April 17, 2014, 08:25:13 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 - Hesbehindyou

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
Agree.

Could we now please, pretty please, have new sensor technology in a Canon camera that we can actually buy?

Sorry Dekker: "This footage was shot using the 35mm full frame CMOS sensor announced by Canon in March 2013 which was developed by the company exclusively for Full HD video capture. Through continued technological development, Canon aims to expand the realm of photographic possibilities while cultivating the world of visual expression."

Looks like it's ready for video (duh) but that they're still to incorporate it into a sensor intended for stills as well as video. Hopefully won't be long

17
Lenses / Re: Why pick 70-200mm f/4l IS over 70-300mm f/4-5.6l IS?
« on: August 25, 2013, 03:41:54 AM »
Also, while the 70-200mm is f/4 constant, again my understanding is the 70-300mm is f/4 up to 200mm.


Sadly this doesn't appear to be true:
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS L USM Lens   
f/4.0   70-103mm
f/4.5   104-154mm
f/5.0   155-228mm
f/5.6  229-300mm

(taken from http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx )

18
Lenses / Re: Should I get a clear filter for my lens?
« on: August 15, 2013, 12:56:44 PM »
[adding a filter means you don't have to worry about] your lens got [getting] hit with water, dust or rocks.

This kinda attitude is the reason why the topic is a can of worms.

19
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5 $99 Shipped
« on: August 11, 2013, 03:43:14 PM »
Paying shipping costs (which are as high as the coupon savings) for software makes as little sense as renting it.
What's the matter with sane ways of software distribution?

Just checked the link and it says free shipping.

20
Street & City / Re: Your friend's advice was excellent
« on: August 10, 2013, 10:02:19 AM »
Quote
I'm not muslim, but I have muslim friends and I vaguely remember one of them saying that they don't take pictures. In general, go to their homes, you won't see any family pictures, nothing. It has something to do with what the Qu'ran says... I think one of them told me that it reduces their lifespan by so many years.

Heh, he's joking about the lifespan thing but it's true that Muslims are not permitted pictures (especially drawings) of people or animals. It's actually considered quite a serious transgression. Many Muslims do take photographs but these must not contain people or animals. Plants and inanimate objects are fine, so Muslim photographers are essentially all landscapers.

Some claim that the camera is recording light and the photographer hasn't created anything. Most religious scholars disagree with that interpretation.

Most (all?) of my Muslim acquaintances have lots of pictures of themselves. I can only assume that they're mere 'cultural' Muslims, even if they attend mosque, and deep down know it's all make-believe.

I think you should be very careful of labeling anyone's belief system as "make believe", Christian, Buddist, Catholic, Zao, Islam....with that kind of attitude, one could easily point a finger at you as a bigot.

"...believe it's all make believe" would have been more polite to any Muslims reading but I think it's safe to say they will have all handled my lack of agnosticism about their religion pretty well - they think it about all the others after all (as do Christians, including Catholics, Buddhists and a host of others).

21
Street & City / Re: Your friend's advice was excellent
« on: August 10, 2013, 02:22:25 AM »
Quote
I'm not muslim, but I have muslim friends and I vaguely remember one of them saying that they don't take pictures. In general, go to their homes, you won't see any family pictures, nothing. It has something to do with what the Qu'ran says... I think one of them told me that it reduces their lifespan by so many years.

Heh, he's joking about the lifespan thing but it's true that Muslims are not permitted pictures (especially drawings) of people or animals. It's actually considered quite a serious transgression. Many Muslims do take photographs but these must not contain people or animals. Plants and inanimate objects are fine, so Muslim photographers are essentially all landscapers.

Some claim that the camera is recording light and the photographer hasn't created anything. Most religious scholars disagree with that interpretation.

Most (all?) of my Muslim acquaintances have lots of pictures of themselves. I can only assume that they're mere 'cultural' Muslims, even if they attend mosque, and deep down know it's all make-believe.

22
Street & City / Your friend's advice was excellent
« on: August 09, 2013, 10:50:15 AM »

When I showed it to my expat host, he said that I should be careful and not publicise this photo since, ‘Here, we are not free to do things as you would do in the West’.  This seemed rather odd.  I have travelled extensively and I think I am culturally sensitive.


Oh how naive you are! I find it best to be very respectful of a country's laws and social norms - I leave pushing the boundaries to the locals. This is kinda what culturally sensitive means.

From the Dubai Code of Conduct, written by the Dubai Executive Council and linked to on the official Dubai web portal (scroll to bottom of page) http://dubai.ae/en/Lists/Articles/DispForm.aspx?ID=147

4.5. Photography:

Photos of people - and especially photos of women and families - in public places shall not be taken without their permission. Taking photos of people is a sensitive issue in Dubai's local culture.


So you've got a photo of a woman wearing sexy shoes and showing her ankles & taken without her permission. Your only defence is "it doesn't show her face/she's not identifiable".

Your friend's advice was excellent.

23
Lighting / Re: Using (Fill) Flash
« on: August 04, 2013, 10:45:19 AM »
Excellent website I've recently stumbled across. Heavily portrait-biased but what's the difference between a person and a 'thing'?
http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/natural-looking-flash/


Funny thing...I recently stumbled across that website, too.  Astounding coincidence?  Or the fact that privatebydesign linked it in the 3rd post of this thread?   :-X

 ;)


Heh, I'll have to pay more attention next time. I've been learning about flash recently as I'm unhappy with both natural light and my attempts to improve upon it. That site and the strobist 101 & 102 series are easily the best out there on the web.

24
Lighting / Re: Using (Fill) Flash
« on: August 04, 2013, 08:20:33 AM »
So I've been doing most if not all of my photography over the last 7 years without using a flash. I like ambient light and ... I dislike it when a flash has obviously been used to get a picture.

So my question is: Do you have any recommendations I can start out with? What conditions would typically require which settings?

Note that I would like to use it for general photography because I do very little portraiture.


Excellent website I've recently stumbled across. Heavily portrait-biased but what's the difference between a person and a 'thing'?
http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/natural-looking-flash/

Note in the 2nd example the subject in the foreground is entirely lit by the flash as he's had to have a relatively fast shutter speed (to keep the colour in the stained glass windows) and without the flash the foreground subject would have almost been a silhouette. He's made the flash look natural by a) bouncing it off a wall behind him, and b) Correcting white balance of foreground (and possibly background) in post.

This other page deals with mixing flash and ambient light, which seems to be exactly the sort of thing you want - particularly the first example.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/flash-and-ambient-light/

The pages are part of a series and I'd suggest you read them all, plus the Stobist 101 & 102 series. Even if you're not using flash in the way that they do you'll be wanting to steal some of their ideas.

25
Canon General / Re: What's so bad about HDR?
« on: July 31, 2013, 07:12:55 AM »
I haven't seen any HDR picture that looks anywhere near natural.

Really? You probably just haven't noticed them then.

Quote
And i doubt i will ever try. I'll just stick with good looking exposures and other more normal looking enhancements.

A (not overdone) HDR is the most natural looking enhancement you can make to a photo as it merely overcomes the limitations of the camera and produces a result that more closely resembles what the eye can see e.g. detail in the subject as well as the sky.

Tell me, does jdramirez's photograph taken in Colonial Williamsberg look near natural? I can tell you that the non-HDR version would look much less natural.

I think you're just reacting against HDR that's been taken to the extreme and somehow oblivious that it can also be subtle.

26
Lenses / Re: Does it make sense to keep my EF 100mm f2.0?
« on: July 28, 2013, 05:55:01 AM »
first time i hear that the non L version has better IQ... i highly doubt that.
every review i have read so far tells the L is slightly better.

equal maybe but the non L better? that is stuff people tell themself so they don´t have to buy the more expensive L lens. ;)


Depends which copies you're testing - see first chart in link below - but it really comes down to 'they're both plenty sharp':

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation

27
Lenses / Re: What are the odds of a 55-250 STM?
« on: July 22, 2013, 05:58:25 AM »
Quote
With its lightweight construction, the micromotor AF of the 55-250 really isn't that slow at all, so no need for USM, I would say.

Heh, you mean you have no need for USM.  The micromotor in my 55-250 gives me plenty of missed shots. It keeps track okay, it's the initital locking on that's too slow. This is not a problem for most types of photography but is for some types.. I own a 55-250 and Sigma 100-300 f4 (with their version of USM) but would spring for a USM 55-250 in a heartbeat.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fantasy Dayhiking Kit
« on: July 21, 2013, 03:22:34 AM »
       I will preface this post by saying this kit would be about 25lbs and $25,000 but its fun to dream ;D
   So 2 bodies, 4 lenses.....

      Future 7D2
      Future Big megapixel/full-frame of choice
      21 Zeiss
      24-70 II
      70-200(whatever incarnation works for you)
      200-400(drool) would only need to take off the 7D2 if you needed 200-320

[...]  Discuss :)

This is obviously what your team of Sherpas would carry for you!

If taking a DSLR I'd take an APS-C with the very compact and lightweight 55-250 and an ultra wide angle such as the 10-24 (or perhaps go wider still if I thought it'd get used). Snapshots of fellow hikers? The 18-55 is tiny and light, the 18-135 is perhaps the better bet as it's relatively light and means you don't have to zoom with your feet. If I wanted shallow depth of field the 50 1.8 is so small and light it's practically free weight/pack-size wise. Shallow DoF on full frame I'd got for Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Very small and light for a f2.8 zoom in that range, also decently sharp wide open.

I think a decent compact would be preferable thoubut. Unfortunately I don't have one so it's a toss up between the extremes of camera phone and DSLR.

29
Be aware that the OS version of this lens starts at f6.3 at just 200m so it's slower than the older, non-IS version through most of its focal lengths. Not owned the lens but seriously considered buying it before a baby arrived and laid claim to my disposable income. The lens still intrigues me so I'll be following this thread with interest.

30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Body upgrade - Florida trip
« on: June 30, 2013, 11:19:29 AM »
I went from 1000D to 550D (very similar to 7D IQ-wise) for movie mode, high ISO improvements and the bigger rear screen (easier to check for soft images due to user error). Low-ISO shots are pretty much the same but high ISO is better - ISO3200 is usable with post-processing.

Recently I bought a 5D mark I to complement to 550D and it's been a massive improvement for certain types of shots. Access to a shallower depth of field and sharper drop offs to out of focus areas give my images much more impact.

If I had to choose between 6D and 7D I'd go 6D every time. In my opinion 7D is only worth considering if you need the autofocus modes and/or burst rate.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6