April 24, 2014, 09:24:18 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 - Botts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12
61
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Mark II
« on: September 24, 2013, 06:17:27 PM »

I have to agree with Lichtgestalt.

I think Auto ISO is for the lazy people or people that don't know anything about photography or video. Even with "today's" cameras... how do you let a camera's logic decide how much noise is acceptable in your pictures or video?

In my humble opinion, its like auto-white balance, you know you're a novice if you're still using auto-white balance.

Really?  I don't think I've turned off AWB since I got my 6D!

If you shoot RAW, I don't see the value of taking the time to set AWB.  Just do it as a batch in post!

62
Lenses / Re: 40mm Panckake or 35mm 1.4L For walking street
« on: September 23, 2013, 05:13:46 PM »
Im tryna find a prime lens for my 7D to walk the streets with. Im currently using my 5DMKIII with the 50mm 1.4 and i love it. Which lens out of the 2 would match the quality and look of that FF combo??

Any thought or suggestions would be great.. Thanks

I just sold my 40STM and 50/1.4 to subsidize a Sigma 35/1.4 purchase.

I've shot a ton with the L, and a lot with the Sigma 35/1.4, and for my money Sigma is the choice today.

I found the 40STM too tight, and obviously the 50mm even tighter.

I used the 35L, 40STM and 50/1.4 on a 7D and a 6D, on both bodies, and I prefer the 35mm on both crop and FF.

63
RX1 > X100s? Or is the rangefinder part that is drawing you to spend you monies?

The design and look of x100s. I don't care much about rangefinder.

Lately, I'm getting lazzy dragging my 5D + L lenses around. My wife and I took a lot photo of our kids. 80 to 90% from RX1 due to compact size of camera. With 2 kids(2&5yrs), I don't have time to edit raw. JPEG file from x100s looks really really good for everyday photos.

I rented the X100s for a week and absolutely loved it.  I'd own it, but finances dictated it was a Sigma 35/1.4 for the 6D or the X100s.  The Sigma 35/1.4 was just a better purchase for me at the time.

The JPEGs out of the X100s are beautiful and colourful, the camera is also easy to shoot and quite fast.  I also really liked its strobe exposures.

64
Third Party Manufacturers / Reikan FoCal with Sigma Dock
« on: September 22, 2013, 05:34:32 PM »
Hello everyone,

I just ordered a Sigma 35/1.4 and USB dock.

Has anyone developed a workflow for using Reikan FoCal with the Sigma dock?  It seems like they'd be a fit made in heaven for each other.

This obviously isn't as important for the prime 35mm as it would be for one of the Sigma zooms, but a workflow would be useful nonetheless.

If no one has tried this before I'll try and figure it out myself!

65
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New iPhone: Final Nail in the Coffin
« on: September 14, 2013, 03:54:33 PM »
I think it would be safe to say that flash gels might go extinct if the auto balancing flash takes off.

Could you imagine if you could develop a flash with super bright Red/Green/Blue bulbs and could do any light colour you want without gel?

That would be awesome.

66
Software & Accessories / Re: External HDD for backups
« on: August 17, 2013, 01:04:30 AM »
Hi all,

I'm currently backing up all my photos and other work on a second (and third) physical drive in my PC, but I've decided that I'd also like to back everything up on an external drive. I'm not interested in the passport-sized 2.5"drives, as I've had a couple of them in the past, and they've both recently died for some reason. I'd prefer a 3.5"sized drive that also needs plugging in to the mains. As for size, something around 2TB is ideal, but if anybody can suggest a bigger one that is better, great!

As for brands, I'm not that particular, although I had one of the LaCie Porsche drives about 8 years ago, and it died the second time I used it. If their quality has improved much in the last few years, I'd happily consider them too.

As for interface with the computer, it'll have to be USB2. I don't have USB3 ports on my computer, and I don't have Firewire either.

What would you guys suggest as a solution for this?

Cheers,
Malcolm

My list of must haves:
  • USB 3.0 (future speed advantage if you don't have it now)
  • Minimum 3TB (it's a minuscule price to upgrade to 4TB even, nothing is worse than outgrowing your backup and having to buy a new drive and subsequently throwing out your previous 2TB drive.)
  • Seagate, WD, Hitachi, or G-Drive (sometimes Lacie's are great, but you never know what drive you're getting inside it.

67
Software & Accessories / Re: Flash for FoCal - Anyone try it?
« on: August 17, 2013, 12:50:15 AM »
Well, back to the old drawing board.  Thanks for the replies. 

Jim

My solution was: go to Home Depot, buy two 500w halogen construction lamps that came with a stand, light FoCal target.  All is good.

Cost me under $30 on sale.

68
I was looking to pick up a Mac Air because I want something light and convenient for viewing and editing photos in the field...but then I noticed the Retina display on the MacBook Pro, the resolution is so much greater than the Air...and more power.

It would be mainly for viewing and editing photos in Aperture and Nik....and surfing the web.

Any thoughts from owners of either would be appreciated.
I'd go with neuro's solution probably, a MBA and a 27" Cinema Display.

The MBA is pretty speedy, and the Cinema Display is epic.  I'd also consider a 21.5" iMac and a base model MBA.

Disclosure: I'm an Apple Certified Support Pro, and an Apple certified Aperture Pro, but I'd seriously give the Lightroom 5 beta a try.  I find I'm editing my photos in it then adding the JPEGs to Aperture.  For more difficult images I'll use DXO. *embarassed*

I can't give up the nice syncing and faces/places features Aperture has, but I prefer the look of my RAWs developed in LR5 or DXO.

69

EDIT: For some shots, I do need to be further away and then crop around the main object
Does that change anything?


You're going to lose resolution, so your cropped images will have far fewer pixels.

Also, keep in mind that Aperture and some other software will not process SRAW.

Your best bet since you will crop some shots is to shoot in full-RAW.  Once you process then convert it to an 80% or so JPEG and delete the RAW if the photos are for one time use.

I may even shoot JPEG+RAW in your circumstance for a while, and see how often you even need the RAW if you are short on HD space.

70
Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear
« on: May 29, 2013, 11:57:05 AM »
If I can blue sky whatever I want, with no regards to engineering difficulty, I would like to see a:

24-70-ish f/1.8 for FF.
200mm f/2.8L IS.
135mm f/1.8 with IS.
400mm f/4 not DO, IS.
Fuji like OVF overlay.
Invisible IR LED for AF illumination.

71
Hello,

If you haven't felt limited by the AF in the XS, then the 6D will be an awesome body for you.  The 7D is fast, and has good AF, but if these aren't crucial in your photography, you'll be way happier with the image quality, and artistic options of a 6D.

The 6D is very similar to the 5D3, and I'd choose it over the 5D3 every day of the week as I don't shoot things that move quickly.

72
Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 17, 2013, 01:32:42 AM »
I ended up getting the 70-200 F4 IS. It is a lot lighter than the F2.8 version, and if you are going to be lugging it around all day the extra weight becomes a big factor.

A great point that makes a huge difference in how likely you are to carry your 70-200mm vs leave it in the car or hotel room.

Finally I checked the original posters signature, he is shooting with a 6D.  He's got the ISO flexibility to give up the stop to gain IS.  It's a compromise, but since he said he's primarily shooting subjects that are stationary, he is probably better with IS, knowing that he's got the high ISO performance if he's shooting things that move.

73
Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:51:52 PM »
Well, title says it all. I've never shot with an IS telephoto lens and I was wondering if that should affect my next purchase? I don't do video whatsoever and I try to shoot handheld when possible (although I will 'pod it when necessary). The couple stops of Aperture seem to be quite a difference but I'm willing to compromise if the IS makes that much of a difference. As you all probably know, these lenses are within the same price range so the money isn't a factor. Thanks in advance!

* Most of my photography are static objects but I do like to shoot moving animals occasionally.


I went through a similar decision last year.

I shoot handheld whenever possible.  I shoot mostly static objects with my camera, sometimes I shoot moving animals.

For me, on a static subject, the IS made a bigger difference than the extra stop in terms of sharpness.  I went with the 70-200/4 IS.

This was with the 70-200/4 IS on a 6D at 1600 ISO, f/4, 1/125s.

IMG_2250 by BrianBotterill, on Flickr

74
Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:31:18 PM »
Are you planning on taking only one lens?  If so, the 10-22 might leave you wanting more reach over the course of a trip like that.  I'd suggest the 15-85 from those you mention.  It's a great lens, obviously wide zoom range, good MFD, and my heavily used refurb. copy has sharpness on a par with my 24-105L.  I've not seen it bundled as an entry level lens... maybe you are thinking of the 18-55 kit lens.  Downside of the 15-85 is it's 5.6 at the long end.  Put a shorty 40 or fantastic 50 in your pack for lower light capability.

The 15-85mm was a common kit lens with the 7D.  Certainly not an entry level though.

If you aren't planning on using your camera for a lot of handheld night shots, I'd certainly go with the 15-85mm, it has fabulous range, and is quite sharp.  If you are ok with less range, and would benefit from a wider aperture, and marginally more sharpness consider the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS.

You can't go wrong with either.  I think you'll feel extremely restricted if you only take an ultra-wide.

75
Technical Support / Re: MacBook Pro : Best RAW Processing Software?
« on: April 16, 2013, 03:25:41 PM »
I use Aperture to convert my RAW files about 90-95% of the time.  Images that need extra work get processed with DxO and reimported to Aperture as TIFF files.

DxO's perspective, and distortion/vignetting correction is second to none.

I'm an Apple Aperture Certified Pro, so I have more background than most with Aperture, and love teaching it.  Once you learn how to master keywords, and smart albums, I find its asset management second to none.

I can't wait for a new version of Aperture, or ideally, for Apple to acquire DxO, but even still, I really like it for normal use.  If you decide to go Aperture, I'd definitely recommend Peachpit Press' Aperture book.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 12