scott_ferris

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>Not really, the i1Display is a piece of hardware that interacts with freely downloadable software, Photoshop is the software. Replace i1Display with Hasselblad H4D, a piece of hardware that needs software to use, and there would be no question that a club could use it amongst the members. Obviously we are an honest club, hence the question, but I didn't see it as clear cut or wrong.</p>

<p>As for the i1 being better than the ColorMunki for the task, I only suggested it because of the complexity of workarounds when trying to get two displays on the same computer to match with the ColorMunki, the i1Display Pro is much better able to do that.</p>

<p>Thanks both for your thoughts, I will try to get a definitive answer from X-Rite for our specific situation.</p>

<p>That's interesting Nathan, that gives you a potential 400mm f5.6, my thinking limits me to a 100mm.</p>

<p>My 16-35 is a MkI so it has the 77mm filter thread, though the main reason I never upgraded it was because it is pretty sharp for an ultra-wide zoom and it fits in underwater housings much easier than the elephantine MkII. If I was to not take any of my first four, it would be the 16-35 as the 24-70 covers my most used walk about lengths and the 17TS-E gives me a far better ultra-wide.</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight.</p>

<p> The precursor to this "question" is that I am asking in the hopes of an interesting discussion, not a lecture on not knowing stuff I should know. If you are not interested in playing along, and there is no reason you should be, then just don't post, lets have a fun thread just for the sake of talking lenses. Yes I can look in my EXIF, but what would <strong>you</strong> take and why.</p>

<p> Anyway, I am off to India for two months (though the location is really irrelevant) and I have my lens set, what would you take from it and what glaring omissions are there that you would take/won't travel without? I will have one "FF" body.</p>

<p> My lens choices are 15mm fisheye, 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 70-200 f2.8 IS, 17TS-E, 50 f1.4, 100 L Macro, 300 f2.8 IS, TC's and extension tubes.</p>

<p> My current thinking is 16-35, 24-70, 17TS-E and 100 macro, this gives me very good coverage, a bit of overlap, it fits in a Retrospective 10, and is not too heavy (relative I know). I get on well with the 15 and 50 but my thinking is they both add weight and bulk unnecessarily.</p>

<p> Thanks, Scott.</p>

<p>I am just sorting out a request from a camera club about members screen calibration. If the club was to buy an i1Display Pro is there a limit on the number of computers that software and hardware could be used on? I have the cheaper ColorMunki Display and pointed them towards the i1Display Pro as a better kit but need to know if there are user limitations on it.</p>

<p>I'd ask X-Rite but have found their customer feedback lacking previously. Thanks for any input.</p>

Not wide enough for what? If you have a specific use in mind you might try stitching two or more images, this gives you a

wider field of view for free!

<p>I will go against the grain here (nothing unusual there) and say, it very well might. In and of itself there is no reason it should, but that is too narrow minded, if you take the thoughtful approach you are I can't see how it could fail to affect your image making. I have a very good friend who has had a keen interest in photography for years, he recently bought a used pro FF camera and "pro" midrange zoom, his photography has grown immeasurably in the last few months.</p>

<p>It isn't just the tangibles, it is far too easy, and misguided, to say "it's all the photographer" or "Galen/Adams could shoot with a box brownie", others might be able to work with the gear available in times past, in Adams case often the best gear available at that time, but that doesn't mean we all can, or should. There is nothing wrong with choosing a piece of gear because it gives you a tiny bit more confidence, or it makes you approach things slightly differently for whatever reason. I know somebody who wouldn't use their Canon 70-200 because they were so self conscious because it was white, after they got a lens coat they used it much more, that change made no tangible difference, the images were not sharper and in truth the lens attracted no more or less attention because of the coat, but it did make a difference to the photographer.</p>

<p>Anything that makes you think about your photography will make you grow as a photographer, if that means throwing it all away and using an iPhone so be it, but that works the other way too, my first friend now understands the benefits for his images of shooting RAW and careful post processing, something he was adamantly against a short time ago.</p>

<p>I often go out with one prime just to see what happens, I recently saw a very good video on the use of fisheye lenses so I now often walk around with one. I have never really been a "street shooter" but I find the combination interesting, it might not have made me a better photographer, but I am now shooting stuff I didn't before.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Harry...........</p>

<p>Unfortunately in the linked video at 1:53 he incorrectly states "very easily corrected by simply tilting the front element of the lens" the lens was shifted to achieve that result!</p>

<p>Scheimpflug has got nothing to do with shifting.</p>

<p>Shifting is most commonly used for keeping true perspective. An example of small product photography could be a matchbox, say you want to show the top of the box and the front with the label, but with no distortion? Set the camera slightly above and level to the box, then shift the lens down, this achieves your objectives of keeping the box square, the label face on and also being able to see the top of the box.</p>

<p>Shift is very commonly used in product photography, things like watches, cameras, anything with a box etc etc.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/hands-reviews/canon-series-l-tilt-shift-lenses">This video</a>, with the images of the G11, might help illustrate the point.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One thing to consider is that the tech of this gear is changing very fast, buying now when better gyros and payloads etc will be available, almost as soon as the credit card statement comes, make investing at the right time important.</p>

<p>$2,199 in the USA.<br>

£1,869.95 in the UK.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com">New York Times Lens Blog</a>, the photography is awe inspiring.</p>

This might help.

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/hyperfocal-distance.htm

Dilip,

 

This article might help.

 

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Dilip,

 

You are confusing compression and perspective with focal length, they are not related. The only thing that creates

perspective is position. If you use a 200mm lens on your crop camera to frame your subject, and a 300mm on a ff camera

to get the same framing from the same place your perspective, and compression, are the same. A 200 f2.8 is cheaper

than a 300 f4 and that is what you would need for equivalence. Of course when you start to get longer lenses the prices

to maintain equivalence gets very expensive!

 

The "telephoto" effect does not work to the numbers, or even close to the numbers, bigger pixels are much better than

smaller pixels, add in the iso crop factor and the tele effect is even less true.

<p>You want the 85 f1.8, this gives you a film equivalent (the exact same image from the same place, including depth of field and angle of view) of a 135 f2.8 on a Canon 1.6 crop camera. Oh and it is a really good lens and cheaper than the 100 f2 as well.</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Ah yes, as always William comes in to find the error in my ways :-)</p>

<p>I couldn't read the EXIF, so didn't realise H.JM was in AV, mystery solved. H.JM please get <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Speedliters-Handbook-Learning-Craft-Speedlites/dp/032171105X">this book,</a> it is the missing manual and an absolute wealth of information for Canon flash users.</p>

<p>If you can only achieve 1600 iso @ f1.4 with those subject distances inside with a flash you have a major issue. Either your flash is faulty or the diffuser is eating all your power. Try the same thing at home in similar illumination without the diffuser.</p>

<p>Both those images would be improved greatly with a simple bounced on camera flash.</p>

<p>The 5D MkIII does have face detect AF and high iso performance is considerably better than the 5D.</p>

<p>Both Canon's 580 EX and 580EX II and 550 EX all work in all modes via Canon's wireless triggering with battery packs attached.</p>

<p>The 5D MkIII is pretty much the best all around camera ever made in the 135 format.</p>

<p>It is very easy to induce noise at 100iso in studio environments, you are doing it perfectly. What you are not doing is exposing for your sensors dynamic range.</p>

<p>What you need to do is shoot RAW and expose to the right, even if you want a dark picture it can't look dark on your camera LCD and the histogram can't bunch up to the left. Once you have this over exposed (in the sense that you want a dark picture) image, lower the exposure to where your vision is in post, this guarantees zero noise in even the darkest shadows.</p>

<p>Canon's, and I assume it is a Canon, are very bad at underexposure and dark tonality, but very good at over exposure, over expose and lower in post.</p>

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>It is a combination of things. Depending on what imagery you are being impressed by gear can play a huge part, or it can play practically no part. I realise this doesn't help much but without knowing what you are seeing it is impossible to be more specific.</p>

<p>For instance water droplets or ultra high speed photography can be captivating, but after the setup the actual imagery is entirely gear driven and automatic. Much of the Olympic imagery is stunning and whilst there are some specialist stylised oddities like plate camera images etc the vast majority of those images are a combination of both very good equipment and very skilled and experienced photographers. Then there is vision driven photographer who, so long as the camera has the ability to set the settings he wants can use pretty much anything, small and inconspicuous seem particularly popular with M4/3 and advanced P&S's being very popular, but phones can work too. Lastly there is the photographer who has no interest in gear, an iPhone or automatic P&S can work because their images and composition can overcome any gear "short fallings".</p>

<p>Thanks William, you saved me a lot of typing.</p>

<p>OK, real world experience, I have killed two 550EX Speedlites by mixing battery capacities that caused leaks surprisingly quickly.</p>

<p>I have also dealt with two fires on multi-million dollar yachts that had mismatched capacity batteries in their house banks that directly caused those fires. A different situation to a camera flash I agree, but more relevant than a cheap car's battery.</p>

<p>If you want to mix and match be my guest, I won't.<br>

<br /> </p>

<p> </p>