Posts

dickgrafixstop · Jul 17, 2013

Get the 6D and save $1000. Keep the 50 f1.4 and the 70-200 f4is. Buy the 24mm f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8 (when you sell the 10-22 you've paid for both of these) Buy the 600 flash if you need one with the money you save.
Bank the rest and save it until you find out how this covers your shooting style. You can sell either the 24 or
85 (or both) and buy the L versions when you're flush and if you need them. Keep you eyes open for a new wide
zoom, an improved 35L, a tele-extender for the 70-200 and/or a second flash or whatever - including a second 6D or the next click on the full frame ride.

RGF · Jul 17, 2013

markojakatri said:
600EX RT is the best speedlite for 5D3. I have two of them, 430EX II and used to have 580EX II before. 600 is easy to use and it just works. Flash head must turn 180 degrees both sides, which 430 can't do -> 580/600 if you will buy canon.

600RT or even older 580 EX II will be very useful. At $373 for refurb 600RT, grab it.

dickgrafixstop · Jul 17, 2013

On the website NorthernLightImages there's a mock up of a 42mm f1.2 lens and the description clearly labels it as a fake. But it did get me thinking about what if Canon (or the N word) started to rethink their lens lines. A fast
42mm would be wonderful (especially with APS sized sensors). What other "new" lenses would you like to see.
It appears the zooms killed the 150mm focal length. Could you make a "less expensive" 250mm or 350mm (the
old Leica R longer primes)? Any other candidates?

cayenne · Jul 17, 2013

RLPhoto said:
I make a decent income from my micro-stock sales. You really need to find niche markets because almost everything under the sun has been shot.

Also prepare for rejection... Alot of it.

LOL, I am ready for rejection.....and I don't expect to get rich off this.
But mostly jumping for fun,and would be thrilled if someone actually wanted to buy something I shot.

I was looking on istockphoto...and it appears that the video area, is one area that isn't as saturated as the stills....thinking of trying for some of those too.

C

Halfrack · Jul 17, 2013

Do you mean the 9000? I need to get more ink for mine - this 13x19 size is addicting, and pricy

jcollett · Jul 17, 2013

Again, to each their own and it is wonderful that we as consumers have options. Just wanted to add that these units are now available (got an email today).

cid · Jul 17, 2013

dilbert said:
Well at least cid's two pictures are good. Bratislava is quite small and the rest just look like the typical tourist snaps.

thanks, two is always better then none

I'm interested which two you like?

Ontario55 · Jul 17, 2013

What is the Canon Canada CPS Program ?

verysimplejason · Jul 17, 2013

For events, you'd require at least two cameras. One with wide lens and one with long lens. Most of the time, changing lens isn't an option. If you can't afford 5D3 + 5D2 (or some other cheaper 2nd cam), go for that 70D + 6D combo. Having the best gear isn't as important as getting the shots. Of course for other purposes, your 5D3 alone might be enough.

RGomezPhotos · Jul 16, 2013

I tried both the Canon 1.2 and Zeiss 1.4. I bought the Zeiss because of it's contrast characteristics. I also like the bokeh compared to the Canon. I think it's also sharper. I remember the Canon being a good deal soft at big apertures. But the Zeiss is MF only. Which is fine for me.

The only 50mm that's going to trump both of these is a Leica with a Canon adapter. And that lens will cost more than both of these combined. But the Zeiss 55mm that's coming out soon will be even pricier than that!

cbecklund · Jul 16, 2013

BozillaNZ said:
cbecklund said:

BozillaNZ said:

Long exposure noise reduction

Turn it off. What it does is take another exposure with shutter curtain closed, called 'dark frame' then subtract this frame from your photo, intended to remove hot pixels.

If you shoot RAW you don't need it. hot pixels are easily fixable in almost all RAW processing software.

Click to expand...

As far as hot pixels go, I would agree. However as far as noise goes, you cannot remove that much noise in post without loosing a lot of detail. Although long exposure noise reduction is annoying (especially when taking 5+ minute exposures) I think it is worth the time to get an almost noise free image.

Click to expand...

Dark frame subtraction only removes hot pixels. It can't cancel out RANDOM noise, which is the major noise in modern sensors. Because noise in each shot are different, and you can't subtract noise from noise to get a noise-free image, the math doesn't work that way.

Ok, well either way, I think it would be a pain to get rid of hot pixels. Here are two pictures, one without long exposure noise reduction, and one with (both at around 8 minutes).

eml58 · Jul 16, 2013

paul13walnut5 said:
The squirrel with the 10-stone testicles? Posting that image is going to haunt me isn't it?

That's the One

&

Yep

Stewbyyy · Jul 16, 2013

JasonATL said:
Stewbyyy said:

However, I don't get the problem when I'm using sunlight through the kitchen window. It seems to only happen when the lights in the kitchen are on.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. What kind of lights?

This now makes me wonder about your shutter speed. If it is set to 1/60 or higher, try 1/50 or even 1/40.

Edit: Never mind. This doesn't really flicker that much. But, I still wonder about the lights. This is odd...

Shutterspeed is a 1/50th, shooting 1080p, 24fps.

No clue what kind of lights they are unfortunately, all I know is that they're fluorescent tubes. More disorientating than any other fluorescent lights I've seen though. They were recommended by the builder when we were getting the kitchen done up, we asked for powerful lights as our kitchen gets a lot of use for multiple things and we usually have dark days 95% of the time here in Ireland (doesn't help that the sun is on the front of the house and not the back where the kitchen is), so he said these were the most powerful he'd be able to put in.
I unfortunately can't remove the cover to check for a name/brand or anything.

dr croubie · Jul 16, 2013

I'm more interested that it can work at an incident angle of up to 60 degrees.
Finally, I might be able to use my 21mm Skopar (or the 12mm or 15mm Heliar) on a digital sensor without it going all purple on the edges...

Nishi Drew · Jul 16, 2013

Might as well use a zoom if you shoot 2.8 or slower often, I agree, that's why I shoot F2 or faster quite often, your zoom can't match my 1.4!

photonius · Jul 16, 2013

comsense said:
Jay Khaos said:

I'm aware that most of you will probably think that the idea of even attempting this is ridiculous, but

Click to expand...

No the idea is not ridiculous but need to me looked with right logic. Only conceivable reasons to do this:
1) Avoid theft: would not work - Any normal thief given an opportunity would not be repulsed stealing an unmarked big camera with big glass
2) Avoid attention: Would do the opposite - How many people look at photographer and scramble to read the model # on their camera. Most like the few who frequent forums like this. And even an unmarked rebel would raise the attention level of this group to moon.
3) Style and statement: There can be no arguments against this one. Except, be careful not to damage $3K camera!!!

So far nobody mentioned a real serious reason for "debranding a product":

LEGAL. Anywhere in certain "spaces", which can be TVs, movies, sports stadiums, there can be a legal restriction for professional photographers, vendors etc. to show their brand, if an exclusive right to use advertising space, branding etc. has been given to a specific company. I.e. of Canon sponsors an event, they may not wish to have Nikon shooters prominently displayed during TV broadcasts. So, perhaps Canon gives all the photographers free cameras, but professional XX wishes to keep using his/her Nikon, so it's best somehow to hide that he/she is using a Nikon, otherwise there may be consequences.
Probably quite a number of readers here are aware of the ridiculous limitations that were imposed on shops around the London Olympic venues based on sponsor pressure.
Or the ambush marketing of a Dutch brewery during the World Cup. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10321668
I have seen a number of debranded cameras in Tv shows, most likely because of branding/legal issues.
Then of course there are the funny instances where commercials for a MS product are made with Apple hardware, the Nokia PureView ad (http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3295316/nokia-apology-lumia-pureview-ad), etc.
So, there are good reasons when you want to hide a product brand.

PS: I forgot the story of the athlete who had a contract with some sports company, but used running shoes from the competition, and added some stripes to hide the fact....

Hardproducer · Jul 16, 2013

Bring it to canon repair and let it dried and cleaned by canon. If you wait to long, later on you get corrosion and that will finaly damage your 7D unrepairable.

Good luck

adhocphotographer · Jul 16, 2013

I used my 17-55 almost 90% of the time..... that was unitl i got the 70-200 2.8 IS II... it is a tough choice, but i would say keep your 17-85 and get the 70-200!

Ellen Schmidtee · Jul 16, 2013

Sometimes corporations do silly things.

When the Apple IIgs was introduced, the Israeli distributor would not sell it, as Macs were more profitable per-unit.

A couple of local PC distributors joked they didn't send flowers with thank you notes because it would raise the suspicion they sent bribes as well.

Mt Spokane Photography · Jul 15, 2013

Although I love my 100mmL because I use it hand held, this is one area where third party lenses are less expensive and excellent. If you want to keep the cost down, consider one of the many fine third party macro's.

The advantage of a longer focal length macro is the working distance. A 50mm Macro on FF must be very close to get 1:1 magnification. 100mm, or more gives a reasonable working distance.

mkabi · Jul 15, 2013

Word of advice. And, I learned this during my last video shoot (that being my first official video shoot).

We all know that with High ISO = high noise (basic rule of thumb, right?).

Here is what they don't tell you.
Low ISO = noise during post production. It happens when there is not enough light and you are increasing exposure and brightness so you can see the subject(s).

So, the best thing you can do.... light the bitch out of your scene (invest in LED or other types of continuous lighting). Because apparently, you can darken it during post and nothing is lost and no noise is produced.

If you have nothing to work with but video with a lot of noise, look into "Neat Video"

jhanken · Jul 15, 2013

Forgot to say that it is a very cute, priceless photo. Just went through a box of photos of my kids from the 2-4 age with my wife the other day, we laughed so hard we cried. This will be one of those shots for you, I think!

preppyak · Jul 15, 2013

I guess my question is, do you really need the f/2.8 lens if you believe that using it without an ND filter would render it useless? I mean, if you are constantly shooting in that bright of light that 1/8000th and f/2.8 doesn't cut it, how often would you actually be using it at f/2.8? There's obviously AF advantages, etc, just curious really.

Traditionally gear is the most expensive in the late spring and mid-summer; they've already done their sales for summer buyers, and it's usually not until early fall that they bring back good deals. That said, Canon has rarely gone more than a month without new rebates the last year and a half or so, so, if you can wait, I would.

Ripley · Jul 15, 2013

jdramirez said:
Ripley said:

Well, what happened?

Click to expand...

I went out with my best gear... I shot from the fringes of the action because I didn't have anything that was even close to being consider period specific, and most of my photos were... ehhh... meh... ok... good... but not anything that I would really fight tooth and nail for.

Part of it was shooting from the fringes... the other part is that it is really difficult to recreate the sense that you might die during a reenactment. Heck... no blood, no guts, it just simply was a tough venue when you weren't embedded in the action.

There were some shots the other team members got that were WOW (as viewed on a 3inch lcd screen), but I didn't even see any compelling images that warranted being captured.

So there I was... having a GREAT time... getting paid a little, getting treated much better than the paying patrons, getting free water, free potato chips, free peanut butter crackers, primo shooting from the fringes, and chit chatting a great group of guys.

Honestly... I got a great experience out of it... and the publisher got about 1000 photos using pro levlel gear, but that were ok. It painted a picture of the battle, but not of the depth of emotion and feeling.

Oh... and I got primo parking and rides on a golf cart to/from wherever I wanted on the battlefield.

So I had fun and I'd do it again... but I'd make a stop at ye old goodwill and see if I could find something that was period specific so I could get up close to the action.

Awesome!!! Thanks for sharing.

Vossie · Jul 15, 2013

Elements 9 can work with layers. Double exposures on film is basically adding the intensity values of the pixels on top of each other.

If ypu Gopgle for "photoshop element 9 layers tutorials" (cannot get the link nicely pated on iPad) you will probably find your solution. Good luck!

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics