abouddweck

<p>I want to add my 3 cents worth to this discussion. In 1998 I dumped all of my Nikon stuff for the Leica R8. Within a year I had accumulated another R8, and several gorgeous lenses. The resolution and color rendition of the lenses were fantastic. As the digital era approached I considered buying the Leica back so I could continue with my beautiful glass. Unfortunately when the DMR back finally made its debut (at about $6k at the time) I found out that it wasn't full frame. Imagine my disappointment when I realized my favorite lens, my 19MM, would be an effective 28MM. That did it. I was really pissed at Leica. All of my beautiful glass was rendered irrelevant by their decision to pursue digital before they could go full frame. I sold off the last of my Leica gear in 2006 when the Canon 5D full frame came out. I have since changed to Nikon D700 and a series of beautiful lenses because, in my opinion, the combination of their sensor, software and glass get as close to a Leica image as possible in digital format. All that said, I can't wait to see what the new Leica S2 produces. </p>

Do you have a link? I can't find it.

I have never heard anything positive about Broadway, but have no personal experience

 

I have bought from B&H and Adorama over the years, they are always reliable. I can recommend two other good sources

from personal experience, Beach Camera (also known as buydig.com) and Profeel Video (profeelvideo.com). They are

authorized dealers for the big names, pricing is often a bit better than Ad and B&H, and delivery is always quick.

If you are shooting residential interiors on digital, you can shoot with existing light by shooting bracketed exposures and

layering in CS3. In high contrast lighting situations HDR layering is quite effective with bracketing at 2 f stop increments.

In most normal situations, a home, apartment, office, etc. I bracket in 2/3 f stop increments, up to 7 frames and use

masking to make the final image. It is a time intensive process done on the computer but the results are fantastic.

Considerations for light balancing are easier to solve with digital. You can customize your white balance to the different

light sources, e.g. daylight, tungsten, fluorescent and blend the final images for the best reproduction. You may want to

use some continuous light to fill the darkest shadow areas, like woods and dark carpet, but you can keep your

supplementary lighting at a minimum if you use layering techniques. I used to use strobe when I was shooting film.

Strobes always cause logistical problems, like keeping them out of the way. I still use them with digital in open

commercial applications where a good amount of ambient daylight is present, but they are a hassle, and if you are

renting them, a considerable expense. If you are going to pursue architecture as a strong interest, it would be better for

you to learn HDR and the rich layering techniques and options available in Photoshop CS3.<div></div>

Do I like it?

 

Do I love it?

 

Can I live without it? If the answer to this is yes, pull it from your portfolio.

Hi Wes, I tried to email you to tell you to send me some images for review, but the email keeps bouncing back.

The first issue you must resolve is film vs. digital. If you want to go digital, you must be willing to become proficient in PhotoShop

CS3. As one who used film for over 40 years, I am now a convert to 100% digital. This conversion happened once I learned how

to do and appreciate layering capabilities in CS3. For architecture and landscape images, layering opens a whole new world. It is

an art in itself, so be patient if you decide to take it on.

 

As to cameras, there is no need to go to MF digital, unless you have 50K burning a whole in your pocket, and of course, size of

MF cameras may be a consideration. I use two systems, For street photography, travel and spontaneous imaging I use the

small sized Olympus E-3 with a two zooms, the 12-60 and the 50-200 roughly equivalent to a 24-120 and 100-400.

Ergonomically, it could be better, especially if you have large hands as some of the controls are positioned tightly to each other.

However, I am now used to it so it is no longer an issue. It does a pretty good job, considering its size (see the attached photo,

which is made from four layers, by the way). Prime lenses are available for the Olympus now if you hate zooms, and Zuiko does

a good job with their glass. My other system is the Canon 1Ds Mk III, with which I use only prime lenses. It has a full size sensor,

but it, with fast prime lenses it is a bear to shlep around. When I am working on a tripod, and have my shots well defined. it is

unbeatable. Both cameras have live preview capability, a big plus, especially if one is myopic. The Canon has an edge here

because the live preview can be magnified up to 10X before shooting. Canon's live preview is manual focus only, the Olympus

can do live with AF. Ergonomics on the Canons are generally well thought out. Build quality is quite good, especially on the 1Ds

MkIII, but unlike film cameras. all DSLR have a steep learning curve due to their multi-layered menus. If you are not discouraged

by 175 page manuals, you should have any camera down to the important functions within a few weeks. If you find this daunting

you can stick with film, although selection and support for film imaging is diminishing every month.<div></div>

I inadvertently posted under a thread "Ashamed...." What I wanted to let you all know is that I, on a time available basis, am offering help with

improving the quality of your images. Just drop me a note.

As a working pro of over 35 years, I have accumulated a good deal of expertise. If you have a problem that is vexing you, or

looking for a review of your work, drop me a note and I will try to help you out. I can do this as time permits, so be patient and I will

try to get back to you in a reasonable amount of time.<div></div>

As a working pro of over 35 years, I have accumulated a good deal of expertise. If you have a problem that is vexing you, or

looking for a review of your work, drop me a note and I will try to help you out. I can do this as time permits, so be patient and I will

try to get back to you in a reasonable amount of time.

Hi Richard,

 

I use both Canon and Olympus cameras. I am using the top of the line from both manufacturers, both in bodies and in lenses, but some of

the observations are still relevant. The question is, why did you switch to Canon in the first place? I did so out of necessity, as the Canon

kit I use is all primes and it weighs a ton. I find the Olympus, with two good zooms, a better camera for travel and street shooting. My

problem is that both cameras have nothing in common in the way of controls. Switching back and forth always challenges my

short term memory! I would concur with many of the prior posts that your solution is a better lens. I also think someone mentioned that

you should compare raw images from each camera. That is truly the only way to evaluate the sensors and processors. If possible, borrow

a couple of prime lenses for the comparison.

 

I would suggest that you get rid of the Canon, even though there is really nothing wrong with it, and spend your money instead on a newer

Olympus and a very good lens. I use the Olympus 12-60 2.8 and it is a fabulous zoom in most cases. It is pricey, but it is money that is

well spent if you are truly passionate about your work. Although Canon has a much deeper system, I do not think, using both, that

Olympus gives anything away in terms of quality of the image and build. I think almost everything you truly need will be available in the

Olympus system. Good luck.<div></div>

All this internet posted techno-crap is misleading and has little real world application. The 5D is a fine camera. I and many working pros,

some of the best in the business, use it with great results. I would however wait for the next incarnation, possibly coming out this summer,

the 5D Mk II. Why buy four year old technology when the more advanced version will be on the market shortly?<div></div>

I own the 180 3.5. As you noted, the working distance is a key factor. I use it primarily for

floral studies right now and I sometimes couple it to the 1.4 extender, of course depth of

field - even at F32 means little when you are set uo that tight. The lens is one of the best

micro/macro's that I have used in over 40 years as a photography. Depending on what you

are shooting, I would also suggest getting a Canon ring light set-up. They make two

versions. By the way, it also makes a great general purpose telephoto and is especially good

for tight portraits. Overa

I carry the 24-105, a 90MM T/S and the 70-200 F4 (sometimes with a 1.4 extender. I tried

the 17-40, I didn't care for it. It is slow and has distortion issues at 17. I picked up a 15MM

3.5 Nikkor and bought the novaflex adapter. It is an amazing piece of glass.Yes, it has to be

used on manual functions, but in most cases, one would not be shooting fast that wide. By

the way, don't forget a flash, polarizing filter and a lightweight tripod - you will wish you had

them - when you don't have them!<div></div>

I just got the TS-E 90 for use with my 5D. It is the perfect perspective for tabletop, although

on the aps format it may be a bit long. Of course the biggest advantage for tabletop is the

depth of field with the tilt. I'm also using it for landscape , being able to raise or lower the

image without adjusting the height of my camera. A very cool, yes expensive, but cool toy.

Michael Mowrey hit it right on the nose. Slave a second flash, make it your primary source

at about 45 degrees off the front of your subject and fill at the camera. This is a modified

portrait technique, and it looks great. A 2:1 ratio is best (off camera flash putting out F11

- on camera flash F8), prints easy, especially w/ black and white where you have more

forgiveness. Remember to meter your shadow area, not the highlights. As to the ambient

light, chances are it is not going to register too much if you intend to shoot around f8.

Since you are shooting MF, you could go to 400 ISO, slow down your shutter, cut the

power on your flash, and maybe pick up some ambiance. There is a danger of picking up a

ghost, which could be bad or creative as it were, if you shutter gets too slow. It is tough

to advise without being there. Don't worry - you can do it!

Well, I made my decision based on two things. The money was not the critical factor, I

wanted the 1:1 ratio without extension tubes, I also wanted a medium tele I could take in the

field. I love Canon's construction, and I think that is what we pay the premium for, not just

the name. Anyway, here is one of my first shots with it.<div></div>

Dear Jennifer - I just sold off three of those lenses - the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 IS, all

because of the accumulated weight - and the fact that I have a bad shoulder. I suggest

that you get specs on the equipment you are thinking of buying (B&H has great specs on

stuff) put the equivilant weight in a shoulder bag and walk at least half a mile with it.

Unless you shoot mostly at night or low light, lens speed is a somewhat spurious issue. If

you are shooting in daylight, chances are you are shooting at f8 or 11 most of the time

with an ISO of 200 as high as 1/500 in bright sun. Even when the light gets lower,

autofocus does most of the work, so the brightness of the viewfinder is not all that critical.

Yes, when you get into low contrast situations and very low light, it does not work that

well, buy how often is that?

For myself, I am replacing the 24-70 with the 1 stop slower 24-105IS. In spite of the

lower level of light in the viewfinder, the IS will stabilize at the necessarily lower speed.

Since I already have a 180 I will forgo the next zoom, and I am considering the 300 F4 IS

for the wildlife shots - and that sucker weighs 2.5 lbs on its own, and by the way the

70-200 2.8 L IS with the tripod mount is 3.5 lbs. You can see that this stuff gains weight

quicker than Kirstie Ally did. FYI, the 24-105 weighs 1.5 lbs.

Another walkaround to consider is the 28-300 3.5-5.6L IS. It is 7" long and over 3.5 lbs

(the same as the 70-200) but it replaces a bag full of lenses. With that and the 16-35 (1.3

lbs) you can go anywhere with a kit weighing about ten lbs total including your camera

and gadget bag. Oh yeah, Jennifer - get a tripod or monopod, it helps to negate the speed

issue even more. I carry a small Weldon Ultra LUXiF 5-Section with 3-Way Pan/Tilt Head, it

weighs in under 3 lbs and supports 6. The attached shot taken of Boathouse Row was a 2

or 3 second exposure with the 70-200 racked out to 200 and on this tripod.<div></div>

Hi Jennifer,

 

I carry a Lowe pro commercial with a 5D, 16-35 2.8, 23-70 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 IS and the

180 3.5 macro. It just fits the overhead and underseat specs for the airlines. I also have

room for a lot of other stuff. The bag is large enough to put these wide lenses (all have

77MM front elements) into place with their lens hoods in place. The only one I cannot do

that with is the 16-35 WA. Beware, all this fast glass is heavy. You should also look into

the Kinesis belt system and a camera pouch. You WILL look like a dork, but it is a great

way to manage your gear when shooting. When I finish I throw everything back into the big

LowePro.

 

By the way, as I mentioned in another post, I am thinking of replacing my three month old

70-200 2.8 L IS USM lens with the lighter, and slower f4(I have a bad right shoulder and

the weight is killing me). If you are interested in saving a few hundred dollars, let me

know. It is USA version of course, complete with the case and stuff. Just a thought.

 

Good luck

Aboud

www.abouddweck.com

Hi Joaquin -

 

I have the 70-200 2.8L USM lens and I love it. Having said that and if I could do it all over

again, I would seriously consider the F4. First it is a lot lighter, second it is a lot cheaper. I

am sure the glass is as good as the 2.8L.The fact that the EOS and digitals are auto focus

removes half the reason for having the faster lens (brighter view) and unless you do a lot

of low light photography, you will find the F4 adequate. If you go to my web site

www.abouddweck.com, the opening shots of the birds were done with this lens. Hope this

helps.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

I have three 500 W/S and one 1000W/S Elinchrome monolight units and a variety of E-

Chrome softboxes to go with them. They are working fine but I want sell them and find

something a little easier to travel with. I would consider something battery operated if it

could also be used with A/C. Or a power pack with heads instead of the monolights. I want

to cut back to two or three units. Many years ago I used Speedotron and thought they were

OK, but other brands like Comet were also around. I have been out of the loop on strobe

systems lately so any feedback would be appreciated.<div></div>

Hi Ruben, send me a more specific question and I will see if I can help you. I have over 30

years studio lighting experience and I will be glad to help you - or anyone else on photo.net

for that matter.