MichaelTheMaven said:

- Video Tests for Moire, Aliasing, Dynamic Range, Color, Sharpening

Click to expand...

Fyi: You can do hdr video with Magic Lantern, so imho in high dr situations the 6d has the clear edge in 720p - the limited dr is only a problem in 1080p and still shots with motion.

Well, due to the lack of response, I'll tell you my closest (non-G15) setup that has worked for me.

Using an old Minolta DiMage 7i, I've triggered my Phottix Strato II's, via PC sync cord adapted from the camera's hotshoe. That camera maxes out at 1/2000 on manual, and was triggering an old manual flash attached to the Strato receiver. Caught the flash in frame each time, and because it's electronic shutter, full coverage. I had the same success triggering the remote flash with an optical slave using the built-in flash ( 1/16 manual, as any TTL type pre-flash will pop the slave too early).

The old flash may have a fairly long burn time -- I don't know and don't have the tools to measure it. I didn't have my 580 handy, but if you are interested, I can redo the test with it on lowest power (shortest flash duration), to see if they still sync. It's my understanding that studio strobes are generally slower (the light is on for longer) than speedlights, so I think in this case, it may be a benefit, if the timing isn't exact.

I don't think there will be much issue having your camera trip the triggers. If it'll fire a canon flash, it should fire a trigger. Actually, delay that. Googling found this about the G12: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1088996@N21/discuss/72157628714843327/ Possible pit-fall #1, (at least with a possible solution).

I think the other pit-fall would be around any delays introduced by the trigger. At slower shutter speeds, there is clearly a longer window during which the flash pulse can happen. The faster the shutter speed, the smaller that window. If the trigger system delays the 'flash now' signal long enough, your flash would fire after the shutter is closed.

Failing someone posting info with your exact setup, my suggestion is to find a G15 somewhere (friend, store) and introduce it to your triggers and a speedlight and try it out.

We'll see, I have limited space and limited funds. Development and scanning i think is where I'm going to stick for now

Quasimodo said:

I am thinking that if the time is there, and I have secured some shots that I like, I would like to try the multiple exposure shot feature on the 1Dx, ... Could be cool

Click to expand...

I'd shoot a lot on multiple exposure mode.... Even though they are a big bird, things happen fast... wings beat faster than you can time, and you get just the right moment as it lands, etc etc. You can always delete shots you don't like.

And bring a spare battery and a spare memory card.....

EdB said:

angox said:

I have been using Fuji X100 for almost 2 years.. It's a great little camera.. I did a review on my site - maybe will help you..

http://www.occhio-photography.com/long-term-review-fuji-x100/

Click to expand...

I went in another direction since I started this thread, spent the cash on an X-Pro 1. The 35mm 1.4 I got with it is a great piece of glass. I'll be sure to check out your review.

Click to expand...

i see. i heard a lot of good things about xpro1 too! let me know if you made a review of it too.

If finances stretch go for the 5DIII

aroo said:

Ellen Schmidtee said:

C. I don't see the benefit of shallow DOF for ultrawide. Could you enlighten me?

Click to expand...

Shallow DOF helps isolate the subject, no matter the focal length. I notice a big difference between f1.8 and f2.8 @ 50mm. I imagine such a difference would exist also at 15mm.

Click to expand...

Yes, but only in very close focus distances.

On 14mm f/1.8 you would have to focus closer than 3.68 meters because on and after that focus distance the focus extends to infinity. In other way, on that focus distance, anything from 1.84 meters to infinity would be in focus.

The closest focus distance for 14mm f/2.8 that focuses to infinity is 2.33 meters and anything from 1.16 meters to infinity would be in focus.

If you focus really close, say at one meter with 14mm, the depth of field for f/1.8 is about half (0.58 meters) of the f/2.8 depth of field (1.04 meters) so you would get a shallower DOF, but you would be limited to shoot subjects closer than 1.16 meters to get the shallow DOF.

these calculations are based on 5D Mark II/III using the DOF calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

neuroanatomist said:

RustyTheGeek said:

So my question: Am I correct in assuming that if I were to rent a TS-E lens to shoot a basic building type shot, is the popular Canon 24 TS lens the one to go for?

Click to expand...

Depends on if 24mm is wide enough. In urban settings, sometimes you cannot back up far enough...

Click to expand...

But at least I can hopefully get the dog to move forward a few steps! ;D

tapanit said:

Rienzphotoz said:

tapanit said:

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.

Click to expand...

OK, I oversimplified the numbers, but really... would you rather pay $2000 now or $50/year forever? How about $500/month? If you preferred $50/month, congratulations, you've understood the time value of money.

Where exactly it breaks even depends on the interest rate etc, but nonetheless there is a monthly sum that's effectively the price of an "eternal loan" for $2000. For argument's sake let's say it's $200/month. Then your choice would be certain loss of $50/month with insurance, or possible loss of $200/month without. How likely would you have to be to destroy the camera for insurance to make sense?

And finally, do you think you can estimate that probability better than insurance companies?

Click to expand...

You have gone from over simplifying to over complicated, we are talking about 2.5% insurance per year ... so I'm not sure what you are goin on about "eternal loan" and $200/month ???
I am really interested to know which insurance company is charging you $200/month (i.e. $1200 per year for a $2000 lens) :

And after you get over the feeling of violation from the theft, you then realize you can take that insurance money and buy something newer and hopefully better. I'm just sayin'....

noisejammer said:

I drag a 1d4, 5d2, 5 Zeiss lenses, a TS-E, 70-200/2.8 ii and a 400/4 DO pretty much everywhere I go including annual expeditions to Southern Africa. I take reasonable care but it's all insured for replacement. Apart from the deductible, theft would be a nuisance but I really don't stress at all.

Click to expand...

What a magnificent portfolio!

Richard

will a Metz 45 CL-1 be compatible with an Eos 1D mk3 and EOS 20D?
is it worthwhile to invest in sych a Flash for my mentioned cameras?

thanx
markus
namibia

neuroanatomist said:

LifeAfter said:

Or what are the expectations to get anything improved to the 5DIII
in the future firmwares?

Click to expand...

It's getting the ability to AF at f/8 in the near future. That's a pretty big enhancement (for some people) and something that was formerly only found on 1-series digital bodies (lesser film bodies had it). It's also getting uncompressed HDMI output.

Click to expand...

Well these are good improvements for Tele-photo (birds and other) and video guys
unfortunately, personally i need none of them.

I really see there is room for another FF body in the Canon lineup
as said by Canon representative... the future is more FF

The review asks why we would buy this over the faster 50 1.8. For me it was because I don't love the hexagonal bokeh balls on the 50. The 40 2.8 has more aperture blades, and better looking blur to my eyes. Price was close enough to be a non-factor in my decision.

yah I had Battery 1 way back... it was good... I must have changed those powersonic batteries out like 3 times during the life of the pack and then I switched to the canon 8X AA packs...
they are good and light but finally gave in and got the Turbo3 and SC... yes pricy but it does the job.

VIVITAR! yah I still have my 285HV with the 3rd party metal foot! and its still working!

I think she should go with the SX40. Brighter lens than the SX50 (allowing faster shutter speed), still a 24-840mm lens (do you REALLY need more?), same Digic 5, and if she really wants RAW, there is the "jailbrake" software that can fix that.

Reason to go SX50 over SX40 is (if you do not need 1200mm) AF performance. Could be an impact if photographing moving kids...

Just got my shorty forty last week and do not intend to use a filter on it. I do use HQ B+W filters on most of my lenses, but I got this one for its very low price and size; adding a filter will compromise both features.

Rocguy said:

wellfedCanuck said:

Not that the 60D is one- but if you just need a decent car- a Hyundai will do- don't let someone upsell you to a Cadillac. If you plan on building a hotrod, entering car shows or going on rallys- buy a Chevy, Corvette or Range Rover.

Click to expand...

This analogy I understand. I guess my question is is it better to get a brand new Hyundai vs a 2year old Cadillac with slightly older technology.

Click to expand...

No offense, but anything is better than a used American car.

Any time is a good time to get the 135mm f/2 L. My favorite lens by far.

If you are really looking for a tilt/shift lens for wedding photography, you should probably at least look at the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L, in addition to the TS-E 45mm. I've seen a number of photographs from very good wedding photographers, and the majority seem to use the 24mm if they do creative focus. That said, the TS-E 45mm is the second most used lens for wedding photography that I know of. One of my favorite wedding photographers who uses T/S is Sean Flanigan, a wedding photog in Seattle, WA. His work is quite amazing (although for more than just using T/S, and is a great example of how to apply creative focus (most of which I believe is done with the 24mm given the wider field of view, although the 45mm may be in the mix at times as well):

http://seanflanigan.net/blog/page/6/

Another great T/S wedding photographer is Bobby Earle. He is quite skilled, and uses both the TS-E 24mm and TS-E 45mm lenses. I will point out that there are quite a number of similarities between Earle's and Flanigan's work...tilted, desaturated, grainy, often black and white with high contrast. Not sure if that is simply a strange coincidence, or if it is the consequence of using creative focus...maybe it has a concurrent narrowing of style while at the same time offering greater freedom. Anyway, these two photographers should be more than enough inspiration, regardless of whether you pick up the 24mm or 45mm. And, according to Earl, he really loves the 45mm for vertical wedding portraiture.

http://bobbyearle.com/blog/tilt-shift-lens-use-in-weddings/
http://bobbyearle.com/blog/tilt-shift-lens-tips-for-wedding-photography-part-2/

The real edge the 24mm has over the 45mm is a far newer optical design, and sharper optics than the much-vaunted EF 24mm prime. The 45mm is an older design, and still has some flaws. I can't say I've ever noticed that actually mean anything in the creative focus wedding photography I've seen (although again most seems to be with the 24mm), but it might be something to think about.

Zv said:

Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up.

Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.

Click to expand...

While you're at it, since you have the 50mm 1.8, compare it with 35mm to see whether you think 35 would be much more useful than 50. For my taste, on FF 35mm is too wide most of the time, partly because I prefer not to get very close to the subject, especially if the subject is a person. My inclination is to go longer, and would take the 135L for the reasons given by others. (That said, the Sigma 35mm is so good I've found myself going out of my way to find way to use it, which has been a rewarding experience in itself....)

My experience with 70-200 L II IS and 2x III on a crop body is that you have stop down to f/8 or else the image will be too soft. Also hand-holding 400mm is hell. You need fast shutter speeds and with f/8 or f/11 you will need a lot of light. Direct sunlit subjects are best in this case.

The 70-200mm f/4 IS is sharper than the other two, the 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS is very good, and bringing up the rear is the f/2.8 Ver 1 IS model.
All of them are reasonably good, so its just a matter of what you need. I've owned multiple copies of all the f/2.8 versions and kept the f/4L IS. If I were to buy the f/2.8 version it would be the non-IS or the MK II.

The 60 D and the D7000 are the competitors, and sales wise, its far ahead, simply because it costs less.
Nikon has yet to produce a competitor to the 7D, which is one of the reasons we do not see a MK II. The D300s is almost dead, and does not match the 7D.

Well, if you find yourself shooting at 8mm often with the 8-16, consider the full-frame equivalent of this lens: the Sigma 12-24. Since you have the 24-70, the 12-24 would fit nicely into your lineup.

There are two versions of the 12-24; version one is very good stopped down and remarkably has almost no distortion. Version two is sharper in the corners but has some barrel distortion.