July 04, 2015, 11:53:07 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 MKii vs 5D mkIII choice (moved)
« Last post by Pookie on Today at 11:49:47 AM »
Oh, BTW... PDB with all his "I know how it done and it's no talent". Actually doesn't know how it's done as he missed a huge gap in the how with a critical piece of gear. I'm still waiting for him to come across with his entry. Posers be posers for life.

A lot of unreasonable hate for private's post surely !

All he said was that you don't need expensive equipment and vast natural talent to produce that effect ! And come on Guys, he's right about that. No need to take it so personally.

I'm shooting some pictures for a budding professional dancer soon, and would like to do one or two with that technique, so I thought I should have a quick practice on the exposure balances. In this instance I just used an old £27 lens, an old 550 flash on camera but bounced into a gold lasolite. Having the flash on camera restricts both the modelling light and the available distance, but it gives some idea of the effect you can get with the most basic of equipment, and I don't consider it is skilful especially now that we can check lighting balance on the fly, so there is no excise for actually getting it wrong.

Here I played about with different lighting ratios between ambient and fill.

OK, so the model has seen better days, but hey ! so has the photographer and his equipment. These pictures are nothing like as good as Pookie's, but take 25 years off the model and 90% of her clothes and it makes the picture much better anyway  ;)

Many people will look at Pookie's picture  and think 'I wish I could take pictures like that'. Well you can. Digital has short circuited the learning curve. I think private is right to point this out.

I really appreciate that you show some work but PBD said anyone could do it. Is he anybody or nobody? So far, I still haven't seen his entry. It's easy to say, another thing to do. I've seen how Formula 1 drivers drive the course... doesn't mean I can enter the race. I watch lots of college basketball, I know how the game is played... doesn't mean I can pull it off. I've been to the ER, seen doctors work and people recover... I'm game, let me pull you appendix. You need some type of proof I can do this, whaaa... You'll take my word I can do it right?

The steep learning curve has been so reduced so that anyone can do it.... I do agree to some extent but I haven't seen "everyone" even come close. Probably why so many here are here. To try and do, rather than sit by the sidelines. He also said you don't need all that gear... so you could pull off a shot like that in the surf with a Buff light? I'd dearly love to see that. Or let's even try that with 5-6 speedlites? Where you goona set up those light stands... just to the left where 4 foot surge is coming or to the right where the cliff wall lands? And why is everyone interested in using weather sealing L glass? Couldn't be because if you do this for a living and get hammered by surf occasionally and your 1.8 might not survive one shoot?

How about the easiest part of this whole venture? Getting clients that want to take these photos... paying clients. Not your wife. As nice as your photos are above, you're not there. And the even "easier" part, working with clients while on the set to get them to do this for you while on camera? You know, the easy part of a month of client back and forth... maybe you've never met in person... and then build an almost instant rapport on set so they are comfortable giving you their best.

All that... 15 years experience, and 15 years of client work to pay for all that gear, 15 years of client lists to get a rep, so someone like the model above comes to you? Again, tell me how you pulled that off and show me some photos... you know, the easy part and the part "everyone" can do.

The green-eyed spiteful comments lack any logic. Never said I was the most talented... but PBD thought to chime in with a unrelated comment to this thread. A post about the 24-70 II and the 5D3 specifically. I supported my approval of the 24-70 to the OP with actual, real world photos. Mine. All I ask is some work to prove his unrelated point... since he decided to chime in with "no talent" and everyone can do this there is no innovation. So he doesn't think the photos is good and show no talent, could have walked on by but green eyed he had to comment.

I have much respect for those that at least participate with some images to back up a point. 20 years ago I was fooling around with film and learning the ropes. From the beginning I've never been afraid of critics or wouldn't want to show my work... it how you learn but I also know if you're going to offer a critique/comment be prepared to back up what you say. This is a website about camera gear and photography or am I horribly mistaken. Hot air dissipates quickly doesn't it PBD? Then your comments have no substance beyond bad breath and heat. I do have to apologize though... I lumped PBD into the same pool as Dilbert. At least Dilbert has shown some images from time to time. Sorry Dilbert.

PBD flouts that he's a pro and doesn't need to show his work because of privacy... show me... I'll say it again, you should stick to numbers and your dissertations on "compression", it suits your photography well. Your silence is deafening.
New lenses will come out as the market demands.  If business is good overall, there will be money to develop, test, tool and manufacture a new lens.  sometimes, you see a new lens that is the same except for better IS, or adding a stm focus motor, they cost little to design, tool and usually less to manufacture, and sales jumps from those wanting the latest.  Real significant improvements usually take many years.

Sometimes we see improvements in a lens merely because manufacturing technology has improved, and lenses are more accurately ground, and assembled even though they are identical as far as design.  Many, including me saw a noticible improvement in the newer 100-400mm L MK I lenses a few years ago.  Presumably, something in the production process improved.
Canon General / Re: Theory on why Canon will kill DSLRs...
« Last post by 3kramd5 on Today at 11:46:12 AM »
"Thus for Canon and Nikon to maintain brand lock-in around body and lens, they will need to have a design that doesn't allow for an adapter to be between the lens and camera - i.e. go mirrorless themselves"

Even if they designed a mirrorless system with little distance between the lens and sensor, you could build adapters; they would just require glass to use on the same format. People don't mind teleconverters, so I suspect if done well they wouldn't mind using glassy adapters. Also, I imagine canon and Nikon would be happy to sell lenses to Sony users. ;)
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Higher pixel density => more noise?
« Last post by Don Haines on Today at 11:44:09 AM »
Things are never that simple.....

How much of the light entering the sensor is blocked by the electronics? This depends on the design of the sensor, the fineness of the lithography, and the number of pixels....

an approximation that is good at one end of the scale may not be good at the other end of the scale.... At low ISO you can "convert" to a standard number of pixels, but at high ISO, even though you can convert, the larger pixels can give you enough shutter speed to get the shot, so people start to change shutter speed and ISO values differently on a camera with big pixels than they do on a camera with small pixels and the comparison falls apart....

Because with more pixels you will quicker see motion blur? What would happen then if you take two identical shots with the 5D3 and the 5Ds. Then at pixel size (real 1:1) you do see motion blur only in the 5Ds shot. If you then "convert" the 5Ds image to 22 megapixel, do you then "lose" the motion bur?
Since the 5d3 behaves better at high ISO, you are more likely to shoot at a higher ISO to avoid the motion blur, but at the expense of worse noise....

but even then, the noise is not easy to figure out.... yes, at the same ISO the larger pixels will have less noise, but the downsampling of the image with more of the smaller pixels will reduce the apparent noise on that image.... and how far you crank up the ISO on the larger pixels makes it's noise greater... no easy answers here....

for example.... say that at 1/500 of a second you would get 4 pixels of blur on a 5D3, where at the same ISO on a 5Ds you would get 6 pixels of motion blur.... once you downsize the 5Ds image to the size of the 5D3 image, you get 4 pixels of motion blur on the downsized 5Ds image.... BUT, since the 5D3 works belter at high ISO, the user is likely to shoot at higher ISO and the shutter becomes (for example) 1/1000 of a second and ends up with 2 pixels of motion blur.... so the user ends up with a less blurred picture that MAY have greater noise....

Lenses / Re: Patent: EF-S 15-105 f/2.8-5.6 IS STM
« Last post by Mt Spokane Photography on Today at 11:38:44 AM »
Since there is a ~ 2 year delay in publishing patents, and work was going on for a year or two before the patent was applied for, its interesting to see how the companies are aware of exactly what the competition is doing, years in advance of a product introduction.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5ds
« Last post by Crosswind on Today at 11:36:28 AM »
Hi Cariboucoach! You can equalize them with good NR software, remove some color and luminance noise and downscale it a bit - there you go, the 5DSr is at least as good as the 6D at high ISO, when doing some post production work.

But the 5Ds still had much more detail.

That's the essential part of high ISO; keeping as much detail as possible. Precise NR can do the rest.

Edit; But you have to watch out for motion blur and use a good sharp lens. No doubt, both are very good at high ISO. It's not such a difference that it would matter (except you're shooting JPG avoiding any post-production)  :)
There is more noise per pixel as pixels get smaller, so looking at a image at 1:1, noise becomes visible.  But when printing, or viewing at normal screen sizes, the noise pretty much disappears unless you crank the ISO up.

Still, if you want less noise, with the same generation of sensor technology, larger pixels will have less noise.  That's why the Sony 12 MP A7S is among the best for low noise at high ISO settings. There is a trade off, but it does not affect most of us.  The heavier Bayer Filters on the 5Ds series reduce the amount of light reaching the sensor, and severely impact high noise performance.  They are there to improve color and skin tones for portrait photography.   You can use the camera any way you want, but have to live within the limitations.
Autofocus is not very reliable on the moon.  If you use a high magnification lens, the moon is slowly moving across the frame, that's a issue when photographing a eclipse over a fair amount of time.

You can focus manually using 10X and set a shutter delay.  Use live view to lock the mirror up and to focus manually.  Getting the right exposure always seems difficult for me, auto exposure is unreliable.

You get better results after the air has cooled and has less turbulence, late at night or early in the morning while still dark can be best.  The time depends on your location.
Its already well known that the Metabones adapter is unreliable, and Lens Rentals posts a warning on the rental page.  I doubt if a professional would risk losing a critical shot because it made his camera hang or go unstable.  In this case, it may be due to slightly incomplete compatibility with Canon lenses. 

I'd think that being able to use lower cost and readily available Canon lenses on the Sony would be a situation where Canon had more benefit than Sony.  Canon should make a adapter, and really push lens sales for Sony cameras.  That would benefit photographers by having a huge range of lenses, and Canon could sell more lenses.

Do STM lenses work with the adapter on Sony Cameras?  I know I could Google it, but you might know in depth. 



Now... tell me where I'm wrong

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10