April 19, 2014, 03:37:07 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 - Alrik89

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
The clients give a crap on photographers workflow, only the result matters. If the photogs use an iPhone or a Hasselblad - it doesn't matter, if the result satisfies the client.

Or have one of you ever been hired for the sensor in your camera?

2
The context of this thread is not that "Canon makes the worst sensors", but rather that Canon is getting beat in sensor technology.

I know plenty of great photographers who make great photos with Canon gear. But this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the Sony sensors, from ISO 100-800 are more advanced than Canon's.

So what? Canon will release some new sensors some day and they will be more advanced than Sonys sensors.
And then will Sony release new sensors.
And then Canon...

I think you got the idea.
Only tech-addicted photographers give a krapp about sensors - their clients don't, except they are tech-addicts as well.

3
Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?

You shoot stopped down, so why should sharpness at wide-open matter?

I'm asking at f8 for two different lenses? I don't care about sharpness wide open.

It is not easy, to put the question right, isn't it?
And, wow, you already got an answer concerning sharpness with a stopped-down aperture:
I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization.

4
Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness?

You shoot stopped down, so why should sharpness at wide-open matter?

5

After all this I'm only further confused. Only thing I know is that I need something that will get me macro and that I need something that will give me compression. It needs to be crazy sharp and as little distortion as possible. And I know that I don't want to buy polarizers million times. so..

My 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 have same filter size
 and 100L macro and 70-200 4 have the same filter size...
Now macro is mostly for studio so... I don't know... in the end I might just go crazy and get 70-200l and 100l macro, and the heck with it. ;D


The sharpest lens in Canon lineup is the EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM macro - distorion-free. Buy a 72 to 77mm stepup-ring.

6
Quote from: skoobey

And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open;D


Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g.

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS

You're not constructive. Maybe I should "fix lighting in post" too? :D lol Or maybe, it's all the same when stopped down lol?

I'm totally constructive. Every lens delivers sharp pictures when stopping down, even crappy low-budget lenses. So, there is no significant difference in sharpness between the macro-IS and the macro-NonIS. Therefore it comes down to another crucial point: the image stabilization.

Same issue with the 70-200m: do you like the flexibility of a zoom lens?
-> Yes! --> 70-200mm 2.8 II
-> No! --> Fixed focal length lens like the macro lenses mentioned above.

7

And please, please don't take wide-open bokeh or sharpness into consideration, I NEVER shoot wide open;D


Considering this, i would stay with the 24-105mm and recommend removing the distortion in post procession - today this is an one-click-action in lightroom e.g.

Do you need IS for macro?
-> Yes! --> 100mm 2.8 IS
-> No! ---> 100mm 2.8 nonIS

8
Personally, I'd choose the 70-200 II + 1.4xIII for the better IS and AF with similar IQ.

...you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

Impressive...three lies for the price of one! 

I guess you don't realize that while the crop factor applies to aperture, too (in terms of DoF), the lower ISO noise of FF adds more than than the 1.3-stops if you need the deeper DoF, allowing even faster shutter speeds at the same DoF...   

The only thing the OP missed by not getting the 70D was the chance to lose shots from the lesser AF system, slower frame rate, etc.

DoF isn't a concern, not in the initial post of the thread opener, nor in my post - so, what are you talking about?

9
You missed a chance to save money and get a Crop Camera like the 70D instead of the 300mm f4.
Together with the 70-200mm 2.8 II you'd have the same amount of reach, you'd be more flexible and have one f-stop more speed.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone using ISO 50 on 1DX?
« on: October 13, 2013, 06:09:35 AM »
Looking through my motor racing shots at 1/100 - 1/160 Tv (for motion blur) on 1DX, ISO 100, understandably the aperture is frequently >f16. I'm considering trying ISO 50 (ND 105mm filter c$500!). Anyone have any experience of ISO 50 - From what I've read, it's not as noise-free as 100?? Thanks. :-)

You can afford a 1Dx but you can't afford the time to test ISO 50 by yourself?

11
Software & Accessories / Re: What would you do without Photoshop?
« on: October 07, 2013, 06:53:23 AM »
Lightroom has already replaced Photoshop.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon goes Medium Format?
« on: October 02, 2013, 01:46:04 PM »
If Canon goes MF, why do they waste money and capacities for inventing a high-Megapixel-FF-Sensor?

13
Software & Accessories / Re: Is Facebook worth it?
« on: October 01, 2013, 02:30:04 PM »
Also, on facebook, how many more people are going to get to see your wedding photo's than if just an album was printed and put in someone's loft?

I think you underestimate the magic of print - and its reach.
In my opinion, the couples still want to share a special moment like their wedding personally. So they won't dare to satisfy their photo-hungry friends with a lame album in the internet. They invite all their friends to their house and take a look at the photos together - even if 90% of these guys are facebook addicts.

But to answer your question:
If the couple has 75 friends on their wedding and 75 friends on facebook - well, i think the amount of the people who will see the album and who will see the photos on facebook is basically the same.

And finally: what will leave a bigger impact at potential customers a.k.a. future wedding couples?
a) a facebook album
b) a nice printed photo album

It's not hard to find the answer.

Unlikely. I know many people who have hundreds or even thousands of "friends" on FB and I can guarantee you that the photos posted their will reach more people than the photos seen in their printed album after the wedding.

You have tons of friends on facebook, and they have tons of friends, too. Ask yourself: is it probably that these tons of people will see your post (or those of your friends) with your awesome pictures? Or is it probably that your post with your awesome pictures will simply be overlooked due to the fact that there are tons of posts from tons of people even if they are your friends?

14
Software & Accessories / Re: Is Facebook worth it?
« on: October 01, 2013, 08:27:46 AM »
Also, on facebook, how many more people are going to get to see your wedding photo's than if just an album was printed and put in someone's loft?

I think you underestimate the magic of print - and its reach.
In my opinion, the couples still want to share a special moment like their wedding personally. So they won't dare to satisfy their photo-hungry friends with a lame album in the internet. They invite all their friends to their house and take a look at the photos together - even if 90% of these guys are facebook addicts.

But to answer your question:
If the couple has 75 friends on their wedding and 75 friends on facebook - well, i think the amount of the people who will see the album and who will see the photos on facebook is basically the same.

And finally: what will leave a bigger impact at potential customers a.k.a. future wedding couples?
a) a facebook album
b) a nice printed photo album

It's not hard to find the answer.

15
Software & Accessories / Re: Is Facebook worth it?
« on: October 01, 2013, 06:39:45 AM »
And as for "of an age"... There is a particular age in all folk where they just switch off to accepting that new things happen in life and they might have to learn new things. My grandparents still have a VCR as they refuse to learn how to use a DVD player/sky+, they begrudgingly got a new TV for the digital change over as they didn't want more than 5 channels. The guy that I first assisted photography wise gave up because he refused to go digital when all our clients requested digital images. crazily though, he had me scanning all the negatives/transparencies...

of an age = that point in life where you refuse to accept that things move on... (like the photography business model)

And what has Facebook to do with "photography business model"? I am still waiting for arguments, why it is inevitable to use Facebook.
Yes, Facebook is new (barely, it exists since nearly 10 years!) - but it is far away from being THE business solution for photographers. I think, many people overestimate the impacts of getting some attention at a social network. A lot of photographers get in touch via Facebook to market their tutorials, their courses or their books - but barely their photos. And what happen: they get in touch with other photographers/amateurs, which want to learn a lot of stuff. Where are the customers?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4