|
rolleyes posted:I could basically pay off my mortgage with what's on that table. Goddamn. I'm guessing around a half million in gear, so...yes.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Two people are going to be mighty jealous after those are passed out. Guessing the B-squad gets assigned to the golf games?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
The article said each standard kit would be worth ~$42,000 each - two bodies, five lenses (two short L zooms, two intermediate teles, plus a 300, 400 or 500 L). Somebody's gonna get mugged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
On the plus side, you can probably get a screaming deal on pro-gear if you take a holiday to Rio in the autumn and check out the pawn shops in lovely areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:On the plus side, you can probably get a screaming deal on pro-gear if you take a holiday to Rio in the autumn and check out the pawn shops in lovely areas. Is the zika worth it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
zika gives you bokeh superpowers
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:zika gives you bokeh superpowers Just use lens distortion correction to fix those babies heads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Just use lens distortion correction to fix those babies heads. That's not a real solution though. You need a tilt/shift lens to correct the baby's head optically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Wait until Canon Professional Services shows off their inventory for the Olympics.   They have 70 technicians there too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I hope they're armed
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
I'm glad the event that spreads zika to the entire planet is going to be well documented using the best photography gear humanity can produce. Archaeologists in 500 years will be glad to know how it played out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
xzzy posted:the event that spreads zika to the entire planet xzzy posted:the best photography gear humanity can produce
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
I've heard that Canon sucks. I've also heard that Canon is good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
They have the prettiest red rings around their lenses, therefore they're the best. I stand by my statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Told you guys. Getty Images ain't got poo poo on CPS. Here's their "Depot Room" for the Olympics from a press release today: It's a shame that they didn't have a wide-angle lens that doesn't have a poo poo ton of distortion to show off their cutting-edge, pro-level equipment. Or a program capable of stitching together a panorama without loving it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
that's just how ultra wide angle lenses work 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:It's a shame that they didn't have a wide-angle lens that doesn't have a poo poo ton of distortion to show off their cutting-edge, pro-level equipment. Or a program capable of stitching together a panorama without loving it up. Here's a pano. https://gfycat.com/DefinitiveFreshAfricanwilddog
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I hope they're armed Not CPS specifically, but: http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...812616de81ff5ab
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
I'm just gonna set this bag of money down right here and turn around to talk to this pretty lady for a minute hey where'd my bag go
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Not CPS specifically, but: The loving idiot that robbed Costello tried to impersonate him. http://petapixel.com/2016/08/07/robbed-olympics-photographer-spots-thief-posing-venue/ quote:...while Costello was entering Sambodromo stadium yesterday for the men’s archery competition, he noticed another man entering behind him wearing an official photo vest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:5d4 announcement coming next month it seems Does that mean the 5d3 will drop in price? I've had my eye on one for a few years now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Yes. I dont think they'll reach the same level of discount that happened to the mkii when the mkiii came out though. The mkiii is just a super well rounded body that will age very, very well so demand will still be high. And it even takes SD cards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
I recently had an art show, and I was printing at large sizes (40"x60" ) and I noticed it started to get a little pixelated at that size (im using the 5d Mark III). I've been eyeing the 5dsr, do you think it would be a good investment or do you think I should wait for something better? I know the dynamic range is pretty much the same, but the added resolution is appealing. I'd love some thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I recently had an art show, and I was printing at large sizes (40"x60" ) and I noticed it started to get a little pixelated at that size (im using the 5d Mark III). I've been eyeing the 5dsr, do you think it would be a good investment or do you think I should wait for something better? I know the dynamic range is pretty much the same, but the added resolution is appealing. I'd love some thoughts. Shoot 4x5. Way better dynamic range and way larger prints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I recently had an art show, and I was printing at large sizes (40"x60" ) and I noticed it started to get a little pixelated at that size (im using the 5d Mark III). I've been eyeing the 5dsr, do you think it would be a good investment or do you think I should wait for something better? I know the dynamic range is pretty much the same, but the added resolution is appealing. I'd love some thoughts. I am going to assume you are coming to this conclusion from a sane viewing distance where you can see at least the entire image in your field of vision. When you go to print something with a lower effective resolution onto a higher effective resolution media this will always happen. Not adjusted for Bayer interpolation, the best case 5dsr LPmm is only about 120 if memory serves. The 5d3 has an LPmm of 80. On the same size sensor. The 5dsr pixel spacing vs photosite size ratio is worse than the 5d3 so the effective LPmm is possibly even less. You have three options: 1) Make a (less than) 50% gain in effective resolution with a very expensive 5dsr, lose lots of camera otherwise since the 5dsr is not a 5d3. Might help but not as much as you think. 2) Upscale your raws manually to the correct DPI/print size, and tweak things to prevent this. How you need to do it depends on which parts of the image you want to save. On massive prints, you can ditch some sharpness pretty trivially since the viewing distance is usually not point blank. 3) Move to absurdres medium format, e.g. H6D-100c, XF 100MP. I mean, if you sell a ton of 40x60's at good prices where the cost of the print is insignificant, poo poo why not. vvv edit: the Pentax 645z is not a good bet for your application; you'd need to jump to the 80-100 megapixel range to best the 5dsr significantly. windex fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Aug 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Ugh. Every direction I turn, medium format truly feels like the direction I should be going in. I just feel like we're in this transition phase where medium format is getting much more affordable and in a few years, we'll have options that don't cost 20-30k (like the Pentax 645z) Sigh. I'm lost. ;_;
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Ugh. Every direction I turn, medium format truly feels like the direction I should be going in. I just feel like we're in this transition phase where medium format is getting much more affordable and in a few years, we'll have options that don't cost 20-30k (like the Pentax 645z) Last summer, I treated myself to the 5Ds but a bit of buyers remorse when I wondered the same thing - that I could have waited and gone with a Pentax med format to try something different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Ugh. Every direction I turn, medium format truly feels like the direction I should be going in. I just feel like we're in this transition phase where medium format is getting much more affordable and in a few years, we'll have options that don't cost 20-30k (like the Pentax 645z) What sort of things are you shooting? If you're selling huge prints at shows, then you probably don't need us to tell you what is good, but we can avoid giving you useless recommendations if we know what you are doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:What sort of things are you shooting? If you're selling huge prints at shows, then you probably don't need us to tell you what is good, but we can avoid giving you useless recommendations if we know what you are doing. Portraits and landscapes is 80% of my work. My art show was all landscapes, so I didnt need the hi speed sync that the Pentax lacks in this scenario, but I'm worried for studio use when using strobes if 125/sec is going to be fast enough. My other issue is lenses, I love the variety in Canon lenses. I have a 24mm TS-E for landscapes, a 135mm f2 for portraits, a 35mm for events, etc. With the Pentax I'm not sure if I'll find the right tools, but id love recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Portraits and landscapes is 80% of my work. My art show was all landscapes, so I didnt need the hi speed sync that the Pentax lacks in this scenario, but I'm worried for studio use when using strobes if 125/sec is going to be fast enough. My other issue is lenses, I love the variety in Canon lenses. I have a 24mm TS-E for landscapes, a 135mm f2 for portraits, a 35mm for events, etc. With the Pentax I'm not sure if I'll find the right tools, but id love recommendations. If 1/125 and whatever apertures you usually shoot at in your studio is fast enough to eliminate the ambient light in there from being a factor, then it's fast enough. That's easy enough to test.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:If 1/125 and whatever apertures you usually shoot at in your studio is fast enough to eliminate the ambient light in there from being a factor, then it's fast enough. That's easy enough to test. For non-studio settings, a leaf shutter can also be useful, being able to do some interesting mixes of bright sunlight and flashes at a range of apertures. The Fuji X100 got a lot of attention for this when it came out. This is one of the reasons that people are making noise to try and convince Pentax to update their leaf shutter lens selection for the 645Z. Edit: I'm a pompous buffoon. thetzar fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
thetzar posted:For some things yes. But one of the main issues about shooting in studios, even with ambient controlled, is TOO MUCH light. Studio strobes can only be turned down so much, so if you want to shoot with strobes and use a very wide aperture, you need to compensate for that with a fast shutter speed. Not unless you are using a shutter speed shorter than the duration of said strobe, which if you're already cranking the power down as much as possible is going to be super fast. Even my lovely 80$ godox lights have a duration of like 1/2000th of a second on low power. Better ones are going to be 1/4000th or 1/5000th of a second. Speedlights are like 1/20,000 when the power is turned down. What cameras are syncing faster than these speeds to cut part of the flash out of the exposure?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Not unless you are using a shutter speed shorter than the duration of said strobe, which if you're already cranking the power down as much as possible is going to be super fast. Even my lovely 80$ godox lights have a duration of like 1/2000th of a second on low power. Better ones are going to be 1/4000th or 1/5000th of a second. Speedlights are like 1/20,000 when the power is turned down. What cameras are syncing faster than these speeds to cut part of the flash out of the exposure? Huh. You are completely right and I have just had a complete and utter brainfart. Ignore me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
I was shooting f/1.4 and wanted my stupid large softlighter really close to the subject I was photographing and even at the lowest power my AB800 was like 3-4 stops too bright. I just used my speedlight instead at 1/128, but I would have had to otherwise ND the strobe or (less preferably) my lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Not unless you are using a shutter speed shorter than the duration of said strobe, which if you're already cranking the power down as much as possible is going to be super fast. Even my lovely 80$ godox lights have a duration of like 1/2000th of a second on low power. Better ones are going to be 1/4000th or 1/5000th of a second. Speedlights are like 1/20,000 when the power is turned down. What cameras are syncing faster than these speeds to cut part of the flash out of the exposure? Can you explain this a bit more? I'm a little confused. Also, it's suggested a leaf lens would change the sync speed capabilities? Can someone explain why a leaf lens couldn't be made for say, a DSLR?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Can you explain this a bit more? I'm a little confused. Leaf shutters top out at 1/500 or so. There's also the issue of lens/body synchronization - just look at the Rube Goldberg poo poo medium format digital cameras have to do for sync.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Can you explain this a bit more? I'm a little confused. If your flash duration is 1/2000th of a second (the total time the flash is outputting light) , then whether you are shooting at 1 second , 1/50th , 1/125th, or 1/1000th you are getting the same amount of light from the flash. Because the amount of time it was outputting light is a fraction of the total time your shutter was open - so the only extra light you're getting by having the shutter open longer is the ambient light. So if your studio is well controlled for ambient light, having a camera with a sync of 1/125th vs 1/200th or 1/250th won't really make much difference for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
I was dicking around at the bookstore the other day when I saw one of those thick camera mags, this one specifically for Canon cameras and accessories. I take a peek inside just to see what they have to say, and I see they include a bunch of tutorials and assets online. So while I'm there, I get out my phone, go to the website, and answer the question based on the mag that gives you access to the materials. One of their assets is a link to a Tumblr site "with lots of tutorials, photoshop filters and actions, etc etc". I go to the site, and it's just a bunch of links to download cracked copies of Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:I was dicking around at the bookstore the other day when I saw one of those thick camera mags, this one specifically for Canon cameras and accessories. I take a peek inside just to see what they have to say, and I see they include a bunch of tutorials and assets online. So while I'm there, I get out my phone, go to the website, and answer the question based on the mag that gives you access to the materials. this is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:14 |
|
|
somnambulist posted:Can you explain this a bit more? I'm a little confused. DSLR can sometimes use leaf shutters, but they're built in the lens, and consumer stuff doesn't come with them for obvious cost reasons. timrenzi574 posted:If your flash duration is 1/2000th of a second (the total time the flash is outputting light) , then whether you are shooting at 1 second , 1/50th , 1/125th, or 1/1000th you are getting the same amount of light from the flash. Because the amount of time it was outputting light is a fraction of the total time your shutter was open - so the only extra light you're getting by having the shutter open longer is the ambient light. So if your studio is well controlled for ambient light, having a camera with a sync of 1/125th vs 1/200th or 1/250th won't really make much difference for you. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 23:50
|
|
