toddklassy
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by toddklassy
-
-
The North Head lighthouse at Cape Disappointment State Park outside of
Ilwaco, Washington.
© 2008 Todd S. Klassy
Canon EOS 5D
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure: 1/1000s
ISO Speed: 400<div>
</div> -
<p>I've had my 5D2 since November and I still prefer the results that Canon's own DPP offers over ACR and Lightroom. Skin tones are so much better IMHO. The user interface is junk, but I could care less. I still want the best quality images.</p>
-
<p>I always liked those small, thin, clear plastic garbage bags they use in hotel rooms in the small basket in the bathrooms. They are the ideal size for cameras and you can still see through them enough to get the job done.</p>
-
-
Using TS lenses for portraits is not a new thing. They can create very creative images. Please read the following article. The author considers the Canon 90mm f/2.8 TS a very important lens to have, indeed.
-
Doesn't the human eye only see a 16-stop range of light? What does my Canon 5D see? 7?
-
I am planning on sending my Canon 20D in soon to have the internal
filter removed and have it modified to be used as a infrared camera.
For those of you are familiar with this process I was wondering if
there was a vendor in particular you would recommend and why.
I am familiar with the following vendors, but I'm sure there is at
least one other vendor out there, and I'm not sure who will do a
better job. I am also wondering if there is something in particular
I should make myself aware of.
-
Thanks for all of your advice...except Mr. Kelly's; a typical elitist mentality.
-
Circular polarizers have thing filiments inside the glass. When you turn the filter it will remove reflections from glass and water, remove reflections from leaves and natural vegitation so the colors are more natural, and it can change the color of the sky so it is more blue and seemingly more natural when the sun washes it out. It will also make whites whiter in the process. There isn't much science to circular polarizers, but I'm not sure they "allow auto focus to work." Every digital SLR owner should have one for their most commonly used lenses.
Here is an example of the circular polarizer in work, making the sky more blue and making the clouds more white:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/34708904/
Here is an another example where it was overused:
-
How do I go about exploring my options? Where do I begin?
-
What is the best way to print photographs for art? In other words,
if I were to sell some of my prints (I assume matted), what's the
best printing method/instructions to do this? Is there a good way to
determine the maximum size I can clearly process a photo? Are there
outfits out there that turnkey this work (printing, matting,
framing, etc.)?
Thanks in advance,
Todd
-
Adobe invented Photoshop. God invented light and color. :)
-
16mm on a 1.6 crop factor camera will not have much of a fisheye effect, though...right? That's why 8mm is preferred.
-
I am beginning to see this response to questions of using a fisheye a lot on the web lately. A camrea with a 1.6 crop factor can use a fisheye lens. It may not show 360 degrees of what you're shooting, but it will be close. There are two fisheye lenses that are commonly used on cameras like the EOS 350D. The one I use is the Sigma 8mm f/4.0 EX DG. I like this lens very much, but given what you stated above, I don't know if it fits your budget any more than the Canon 15mm (which by the way, doesn't offer much of a fisheye perspective on a camera like the EOS 350D. The Sigma retails for around $500 to $550. You can see examples of photographs I have taken with this lens here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/fisheye/
Another option is the Peleng 8mm f/3.5 lens. It retails for around $200 to $270...with the best prices it seems on Ebay. I have seen examples of photos taken with it and I don't think they are as clear as the photos shot by the Sigma 8mm, but given the price I think it is a very good value.
Good luck,
Todd
-
I use the Canon 16-35mm L on my 20D and chose it over the Canon 17-40mm L because (1) it was faster, (2) because I was going to be getting a 5D and I thought the 16-35mm L would be a better wide angle lens on my 5D, and (3) I thought it looked better in the corners than the 17-40mm L based on the shots I saw.
I also own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM and love it. It is a great low-light lens and the colors are very crisp and clean. I would recommend it to anyone.
You can see examples of the photos I have taken in the past 6 mos. with my 16-35mm L here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/ef1635mmf28lusm
You can also see examples of the photos I have taken i nthe past 3 mos. with my Sigma 30mm here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/sigma30mmf14dc
Good luck,
Todd
-
Yes, I'm a Canon man myself, and I always prefer to purchase something with a Canon label on it, but I don't think a broad statement like every Canon lens is better than every third-party product out there. Yes, it is hit and miss, and yes, every buyer needs to do their homework, but I haven't seen many Canon products that compare to my Sigma 8mm f/4.0 EX DG or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM. Fire away if you want, but that's what I'm seeing.
-
Some of my best photographs were taken with the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L. It is a find lens and has served me well on the 20D. I don't know how it will perform on a 5D. We should find the answer to that very soon.
If you would like to take a look at some of the images I have captured with the 16-35mm L, you can go to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/ef1635mmf28lusm
Good luck,
Todd
-
I bet if Canon changed the name of the camera it would perform better, too. Maybe they ought to call it the Juggernaut 3000. I bet that would be one helluva camera!
-
I too don't understand all of the negative hoopla. Most of the detractors are either Nikonians or those early adopters who want to have the cutting edge of everything. If they are upset with "how Canon went about it" and the fact that is called a 30D, they can either chose not to buy the new camera or cover up the ID plate with some gaffers tape. Be thankful that there is a replacement camera out there for you just in case you need one...one that has been improved in many ways and one that will cost a fraction of what we paid for our 20D. That's what I call "progress."
Final point...I've really only been taking photographs for about six months, but one of the most important things I've learned is that the quality of the camera and the quality of the lens is an insignificant contribution to the overall quality of a photo. I've seen glorious photos taken with a $10 cheapo camera made in China and I've seen pure rubbish from people who bought the 5D hoping that it would make them a better photographer. To those I say, if you're still upset, save the $1500 you planned on spending on Canon's magic bullet and use it instead on some photography lessons...given your attitude it will probably be a better investment.
Todd
-
Yes, the photos you saw in the link I posted above are on a Canon 20D that has a 1.6 crop factor.
Todd
-
None of your lenses are wide enough for true landscape and architectural photography. The only Canon lens that works well on the Canon 20D's 1.6 crop factor is the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.
The approximate cost of the lenses you list above is around $800. It sounds like you are on a budget, so given what you stated above I would instead consider buying the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($700) and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II ($100). Instead of getting the EF 85mm f/2.8 and/or the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($500) you might consider getting the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($400), which could double as both a portrait lens and as a macro lens on the 20D.
I'm not familiar with the EF 85mm f/2.8, but I know the EF 85mm f/1.8 is the lens you want if you are doing serious portrait work. I think it is only $100 to $150 more.
Good luck,
Todd
-
Yes, and I knew about the Peleng, but optically I think the Sigma 8mm is a superior lens. The Peleng might be more fun in certain circumstances, but I feel the Sigma 8mm is the best available fisheye for cameras with a 1.6 crop factor.
Todd
-
Wrong answer. The Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye doesn't offer much of a fisheye effect on the Rebel XT with its 1.6 crop factor. I wouldn't recommend the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG for the same reason. The fisheye effect is not very impressive at all at 15mm. The closest thing you can get to a true fisheye effect is the Sigma 8mm f/4 EX DG. A little bit of the top and the bottom gets chopped off, but there is still enough of a fisheye effect to make it seem as such.
You can see examples some of photos I have taken with the Sigma 8mm f/4 EX DG lens here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/fisheye/
Good luck,
Todd
-
If you feel learning Photoshop CS2 is a little daunting, I would suggest getting Photoshop Elements 4.0 and starting there. It contains about 50% to 60% of what Photoshop CS2 has and the workflow is very close to being identical to Photoshop CS2. As a result you are learning Photoshop CS2 as you use it. It is inexpensive for what you get and it is really all an amateur photographer needs. Once you get it then go to http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/ and soak up information on the bulletin board and via the free online videos. I would also urge you to subscribe to their monthly magazine and take some of the online classes...they are very helpful and will help you flatten the learning curve.
Todd
the dark side...
in No Words
Posted
Children on a field trip running through the Milwaukee Art Museum.
© 2006 Todd S. Klassy
Canon EOS 20D
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure: 1/60s
ISO: 200<div>
</div>