August 30, 2014, 04:27:20 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 81
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in Q2? [CR1]
« on: January 31, 2014, 09:18:17 AM »
This is another useless CR1 7D2 thread to add to the already existing ones...

I wasn't thinking quite that harshly but I was thinking along the same lines. Nothing new people, just another "look 7D2" moment lol

I came to this thread to post the exact same thing. Only to find others that are already thinking the same thing. Another 7D2 CR1. When is this charade going to end? One day I will wake up, read CR and be genuinely shocked that a 7D2 has been announced! That day will be legendary!

We hope and wait ....

Lighting / Re: Benefits of a 600RT system ...
« on: January 30, 2014, 09:05:08 PM »
Many people who use flash to overpower sunlight with a modifier like a softbox that costs a couple of stops of light find they need to use 2-4 Speedlites in that soft box to get sufficient power.

My experience is that even a single speedlite helps a lot, esp. when @max zoom setting and not being shot in hss mode - you've then got the data to raise the shadows in post, even if it's a bit of work.

How does max zoom on the flash head help if the flash is firing inside a softbox?

Also, when you talk about 'raising the shadows' it sounds to me like you're talking about using flash for fill, whereas I'm talking about overpowering the ambient, e.g., using strobe as key and sun as fill (part or all).  Yes, a single Speedlite can work for fill, even in a softbox. However, as you say, you need to avoid HSS, and knocking bright sun down to 1/200 or 1/250 s means a narrow aperture (not usually desirable in outdoor portraiture) or an ND filter - either of which means you need even more light from the flash.

Yup. We're talkin f/16 through a softbox in the middle of the day. That takes a lot of juice. For the cost of even one additional 600 EXRT speedlite it's cheaper to go with the strobes and battery pack or monoblock.

Then again ganging 3 YN 560 III  speedlites together and fire through an umbrella is also pretty cheap and portable. That's my solution.

Lenses / Re: Why aren't new lenses weather sealed?
« on: January 30, 2014, 08:51:11 AM »
I guess its more a wish...

But I was looking at a friends Nikon 50mm f/1.4 G lens and that at least has a rubber gasket to stop dust entering your camera... The Canon 50mm f/1.4 hasn't got one  :(

The 50 1.4 is a design from the early 90s era! Hardly qualifies as "new". 

Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 30, 2014, 08:44:55 AM »
Zooms are versatile, primes are not.

Depends on the lens and what you mean by versatile. A fast prime lens is versatile as it can shoot in low light and offer a shallow dof compared with a slow zoom lens. A prime lens with IS is even more versatile!

Surapon - you should do whatever makes you happy. If you have the money then yeah why not. I would. How many cameras is too much? Pah! One for each day off the week I say!

I get what Dylan777 is saying. To get the best from the camera you're better off using native lenses. But you can also use your Canon glass as a little bonus, no harm!

I wouldn't sell your 5D3 and replace it with the Sony A7r. They serve different purposes. One for things that move and one for things that don't!

Personally, I think this may be (flame on and ready folks) Sony's swan song in a way. Their last ditch effort of a partially sinking ship. I really hope I'm wrong as I love Sony products but all evidence is pointing to a financial meltdown. I think they released these bodies too early in a "give it all she's got Scotty" kinda way. They're marvelous yes but there is little support and shaky confidence that it will be available in the not too distant future.

At the same time Canon are taking their sweet time. Why? Because they can afford to!

Photography Technique / Re: Tips for using CPL
« on: January 30, 2014, 01:07:55 AM »
I'm new to CPL. Bought a decent one (b+w xs-pro 82mm) and tried it the other day.  I rotated the front such that my foreground appeared more saturated with less glare. What I noticed was that the sky was partially/unevenly darkened. I was not using an ultrawide lens. I was at 24mm. The sun was more or less over my right shoulder, 90 degrees to my camera axis. How can I saturate the sky more evenly? I'm sure it's a matter of technique and not a fault of my CPL, and I'm hoping someone could shed some light. Thanks for your help.

It's uneven because the area near the sun will naturally be brighter. Nothing much you can do except shoot at a different time of day. GND will not solve the uneveness. You could recover highlight detail in the sky using software. I usually over expose the sky a little in favour of foreground then pull the sky back using a combination of highlights slider, curves and a grad filter tool if needed. Somtimes I might dodge and burn areas too. Use the HSL panel to tweek the blues back to a deep blue color. Adding a slight vignette also helps darken the sky. (This all works in conjuction with a CPL).

By doing it in post you have more control and can even it out a bit.

Btw how much of a difference are we talking about? A little is normal and natural for a landscape shot. Especially if there is a lot of sky in the shot. A plain blue sky of one tone is kinda boring anyway in my opinion.

Lighting / Re: Benefits of a 600RT system ...
« on: January 29, 2014, 11:24:51 AM »

I am pleased with the Elinchroms I recently bought but am not interested in buying a battery to use them outdoors. I'm looking to invest in a speedlight system where I don't need to upgrade anything other than probably add the odd speedlight in future.

People sing praises of the 600RT system. Can you please provide me with a link to a resource which explains the usage and the benefits of this system detail. Any other advise is most welcome.

Thanks in advance ... J.R.

Edit: I do have a 430EX II and have funds to get 600 EX x 2 at the moment.

The benefits of the 600 EX RT is in the built in radio transceivers. If you only buy one theres not much point but if you plan on a multi speedlite set up then it becomes very useful indeed.

For example - one 600EX on camera as master and possibly fill. One as key light and one as background separation. Then you can control the power levels for each light from the master itself. I think you can also mix ettl with manual (I could be mistaken).

The main issue I have with this set up is cost. Three 600EX RT will set you back almost $1500!!

There are other options that can do the same thing but cheaper. Notably Phottix Odin and Yongnuo.

If you combine Phottix Odin with Phottix Mitros+ speedlites you get the same thing as the Canon RT system. But the two systems aren't compatible. So you have to commit to Phottix.

See here for the full review

Or if you get the Yongnuo YNE3 transmitter you can use the Canon RT system and Yongnuo flashes if you want. See here. It's coming soon.

And the flash

Nothing new about the 50A? No pre order, weight TBA, no price, no word, no rumors, no nothing?

I think they're waiting until CP+ on the 13th - 16th Feb to announce the price etc. I'm tempted to go to it. One Shinkansen ride away for me. Plus they seem to be giving away tickets if you register.

Thanks! That makes sense, I still have a couple of 35's to sell, but man! I wanna have a go with that Siggy  ;D

I know how you feel though about waiting. It seems like forever. I think the price will be around the same as the 35 1.4 Art. The price is not the issue for me it's availability. Take my money Sigma! Just give me it already!!

I also want to see how it stacks up against the old one and the 50L. Doubt I'll buy the 50L ever but I am curious about the creamy bokeh, will this new Sigma provide us the delicious bokeh we all crave??

Nothing new about the 50A? No pre order, weight TBA, no price, no word, no rumors, no nothing?

I think they're waiting until CP+ on the 13th - 16th Feb to announce the price etc. I'm tempted to go to it. One Shinkansen ride away for me. Plus they seem to be giving away tickets if you register.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Honey, I'vs never seen it this hard before..."
« on: January 25, 2014, 10:53:48 PM »
OP - what you need is one of these.

Or buy a flash and fire it off camera, bounced into a corner for additional fill and direction. You can also use the 70D to track your kids movements using AI Servo mode.

(Edit - Wait I just read the part about the flash being distracting for your baby (I thought it was a kid running around??) and also read J.R's response. He hit on a few good points. )  ???

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 11-24mm f/4 Lens
« on: January 25, 2014, 11:21:11 AM »
It's only a patent. Unlikely this will ever see the light of day. Least we know Canon are exploring the wide end for a change.

11mm? How would that work I wonder while keeping it rectilinear? Intresting.

Lenses / Re: zooms vs primes for landscape
« on: January 25, 2014, 01:18:41 AM »
Hi. I'm hoping to prevail on the collective wisdom of CR regulars for advice on building my lens kit after making the change from crop sensor to FF (I've got the 6D - great camera). I got rid of the last of my crop sensor lenses, leaving me with the following lenses: 24-105 f4L, 50 f1.8II, and an older Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO HSM (no OS) that I've had since my Elan IIe days. I shoot landscapes, occasional portraits, and I would like to get into macro. I don't shoot sports and don't plan to. I see two possible paths forward: go mostly with primes or rely mostly on zooms. In either case, I plan to keep the 24-105 because of its versatility as a walk around lens.

Plan 1. Add the 24mm f2.8 IS, 35mm 2.0 IS, 100mm f2.8L IS, and 200mm f2.8L. Sell the Sigma. Perhaps add a Rokinon 14mm manual focus later. On hikes when I want to keep the weight down, I could go with the 24, 35, and 100 and have most of the bases covered.

Plan 2. Add the 17-40mm f4L, 70-200mm f4L IS, and 100mm f2.8L IS. Sell the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I don't want to buy the Canon 70-200 f2.8L (IS or non-IS) both because of the weight and the fact that for most landscape I don't need shallow DOF. Similar comments apply for the 16-36mm f2.8L. On hikes when I want to minimize weight, I would go with the 17-40, the 50, and the 70-200 f4L. I suppose that I could add macro ability by swapping the 50 1.8 for a 50 2.5 macro.

Any thoughts about either of these plans or other recommendations? Thanks.

Plan 2. Is very similar to what I have - 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200f/4L IS. Add the 100 for macro instead of my 135 for portraits and you've got yourself a very solid package.

As someone mentioned about walking a kilometer - a zoom is ideal if you are going to be walking around a lot in a short space of time. If you have all the time in the world and are only shooting say one thing at a time then a prime would make more sense, that way you set up your framing and composition just right, which takes time.

My thoughts on the 17-40L - at the wider focal lengths, stopped down around f/8-11 it is really good. The extreme corners may be a little soft but depends on subject matter. For example sky and water makes no difference. I publish to web so none of that is an issue. 95% is good enough for me. Regular people will not notice or care.

Also I prefer the 17-40 to the 24-105 for landscapes. The 24-105 has a lot of distortion at the wide end.

If I didn't like the ultra wide look so much I would have went with the 24mm IS. It sounds like the perfect solution for landscapes.

Oh and +1 on the Samyang 14mm f/2.8  :D (this and 24IS could be a good alternative to the 17-40L)

Lenses / Re: Canon 35 2 IS v Canon 40 2.8 pancake
« on: January 24, 2014, 09:18:30 AM »
A question for anyone who has the 40mm pancake and the Canon 35 f2 IS: do you see yourself keeping the 40 and 35 in your kit long term or do you see them as largely redundant?  Which of the two do you prefer?  I realise the 35 is a stop faster before you even take into account the IS, while the 40 is much smaller and lighter (although I gather the 35 is still fairly small and light), but I'm keen to hear from anyone who's used them both.

I've currently got a 40mm pancake, a Sigma 50 1.4 and an old Canon 28 1.8 (which I used as a general purpose prime on crop, but which hasn't seen much use since I got a 6D).  I'm planning to sell the 28, and I'm thinking about getting the 35 f2 IS but I wonder if I need (can justify!) having a 35 and a 40 (And a 50!).  I'd be using the lens mostly as a general walk around/street/low light prime when I want to go small and light (so something like the Sigma 35 1.4 isn't so appealing to me despite it's IQ reputation).  Another option is to sell the 40 as well as the 28, and replace them both with the 35.  Or I could just forget the 35 and stick with the 40.  To the extent relevant, I do have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM as well.  (I'd actually like to reduce the number of lenses I own, but somehow I seem to find buying easier than selling!)

Thanks for any comments you can offer!

Which focal length do you prefer? Wide or normal? Or a bit of both? It's really down to personal pref.

You could sell all of them and replace with the 35 IS. The 28 and 40 are very similar in terms of focal length. You can easily replicate the "look" of both with one 35mm lens.

A 50 is different though and has a unique look all of it's own. You might still find it useful.

Personally I'd sell the 28 no matter what. Keep the pancake for travel and keep the 50 for shallow dof stuff and creative uses.

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 10:35:45 PM »
If you buy a 17-40L as a standard zoom for a crop camera now that plenty of EF-s and other crop options are available, well, you're doing it wrong.  It's an ultrawide zoom for full-frame.

+1 - and that's the point of comparing it to the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens or even the 17-55/2.8 IS.  Compared to the 17-40L on APS-C, the former delivers not-too-different IQ and the latter delivering better IQ (and an extra stop of light, a broader range, and IS).  Yet, many people recommend getting the 17-40L 'in case you go FF maybe someday,' which I think is pretty foolish unless 'someday' is next month.

Ah yes those people who have a cheap entry level Rebel camera with a 17-40L stuck on the end! Yup I agree, unless your "other cameras a FF" and currently out of action you have no excuse! Too cheap to buy a FF camera but has enough to show off with an L lens! (A cheap one at that!) you're foolin no one son!

Canon General / Re: Review: Canon EOS 17-40 f/4L by DxO Mark
« on: January 23, 2014, 09:03:58 PM »
The 17-40mm L is designed for full frame and performs nearly identically to the 18-55mm kit lens, but is more expensive and worse in nearly every way (though it's color and contrast is said to be slightly better, I don't really care personally).

We should pick up that topic again after you try to shoot in snow, rain and sand for some time with the non-L lens - how sharp is your picture if your lens is broken or after you've gone broke yourself after so many repairs?

Then again, how many white box versions of the rebel kit lens can you buy for the price of one 17-40 L?

Wow, are we seriously comparing the 17-40L to the 18-55 kit lens? The kit lens is good but it's not in the same category. Despite the obvious differences, I can't for example use the kit lens as an UWA on FF therefore there isn't any way we can compare the two optically. I suppose you could buy a cart load of kits for the price of one 17-40L. But so what? I can also buy a few hundred disposable cameras, still doesn't solve my wide angle needs.

Why does everyone hate the 17-40L? We can't all afford 16-35LII lenses.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 81