February 27, 2015, 04:28:03 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 - gferdinandsen

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]
United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Web store in the UK First Cameras
« on: July 12, 2011, 07:23:18 PM »
Really always comes down to, if it's too good to be true, it probably is.  The fact is, if a store is offering bodies/lenses at 20% or more off what everybody else is, there is probably something fishy

Canon General / Re: Tilt shift lens help
« on: July 07, 2011, 10:08:32 AM »
I use the TS-E 24 and 45.  Here is some advice:

Take multiple shots.  This is not the days of filem where each shot costs money.  Take many shots, look at the histogram for the shot to determine if it's over/underexposed, ajust accordingly.  Just to be safe, bracket.

Check the previe picture on the back at 10x for focus after the shot is done (especially with wider apertures)

Always use a tripod, it's almost impossible to use TS-E lenses without one, in fact, I have never hand held a TS-E lens.

In ACR, make sure you use the lens correction feature

Software & Accessories / Re: Filters - Screw on or not ?
« on: July 06, 2011, 10:00:30 AM »
The problem I have with Cokin filters (Split ND) is that you are putting a very cheap piece of plastic infront of a $1500 and up lens, IQ can be significantly diminished.  I use a B&W split ND and while I cannot change where the split occurs, at least the filter is on par with the lens.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 24-70 2.8 hsm vs Canon L
« on: June 28, 2011, 09:43:16 AM »
A lot of us help high hopes for this lens, but alas it has failed to deliver.  On the Photozone test vignetting was so bad it was even apparant at f/8! Resolution fall off at the borders & corners is also particularly bad, even the Bokeh was criticised.

The Canon version is by no means perfect, with its field curvature issues, and especially with a new one rumoured for so long.

By far the worst part of the Sigma offering is the price at £650 it just doesn't offer enough of a saving over the £1000 the Canon costs, and then there's the second user market where prices are quite a bit less.

If you can get another 6 months out of the current lens then I'd say it'd be better than trying to make a choice at the present time.

1000 Pounds, I think it sells in the states for about USD $1,300

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
« on: June 21, 2011, 07:02:45 PM »
Maybe this is another subject, but for those of you you never shot transparancies (E6), for those of you who picked up photography in the last few years.  The Dynamic Range of slides, from what I remember, is about 3.5 f stops (E6 = 3.5, C41 = 8) .  As I look back at all my slides, I wonder how much better they would be as digital; but, you learn much better technique when you are constrained (ISO 100, 400 max; limited dynamic range; no photoshop).  Film (C41) has much better dynamic range, but much less color saturation...just my two cents as someone who learned their *art* with a film camera.  And no matter how good photoshop is, you can't dodge and burn like you can in a wet darkroom.  I'm kind of missing my trusty 1V now as I respond to this thread

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
« on: June 21, 2011, 06:08:01 PM »
Really, how many people are printing at sizes that require higher MP?  I understand that Canon has to compete with what others sell just to stay competitive, but that's because the consumer is buying their camera based on just MP.  How many of you ever shot with a 1V, 3, 7/7E, or even a Rebel?  Except for speed, AF, and weather sealing (OK the 1V offered a very primitive EXIF data), there was very little difference.  What I am trying to say is that the resultant picture was usually just as good regardless of the body (not the lens though).  I still have my 28-70, I have no plans on upgrading to the 24-70 much less anything that comes down the road.

Only when we do very large enlargements (bigger than 8x12, probably larger than 13x19) would we see a difference...and very few photo's get enlarged to that size.  Frankly, I don't have the money to afford the framing for all the enlargements that I would like.

I'm sure the lenses Ansel Adams used would be considered vastly inferior by today's standard...but I'll take his photo's over mine anyday.  Technique is worth far more than glass and sensors anyday.

And as a side note, on sharpness and landscapes.  Lens sharpness is a moot point for any longer exposusers on a tripod, all it takes is a breeze, much less a gust, and sharpness goes out the window.

EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
« on: June 21, 2011, 10:29:52 AM »
There's just too much money involved with high MP... You're forgetting that storage is cheap but also Canon and Nikon are pushing the envelope on  what film could even resolve and produce.  10 years ago it would have been a photographers wet dream to be able to take a 35mm camera body and lens and pump out 16x20's and even larger and not have it look soft and grainy.  Now we can do that without batting an eye.  If you dont need it, dont use it and downsize or shoot at a lower setting.  Like fast primes, I would rather have them and not need them rather than need them and not have them...

I have to entirely agree.  When looking at a 24x36mm transparency (which makes a perfectly fine 8x12 enlargement) under a 4x lupe, everything looks great.  It was not until the advent of digital and pixel peepers that we ever became so obsessed with corner sharpness, et al.

When you consider that your monitor at full resolution is not going to be much more that about 3MP, and that most printers don't print more than 13x19 (very large), unless you do gallery work (very few people), 21.3MP is more than enough.

The best photo's are not the ones with perfect corner sharpness, they are the ones with perfect composition and lighting.  When everyone forgets about the art of photography and starts to obsess on the science of electronics, visual aesthetics is replaced by minimum chromatic aberrations.

EOS Bodies / Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III
« on: June 10, 2011, 08:02:56 PM »
An accelerometer like my iPhone.  It would be great to have a 3 axis level that would display on the LCD, no more fixing in photoshop those shots that are not level.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 2.8L (old boy)
« on: June 10, 2011, 08:00:32 PM »
I still have my 70-200 f2.8 that I got in 2001.  No need for IS since I usually 'pod it.  No need to buy the newer version, I'm not a pixel peeper and it takes good enough shots.  I rarely carry it with me because of it's weight, but it's still the best telephoto for the price.

EOS Bodies / Re: Very few EOS 1 bodies sold - wonder why!!
« on: June 10, 2011, 07:58:00 PM »
One thing that really came to mind for me with this thread.  I just sold my ten year old 1V, for which I paid $2100.  One thing that was nice in the film days, your camera was top of the line for a long time, and for much less money.  I now use the 5D2, and boy do I miss the 45 point AF of the 1V, but since I do mostly landscapes, it's not much of a loss.  But I know in 10 year, my 5D2 will be very dated

EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor
« on: June 10, 2011, 07:55:11 PM »
Out of curiousity, why can't you crop to a 1:1 ratio in Photoshop?  I currently use a 5D2, on my PIXMA9500, it cannot print a full resolution (13x19) so cropping will not cause any noticable pixalization (much less printing an 8x8 or 8x10, or 8x12).  It's much cheaper to change in post-processing than make a sensor that is significantly larger.

There really seems to be a lot of "I want therefore Canon should make".  I learned to shoot with 35mm, when you learn on film/transparancies, you learn learn how to make do with what you have, not how to make the technology adapt to what you want

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]