|
I've used VSCOcam for iPad to edit Canon cr2 files. Feels good man.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I've used VSCOcam for iPad to edit Canon cr2 files. VSCOcam opens raw files? I had no idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I've used VSCOcam for iPad to edit Canon cr2 files. Sometimes I export a flat JPG from Lightroom and send it to VSCO on my phone 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
If I mainly just shoot portraits (studio and outdoor), how much of an improvement would a 6D be over a 5D classic? Or would I be better off thinking about a used 5D mkII?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:If I mainly just shoot portraits (studio and outdoor), how much of an improvement would a 6D be over a 5D classic? Or would I be better off thinking about a used 5D mkII? Probably more of an improvement in the outdoor category, since sometimes in outdoor portraits you're not sitting at ISO 100. Umm, really unless you're running into problems with size or you need to crop more, or if you'd like to expand into things involving action or low light I can't think of a whole lot the 6D or 5D2 would do that the 5D doesn't in the context of portraits. The 6D and the 5DII to a slightly less degree have better dynamic range and color depth and all that great stuff (see here for number stuff) but honestly unless you feel held back by the 5D, buy lights and lenses and pay makeup artists and stuff before upgrading the body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
What do you feel is limiting about the 5d? Other than the sensor, of course. I would probably go for the 5d2 just because of the joystick(which you're already used to) and the faster max shutter speed(1/4000 vs 1/8000) for your outdoor location work. And if the lower resolution of the 5d sensor isn't a hindrance then I'd probably just rock it until the wheels fell off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Fair enough, sounds good to me! Sometimes you just need to be talked back from the edge when you feel the urge to blow money on photography stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
The main thing you're gonna get from upgrading to a 6D or 5dmkII is better performance at higher ISOs. As a portrait photographer, I'm not sure how important this is to you, especially if you're using off camera lighting. As compared to the mkII, the 6D is slightly better than the 5dmkii in almost every way except the shutter speed (1/4000ths on the 6D and 1/8000ths on the 5Dmk2). Once again the big advantage on the 6D is the wifi. In your case, the wifi might be useful for remotely controlling your camera while you work directly with your client/model. You could also do "wireless tethered" shooting (oxymoron I know). Edit: I also agree with the other posters that lights and glass are a better investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Yes and don't forget to spend thousands of dollars on pieces of fabric and thin metal poles, which the industry calls "light modifiers". I am just pissed off that everything sold to photographers are priced ~500% more than if it served another purpose. Part of this is fuelled by photographers' fear that if they use anything but the best, their work will be sub-par in a highly competitive industry. Also being seen with less than the proist of pro gear will mark you as an amateur or pro-sumer. So buy this piece of metal for far more than that piece of metal because this one was made for photography. KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
When I bought my 105mm macro lens, I needed two reflectors. Some cardboard and tinfoil with the rough side up works just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:I am just pissed off that everything sold to photographers are priced ~500% more than if it served another purpose. Part of this is fuelled by photographers' fear that if they use anything but the best, their work will be sub-par in a highly competitive industry. Also being seen with less than the proist of pro gear will mark you as an amateur or pro-sumer. So buy this piece of metal for far more than that piece of metal because this one was made for photography. That's true of a lot of hobbies: go for a wander round a boat chandlers, or a tack shop or a golf shop and you'll see them full of stuff that you can find on the high street for a third of the price or on amazon.ebay for even less
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
spog posted:That's true of a lot of hobbies: go for a wander round a boat chandlers, or a tack shop or a golf shop and you'll see them full of stuff that you can find on the high street for a third of the price or on amazon.ebay for even less Not just hobbies, anything specialized gets that kind of markup. Go to Target and find the dedicated Potato scrubbers ($8-10), then spend a half hour walking around looking for things that can scrub a potato just as well that cost $2-3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Not just hobbies, anything specialized gets that kind of markup. Go to Target and find the dedicated Potato scrubbers ($8-10), then spend a half hour walking around looking for things that can scrub a potato just as well that cost $2-3. If you buy perfumed poop bags marketed for baby diapers, they cost more than the ones marketed for dog cleanup.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Dog food has like 85% of the nutrition of baby food for like 30% of the cost
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
feigning interest posted:Dog food has like 85% of the nutrition of baby food for like 30% of the cost
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Rumors are springing up that the supposedly new upcoming 53MP fullframe camera from Canon is supposed to have a Sony sensor based on a patent exchange between the two. If that one's true, gently caress me, because it puts me in a pickle. Go back to Canon eventually or stay with Sony and get Dual Pixel AF at some point in future anyway. --edit: The short term issue mostly the need to decide for a mount on mid-term (while I have an EF adapter, AF sucks). Not going to buy yet another new camera anytime soon. :| Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
What new technology is around that would allow Canon to offer a 53MP sensor that's the same size as normal full frame sensor? I haven't been paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:What new technology is around that would allow Canon to offer a 53MP sensor that's the same size as normal full frame sensor? I haven't been paying attention. It's the same pixel density as a 20MP APS-C, but who knows if that can translate directly to making a larger one like that. I would think if it was that simple Sony would have already released an even higher MP one (since they make 24MP APS-C sensors), but who knows. CP - have you gone and bought a bunch of E mount glass? Or is that the pickle - deciding whether to keep on trucking with EF lenses on your A7 for now with the aim of going back to Canon in the future? I would think that one is pretty easy to decide: Do you genuinely like having the smaller body, or do you think you'd prefer going back to DSLR ergonomics, and just really wanted the exposure latitude offered to you by the sony sensors. Edit: Assuming this actually comes to fruition, which it's still quite possible that it will not, does this mean Canon really HAS to release new 50mm lenses this year? I'd be quite partial to a 50/2 IS on the level of the 35/2. timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Man I already hate my 36MP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:CP - have you gone and bought a bunch of E mount glass? Or is that the pickle - deciding whether to keep on trucking with EF lenses on your A7 for now with the aim of going back to Canon in the future? Thing is, while I don't have any short term plans to get more glass yet, because my EF stuff fits on the A7II with an adapter and I mostly focus manually, I am however toying with the idea of replacing my current Sigma 35mm around end of the year with the upcoming Zeiss FE one to have fast AF for when it's actually useful (stipulation being similar optical performance, because the Sigma beats the pants off the current Zeiss 35mm). If that'd play out well and the FE catalog grows by then, more options may come up. This would also involve displacing EF gear to pay for it, i.e. losing it. While I expected Canon to catch up with the competition eventually, if the rumors are true, it's happening faster than anticipated. Planning for the the long term, say two years from now, it'd probably be cheaper to hold off lens purchases for that time and spring for a Canon, than update my stuff slowly to FE. timrenzi574 posted:I would think that one is pretty easy to decide: Do you genuinely like having the smaller body, or do you think you'd prefer going back to DSLR ergonomics, and just really wanted the exposure latitude offered to you by the sony sensors. timrenzi574 posted:It's the same pixel density as a 20MP APS-C, but who knows if that can translate directly to making a larger one like that. I would think if it was that simple Sony would have already released an even higher MP one (since they make 24MP APS-C sensors), but who knows. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Nobody is saying the Sony/Canon rumors are reliable. For example, Canon Rumors says the high megapixel camera rumor is CR3 (i.e. done deal). While the Canon/Sony partnership is CR1 (most likely bullshit).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Time for a revival of the canonailure? 53 mp FF sounds great for cropping those wildlife/sports shots but it also likely means poo poo framerate so its harder to get a good shot to crop in the first place. Pray for CFast. Also, where's the 4K at? Feeling no pressure from Nikon at the segment? Guessing they're mulling over losing those high margin Cinema line sales.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
They broke out the premium 4k video DSLRs into their own line. Don't expect anything but mainstream video from the next round of Canon bodies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Time for a revival of the canonailure? 53 mp FF sounds great for cropping those wildlife/sports shots
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
It would make sense for canon to save costs and time by having the sony sensor for this body, which buys them time to get their poo poo together. Or they struck a deal where they use sony's fab to design their own sensor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:Time for a revival of the canonailure? 53 mp FF sounds great for cropping those wildlife/sports shots but it also likely means poo poo framerate so its harder to get a good shot to crop in the first place. Pray for CFast. I don't imagine a 53 mp camera is going to be targeted at wildlife shooters. I think such s camera is more useful for studio and landscape shooters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Yea the guys taking 5000 photos a minute of a barn owl pooping probably don't want 1GB raw files to work with and store
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I don't imagine a 53 mp camera is going to be targeted at wildlife shooters. I think such s camera is more useful for studio and landscape shooters. Do you need 53 mega-pickles for studio work, unless you plan to print it out on the side of a building? (serious question)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
I'd be interested to see how a 50+ MP full frame would compare to medium format film...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
spog posted:Do you need 53 mega-pickles for studio work, unless you plan to print it out on the side of a building? No, but you could sell every lens you own and weld the pancake 40mm to the front of it. Need to zoom in? Just crop down to 15 pickles and you're gold. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
deaders posted:I'd be interested to see how a 50+ MP full frame would compare to medium format film... In terms of practical resolution, I think even the 24mp cameras are already better than MF film, unless you use drum scanners which are exorbitant. But it still won't have the same look, because the sensor size is still too different, and the lens focal lengths aren't the same either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
spog posted:Do you need 53 mega-pickles for studio work, unless you plan to print it out on the side of a building? If you do product photography, they will want the shot to be as large as possible so it could be incorporated into promotional materials such as banners, large posters, venue branding etc. If you could forego using a super expensive medium format camera and just use your canon body, then this is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
FWIW, a recent product/model shoot at my company was done on Phase One 40MP sensors, the argument being that it was nice to be able to crop lots and lots to use either the entire scene, close up of model's face, or even just the product (business headsets) or a detail of the product and still have enough pickles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
bolind posted:FWIW, a recent product/model shoot at my company was done on Phase One 40MP sensors, the argument being that it was nice to be able to crop lots and lots to use either the entire scene, close up of model's face, or even just the product (business headsets) or a detail of the product and still have enough pickles. Why not just tell the photographer to cover all eventualities during the shoot and avoid throwing details away by cropping? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
I think the point was that they might need stuff in the future that couldn't be foreseen at the time of the shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
Grain of salt, blahblahblah.quote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Topics to discuss: -Low-pass filter or no low-pass filter? -The filesize and speed of shooting in 1.3 / 1.6 crop modes. -The limited ISO vs "much stronger CFA which will produce much greater color accuracy" -What exactly "fine detail" picture style does. -Waiting for the 5div instead of pulling the trigger on this -the price KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
-Regular sensitivity: ISO 100-6400 This is the weirdest one
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
I imagine the actual target audience for this camera (landscape/studio) won't care so much about a lack of high ISO. Either they are finely controlling incoming light during daytime with filters for landscape, or they have total control over all lighting in a studio. If low ISO is a tradeoff for any sort of higher dynamic range, I imagine it'd be well worth it to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
LiquidRain posted:I imagine the actual target audience for this camera (landscape/studio) won't care so much about a lack of high ISO. Either they are finely controlling incoming light during daytime with filters for landscape, or they have total control over all lighting in a studio. It probably also has a very strong color filter which will translate to higher accuracy in color fidelity, but at the tradeoff of less ISO performance. (per CR) timrenzi574 fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:08
|
|