October 18, 2017, 10:12:46 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Forgive me, I don't mean professional concert work in the pit.  I mean personal photography from the crowd.  I'm in Southern California and I go to concerts often -- 90% of venues' security see a lens mount (or even a stout-lensed, higher zoom 'bridge' camera) and it is not allowed inside.  X100s, RX100s, P&S, etc. get in just fine almost every time.

For sports it's a complete mixed bag.  Major venues (MLB, NBA, etc.) have clearly printed policies but often are interpreted differently when you walk into security.  For instance, Dodger Stadium is A-OK with a FF SLR provided the lens is under 6", while the nearby Staples Center prohibits any camera with an interchangeable lens or telephoto lens (targeting bridge / superzooms).  But a fixed lens rig with a modest lens will get in.

Maybe all you need is a printer and a laminator...

63
CC ... land of Cloud Confusion.  ;D
umpteen products, umpteen monthly pay plans. No thanks.  8)
64
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« Last post by KeithBreazeal on Today at 01:59:55 PM »
Our older cat(got caught up in the food chain) would follow something totally invisible to us, them freak out and run into another room.  That was really unnerving.  Cat's have a really messed up sense of humor.
65
PowerShot / Re: Canon Officially Announces The PowerShot G1 X Mark III
« Last post by ahsanford on Today at 01:57:26 PM »
  • Won't get turned away by security at a concert or sporting event

The lens is too dark to shoot at a concert IMHO. And probably too short?

Forgive me, I don't mean professional concert work in the pit.  I mean personal photography from the crowd.  I'm in Southern California and I go to concerts often -- 90% of venues' security see a lens mount (or even a stout-lensed, higher zoom 'bridge' camera) and it is not allowed inside.  X100s, RX100s, P&S, etc. get in just fine almost every time.

So, what's worse?  An f/2.8 long end of an RX100 V on a 1" sensor shooting at ISO X for proper exposure or an f/5.6 long end of a G1xM3 APS-C sensor having to shoot at ISO 4X due to f/5.6? 

For sports it's a complete mixed bag.  Major venues (MLB, NBA, etc.) have clearly printed policies but often are interpreted differently when you walk into security.  For instance, Dodger Stadium is A-OK with a FF SLR provided the lens is under 6", while the nearby Staples Center prohibits any camera with an interchangeable lens or telephoto lens (targeting bridge / superzooms).  But a fixed lens rig with a modest lens will get in.

- A
66
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 by TDP
« Last post by aceflibble on Today at 01:54:19 PM »
I want to know what bizarro faerie land y'all live in where 90%+ AF accuracy rate for an all-rounder zoom at its widest aperture is "not encouraging". Aside from easily being within the margin for user error and/or camera error, 90%+ accuracy is no worse than I've ever had from any first-party combination (including 'god AF' things like the 1DX2 and 500mm f/4 mk II, and recently trying the D850 and 200-500), let alone third-party. The Canon 24-70 II sure as hell does no better. (In fact I never use that lens when I need really critical focus.)

The rest of it is in keeping with both what was expected and what everybody else is finding out. The last version had focus breathing at minimum distances, too, so that's nothing new; would have been nice if it'd been sorted out but it's not like this is the kind of lens you buy for focal length-critical macro work. General IQ on Bryan's copy(/ies) seems to be a fair bit worse than any anybody else has reviewed with.

I'm waiting on a loaner to evaluate it myself—unsurprisingly there's been quite a waiting list for it—but I have a strong suspicion already that it's going to end up in one of my bags. The previous version was superb at f/4 and fair enough at f/2.8, and including stabilisation made it invaluable for everything outside of the studio. I only ditched it when A) it fell out of a fourth-story window and did not, unsurprisingly, survive, and B) I got a nice discount on the Canon, enough to make me give up stabilisation. (Which I regretted almost immediately.) Again, I'm waiting on one to be sent before I make a firm decision, but so far all the reviews except Bryan's point toward this being basically everything the previous version was but just all-round better-corrected, so if my loaner turns out the same way I'm pretty sure my Canon will be retired. For the purposes a 24-70 actually gets used for, stabilisation is just too invaluable. I'll gladly take a slight step back in f/2.8 image quality for the sake of stabilisation.

Mind you at £ 1,684.00 for the non IS lens god knows what they would charge.
The general rule so far as been when Canon puts IS into a lens which previously lacked it, they near-double the price at launch, then settle at about 165% of the original's price. I would expect £2,000 as a launch MRRP. Pushing the limits of what's really worth it, for sure.
67
I would likely never get a Zeiss Milvus myself, due to cost and lack of autofocus and limitations of a non-zoom. But man do they look nice. I mean just the design of the physical lens is elegant.
68
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC G2 by TDP
« Last post by ahsanford on Today at 01:40:35 PM »
Brian's image quality tool shows the Canon better at corners at 24, 35 ,50 and better at center at 70 (I checked only f/2.8). For me it's Canon 24-70 2.8 II hands down exchanging it only with a future Canon 24-70 2.8L IS version (at least equally good optically).

Even if the Tamron IQ was better, I'd pass.  IQ is important, but a 5-10% miss rate with a zoom is eye-popping, IMHO.

That said -- for an N of 2 -- the IQ is promising.  It may not stack up to Canon's flagship standard f/2.8L II, but at f/4, TDP's first copy is better than the 24-70 f/4L IS at both 24 & 70, while this is less so for the 2nd copy (but still comparable). 

Tamron and Sigma continue to deliver strong sharpness per dollar -- there's no doubting that.

- A
69
No way can I get the slave flash mounted on the 1DX2 to fire when the camera shutter is remote activated.  Well, that does give a remote RF release function that I didn't have with the 1DX2 at all before.  Except maybe I did based on owning two 600's and not realizing there was this linked shooting mode??

Jack

No with two 600's you are just shooting REL mode not Linked, therefore you get the capacity to fire both flashes, or just one, or none, it is your choice in simple REL.

Scott, maybe I need a context of understanding to better appreciate what's going on.  I don't come with any flash background but it seems strange to me that the transmitter would fire the camera via the slave on the camera but not also fire that slave in the process.  So, I have a flash sitting on top of the camera serving only as a shutter release when it could also be providing lighting??

Jack
70
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Announces Cloud-Based Lightroom CC
« Last post by Talys on Today at 01:27:18 PM »
I use and edit my photos in multiple locations, its a headache since the catalog cannot be shared on my NAS.  Its a hassle to keep the latest version available in multiple places, so I am definitely interested in the cloud version where I can directly upload images to the cloud as soon as they are captured.  Just how this would work today is a question for me, I'm not using wi-fi because it eats up batteries, but I do have a eye-fi card that might be able to upload to the cloud indirectly, I'm sure that solutions will be available.  I have my NAS units disconnected from any internet connections due to security concerns, I'm not smart enough to make and keep them secure.

How much storage do you need?

One option might be to tell lightroom to save changes in a sidecar (XMP) file instead of the catalogue, and then use a cloud service like OneDrive. 

Then you can also have the best of both worlds; the CC version of lightroom, from that list... looks totally messed up, uselessly gimped.  It's missing some really important features, like Split Toning... Compare View... Secondary Screen... max zoom  2:1... NO RENAME PHOTOS....

I mean really?  Why can't you rename photos?!

Also, I hate collections/albums.  I use folders, because I have hundreds and hundreds of folders meticulously organized in hierarchy, like, wildlife/birds/waterfowl/bufflehead/2017-10-18.  I would hate to stuff buffleheads in a collection, because there is no hierarchical way to organize albums.  Plus, I have some photos of subjects I rarely take grouped in broader groups (like bugs/misc or unidentified) as opposed to subjects that I take a ton of and have it sub-sorted, like heron or eagles.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10