80 and I don't even have the most steady of hands. I am sure a decent tripod can do 1/10 quite easily.
(if it is handheld, he is my new hero too ;) )

38
Lighting / Re: Anything Strobist
« on: July 20, 2014, 03:31:35 PM »
Viggo, you are utilizing the Art wide open beautifully. Love your B/Ws.
How strong was the sun? I am impressed that 2 Speedlites at 1/4 are able to overpower it so well.

39
Canon General / Re: New Speedlite Coming? [CR2]
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:43:59 AM »
Why not?  Did the non-RT 430 not exist alongside the non-RT 580?  One had more power and sold for more.  It didn't hurt the 580.

It's about what you can sell. Till the 600, Canon historically had high and mid level flashes co-existing, as did Nikon. Since they brought out the 600, people have been expecting a smaller RT-enabled unit to come out any day (for more than two years now).
At this point, people have sort of accepted that they have to get the 600 if they want RT- and it is such a desirable feature people are ponying up the cash. So providing a mid level RT-enabled unit now makes less sense to me.
At the end of the day, I keep emphasizing on "to me" because I don't have all the market research data Canon does. So we will find out, I guess.

I get what your saying, but, isn't it at all conceivable that part of canons strategy is to put the RT out there, give one option for a time, sell as many as you can to get people into the system. 

But also, why would they put any effort into rebranding a mid-level flash if it didn't have RT?  Just leave it as is.  If a new one is coming though, i highly doubt it won't be RT.  It will differentiate in the same way 430's differentiated from 580's (less power, slave only - the usual gimping).  I don't think it will hurt sales for 600's, same way 430's didn't kill 580's.  IMO - It just makes no sense to put any energy into designing a new flash to sit below the 600 without RT - unless they have a RT hotshoe adaptor on the way too...

Sure, it is possible. Maybe the 600 sales have finally plateau-d off, and Canon is finding new ways to bring in revenue.
However, I don't think there'd be an RT adapter.

40
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: HUMIDITY ALERT!
« on: July 19, 2014, 11:25:27 PM »
Use these and keep the lenses inside a sealed container when not in use.
http://www.amazon.com/Eva-dry-Renewable-E-333-Wireless-Dehumidifer/dp/B000H0XFCS/ref=pd_bxgy_hg_img_z
They can be renewed by plugging in for 10-12 hrs (for up to 10 years).
I have one 5 years old, and it works like new.

Alternatively, just use them regularly and you'll be fine ;)

41
Lighting / Re: Bare bulb mod of YN-560 III (with pictures)
« on: July 19, 2014, 11:05:33 PM »
Wow, I was just asking someone else who I had thought mod-ed his Speedlites.
Thanks for the post!
Also, is the capacitor inside the cylindrical thingy?
How do I make absolutely certain that it doesn't nuke me?

You take out the batteries BEFORE you start your disassembly? :D

Anyway, what is the purpose of this, I find my YN to be plenty hard when shooting portraits, not to mention full body shots. Completely hard shadow.

So, is this to get some more power out of it when combined with light modifiers?

Edit: read your post, yes, it is for more power, cool.
They're so affordable, I'd just ducktape two of them together instead going through all of this.

The capacitors retain enough charge to give you a potentially lethal shock even after you take out the battery.
I think the main reason for "bare-bulb"-ing is to have the non-directional light that you can shape as you want, especially with modifiers (well, that is my reason at least). Ideally, all light sources should start out as bare bulbs for maximum flexibility, but you can see how that will make the Speedlites extremely fragile.

42
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 19, 2014, 10:02:26 PM »
Extenders equipped with a switch to flip them into / out of the optical path (like the built-in extender in the 200-400 f/4 L IS).

Taking the optics out of an extender turns it into an extension tube, and the later has an effect on how far the lens attached to it can focus.

Don't know how Canon solved the issue with the EF 200-400mm, but I can only conclude it was tailored into this specific lens.

It's probably replaced by non-magnifying optics when the 1.4x extender is swung out.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 19, 2014, 08:14:49 PM »
The question of gear VS technique only comes up if you cannot afford the gear. If you CAN afford the gear and buy it, what is stopping you from improving your technique?
As Jrista said, the two complement each other. Use the best gear you can afford and spend time on your technique.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 19, 2014, 08:11:05 PM »
Right now I'm having flashbacks of a prior thread where people were debating the best technique to get an equivalent shot of exotic water foul using a 50mm lens instead of 600mm.

I think it involved snorkeling while holding a camera just above the water for a couple of years.

Damn it, now I have coffee on my keyboard!  ;D

45
Lighting / Re: Bare bulb mod of YN-560 III (with pictures)
« on: July 19, 2014, 06:30:45 PM »
Wow, I was just asking someone else who I had thought mod-ed his Speedlites.
Thanks for the post!
Also, is the capacitor inside the cylindrical thingy?
How do I make absolutely certain that it doesn't nuke me?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 78