model mayhem gallery

<p>The Canon 24-105 F4L is the only lens I have ever purchased and returned for refund. When comparing this lens to my Canon 17-40 F4L I found too much distortion. </p> <ol> <li>At 24mm There was horrible corner darkening.</li> <li>from 24-105 the horizons where bowed upwards and not flat like the 17-40.</li> <li>When shooting pane windows or object with both horizontal and vertical lines the lines were not parallel and bowed really noticeable.</li> </ol> <p>Would recommend the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC or Canon 17-50 F2.8 IS or my favorite the Canon 17-40 F4L all of those in my opinion are better than the Canon 24-105 F4L which to me is the works L-series lens Canon makes.</p>

<p>I wouldn't upgrade just for more megapixels, not at all. The quality of the lens has more of an affect on IQ than more megapixels. I am amazed when I move my Canon 85 1.2L to my old Canon ELAN 7NE and shoot Kodak Vivid Color film. Just amazing especially when i only paid $150 for the camera. <br> When shooting on my Canon 5DII the 85 1.2L and several other lenses are fabulous. If I need to print really big I use a program by Alien Skin called Blowup, I also use Exposure fro added color and sharpness.<br> Works great. Really no need more more MP that just makes image size bigger, take up more disk space and makes it harder for Lightroom and Photoshop to process RAW images.</p>

<p>The 6D has wireless right. So that may be a big deal. However, Since you are saying this camera will be the last, I would wait until the next series comes out. Both cameras have been out for a couple of years now so the next generation of one or the other may be out soon. </p>

<p>Wow! interesting perspective Rodeo Joe. However, I have completely converted to and love LED lighting. I have not used the Fotodiox but they look pretty nice. The CRI is only 85 while better LED light panels have a CRI of around 92. Not sure if that makes much of a difference, but for video lighting I love LED because I can run them outdoors on regular video camera or car batteries for hours. CFL, HMI are still hot, expensive and require a lot of power to operate. If you have access to these and don't have to buy them I am not sure what the question is. It is a good way to get a lot of diffused light. LED lighting is difussed by its nature because it is many lights together to create one light source. A softbox on the other hand takes the light of a single light source and scatters it to make it diffused. LED light is scattered by default unless it has a fresnel lens which focuses the light like an ARRI. If that is the case I would be EVEN MORE EXCITED about this light. My suggestion would be to absolutely use these and become an expert on teaching everyone else how to use them.</p>

<p>I also love primes especially Zeiss primes. When I am shooting HD video nothing looks like a Zeiss 35 1.4. However, for weddings I don't believe there is a better lens than the Canon 24-70 F2.8L II and the 70-200 F2.8L IS, and maybe a Canon 16-35 F2.8L if small location. I don't own any of these lenses but I rent them when I do weddings.<br> Funny that I own an 28 1.8, 35 1.4L, 50 1.8 85 1.2L, 100 F2.8L, Canon 17-40 F4L, Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and 70-300 VC and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8. All great lenses for Art.<br> However, when I do a wedding. I get the best, the two lenses listed above. When I am charging $1500-$5000 renting a lenses or two for a day is nothing. But, In my honest opinion those are required lenses for weddings. I hate to say it but there is just an added confidence I and the clients have when they see that red stripe.</p>

<p>I have always used my meter with the globe in the out position. When shooting even in studio shutter speed does make a difference. If I want a black background to be really black not grey I will move subject and lights away from background and set shutter speed to 1/250. However, if I am shooting a white background which i want to completely blowout I will move lights close to background and change shutter speed to 1/125 of a second. This will make the white background bright white not grey. <br> It is almost impossible to get rid of all ambient light in a studio so changes in shutter speed will make a difference in exposure. The angle of the light hitting the meter is not that substantial unless you are using a very direct light like an ARRI with a Fresnel lens or a snoot. a lightsource like a TTL flash will bounce light all around the room so will not be very direct. Thus the globe on meter should be in the extended out position.</p>

<p>For interiors I would recommend lighting the room as you normally would with several small TTL flashes on light stands or tripods. Shoot in RAW and then change the color temperature to your liking in Adobe Lightroom or what ever editing software you use. I see this like shooting a digital picture in Black and White. once you do that it is harder to adjust. The same with gels on the lights. If you just shoot it nice a crisp with accurate or neutral light you can adjust in post with layers or many other ways. But, you will have more flexibility than trying to actually change the light color in the room.</p>

<p>A mirror in itself will act as a reflector. So even using an on-camera flash and facing it up at the ceiling would be fine. I would try as much as possible to shoot a mirror using natural non-direct light. Using a soft-box it would be hard to not directly see the soft-box in the mirror. Also, soft-box are generally used for photographing people where you want the skin to look softer. When photographing something where you want the detail to show a large hard light source will show more detail and sharpness than a soft-box.</p>

<p>I actually prefer using just a fast lens and no flash for paintings. I discovered this by accident when shooting at the Cantor Arts Center at Stanford. The thing is they allow photographs but not flash photography. What I found when I was shooting with my Canon 85 1.2L with no flash the pics came out much more accurate with less shadows and color shift. When shooting oil painting the surface is not completely flat. So if using a flash especially from the sides the texture of the paint cause it to cast small shadows across the surface of the painting. <br> I would recommend using large panel reflectors and as much natural light or the type of lights which actually be used to display in museum. I believe strobes will change the way the painting looks for example strobes are about 5600K which will slightly pale the richness of the colors in certain types of paintings. I would prefer a dark room with one light soure at around 3600K in say a photo bulb hot lamp with a diffusion panel.</p>

<p>It also depends on what camera you are using. I shoot Canon 5D Mark II but I also shoot film with a Canon Elan 7NE. I love my Canon 580EX II because I can dial exposure compensation in from the camera controls and don't need to go into the manual settings of the camera.<br> I really like the way it zooms as I zoom the lens from wide angle to long range and it is able to do high-speed sync so that if I am shooting outdoors where it is really bright and I have closed my aperture to max ie F22 I am not stuck with sync speeds of 1/200. I can sync up to 1/1000 with HS sync. I don't think this would be possible with a third party flash. <br> So, for me I really like matching my flash to the camera type I am using espeacially with film because you won't see your mistakes until after you develop film.</p>

<p>I would think of using faster glass. The last time I shot a plant I used my 50 1.8 and 85 1.2L three Canon 580 EX II flashes on and off camera. However, most of the shots where done with the 85 1.2l with no flash. </p>

<p>I went with the 17-40 F4L for event photography because in close quarters this is in range of my 580 EX II flash. I needed F2.8 for my 70-200 obviously because flash can't reach as far as the lens. I agree with others I really don't believe anyone could tell the differences in these two lenses other than in a low light situation shot without flash or tripod. For Landscape work shot at F8 and a tripod both at 17mm I am quite certain you would not be able to tell the difference.<br> When I compare the 85 1.2L to my Tamron 70-300 VC F4-5.6 at F8 and 85mm you can tell a big difference. To quantify, the Canon 85 1.2L the colors look like an oil painting and the background blur is so soft it looks like colored cotton. However, the Tamron although I like it the colors look pastel and the image is sometimes too sharp making a cartoon like effect. The 85 1.2 L too me looks more like film where it is not so much contrast. Tamron looks digital sharp crisp and sterile. However, for me I prefer the Tamron. When it takes a picture of someones eyes it is so real it is scary.</p>

<p>Today while hiking through Quarry Lakes Regional Park my friend fired up a cigarette. I warned him stating you see the signs that say "No Smoking" right? He laughed and said who the heck is going to tell their is no one around here for miles. <br> However, shortly after I heard a strange buzzing noise and simultaneously saw a flock of Pelicans radically change their direction of flight. All except one. However, when I looked closer I noticed what I thought was a bird was hovering and then started moving sideways at the same speed we were walking.<br> I stopped and took a couple of pictures of it with my Tamron 70-300 at max zoom. It immediately went very high straight up and I lost sight of it. However, when I got home and zoomed in I realized we were 100% being spied on by a drone.</p><div>[ATTACH=full]723470[/ATTACH]</div>