brian_blattner

Maria Sotskova won the Ladies competition in Finlandia Trophy last weekend; here she is in her short program. D5, 200/2 II at f/2, 1/1600s, ISO 1600.

[ATTACH=full]1213739[/ATTACH]

 

Angela Wang.

 

[ATTACH=full]1213740[/ATTACH]

 

Carolina Kostner.

 

[ATTACH=full]1213741[/ATTACH]

Great collection of pics

Cheerleaders, Nikon D5 with 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR

 

[ATTACH=full]1213658[/ATTACH]

Very nice shot

Hopefully someone will reply because I would like to know this information as well.

<p>I agree with Fabrizio. In fact, the Sony A7R has been my favorite camera that I have ever owned so far and I just returned from a 2 week trip around southern Utah and Yellowstone. What a difference in the weight of my camera gear especially when doing some of the more challenging hikes like Angels Landing in Zion.</p>

<p>I am not an expert but will share what has worked well for me. This is assuming that you are working with a RAW file because I have never done those type of edits on JPG files.</p>

<p>It becomes a balancing act and I will usually bump up the Exposure slider first to recover some of the shadow areas. I will do this until I start losing detail in the highlights that I want to keep but can no longer recover. From this point I will then use the shadow recovery and the black slider until I have it looking the way that I want .</p>

<p>If the image was really underexposed and I still want to recover some of the dark shadows I will keep the noise as manageable as possible and then resort to third party noise reducers like Topaz DeNoise.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is kind of the process I use which has worked fairly well. Maybe others that are more technically qualified can chime in to explain what the best methods are and why.</p>

fie

 

 

<em>exclamation</em>

archaichumorous

 

 

<ol >

<li>

 

 

 

used to express disgust or outrage.

"if companies don't ship you what they promise, <strong>fie on</strong> them!"

 

 

 

</li>

</ol>

 

<p>I have never personally used Fumfie.com but based on the high number of ONE star ratings they have received I would not purchase from them.</p>

<p>My advice would be to stick with reputable companies like B&H Photo and Adorama, both of which I have used with exceptional results.</p>

<p><em>Let's put one myth to bed. Neither brand has "better ergonomics," i.e. feels better in your hands or has better access to controls.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I disagree, this is not a myth and clearly is an advantage to some people, even if it is not to you. For example, the AF/AE button on the Nikon D600 is in the perfect location for me personally. The difference in placement might be millimeters from a similar Canon model, but it has been the difference in my thumb finding the button instantly while looking in the view finder without having to feel around for it, or look for it.</p>

<p>This is not to mention how the camera in general feels in my hand, nor my personal preference where some other items are placed, like ISO settings and focus mode to name a couple. So given that each camera is very comparable with one another it can come down to the little things like this that make the difference for the user. But as been stated previously, there is no right or wrong way, but only personal preferences.</p>

<p>First, I am not an expert or professional photographer but an avid enthusiast. My comments are not based on lab experiments or technical information, but merely my personal experiences with both Canon and Nikon camera systems. My perspective is skewed based on MY personal style of photography and my needs and may not be applicable to you, but since I have worked with both systems equally I will share my experiences.<br>

I started DSLR photography with Canon, having owned the 30D, Rebel Ti2 and 5D. The lenses that I had used with these cameras included the 18-55 (kit), 17-55 (great lens), Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 50 f1.4, 17-40 f4, and the 70-200 f4. The latter 2 L-lenses were remarkable, especially when considering the cost.<br>

My Nikon experiences are with the D7000 and D600. The lenses for Nikon included 18-105 (kit), 55-300, 28 f1.8G, and 50 f1.8G, with a 85 f1.8G in the near future.<br>

For me, I prefer Nikon's menus and ergonomics, and the reason I have settled in this camp; however, Nikon doesn't offer some of the quality L-lenses like Canon does at bargain prices. I will continue by listing what I like from each offering and hope that some of my personal experiences can help you in your decision making.<br>

CANON: I really like the L-lens series, unfortunately, I do this as a hobby and cannot spend the type of money that I would like to build the L-lens collection of my dream. It seemed to me that Canon produced better looking portraits out of the camera than Nikon does, where I prefer the skin tones and colors. I miss my wide angle 17-40 and realized this when I looked back at some pictures from Bryce Canyon where I utilized the 17mm length on FF. For outdoor portrait work the Canon 70-200 f4 lens was by far my favorite lens, and I have had to adjust my style of shooting with my new lens collection by getting closer to my subjects than I did before. Catching people in a natural state (them not knowing I was taking their picture) provided some of my best portrait shots and really expressed their personality.<br>

NIKON: I tried to replace the Canon 70-200 f4 with Nikon 55-300 f3.5-5.6 but there was no comparison. The Canon lens blew the Nikon out of the water. Nikon has recently released a 70-200 f4 BUT it is over double the cost of the Canon L-Lens, and part of the reason that I have moved to Prime Lens. That being said, I really liked the choices of Prime lenses in the Nikon line-up, where you can get decent (intermediate level) lens at a good price. I don't need the build quality of the L-lensed, but these latest Primes from Nikon have remarkable quality at a very good price point. Dynamic range on both Nikons is FAR beyond any of the Canon cameras that I had owned; however, I never gave Canon a chance with 5DII or 5DIII so I cannot comment if that gap has been bridged now. When I first purchased the D7000 for $1200 (including the 18-105 kit), I received an intermediate level camera with advanced features, especially compared to Canon at that time, which included the 39 point auto-focus, great resolution, good low-light ISO capabilities, and dual memory card slots. These features used to only appear in the next level cameras which were more than double the price (at the time).<br>

Of the two systems my favorite cameras are the Canon 5D and the Nikon D600. For me, FF sensors definitely show an advantage in IQ and especially in low-light higher ISO settings. I am able to shoot my D600 at ISO 6400 easily with relatively low noise, and after doing corrections in PP with software, hardly any noticeable noise, even in the shadow areas.<br>

In summary it has been a give and take, where each venture will end up costing you some. Overall, I am happy with the Nikon system for its ergonomics, menus and features. If I had the Ca$h, I would definitely own BOTH systems because I feel that each have strengths in certain areas. Anyway, this has been my personal experience using both systems, so I hope that what I have shared something that might help you in your decision making.</p>

<p>I would like to thank everyone for their comments. <br>

It is true that I am guilty of the very question that I posted. My personal reason was that I had gotten busy for a while where photography took a backseat to other priorities, and then when I did have some free time I spent it taking pictures instead of contributing to the forum.<br>

When I popped backed into the forum yesterday I was just a bit surprised how quiet things have become. My initial reaction was that I thought the forum would have been more active than when I was involved a couple of years ago because of the popularity of digital photography today, but many of your responses explain the drop-off along with some of my initial thoughts as well.<br>

Thanks again for your thoughts, and especially for your participation with forums like this. I really owe a big part of what I have learned with photography to the members of this forum that have so kindly given of their time and knowledge. It is truly appreciated!<br>

Brian Blattner</p>

<p>It has been at least a couple of years since I have posted anything on the forum, but I will occasionally drop in to see what interesting things that I may have missed or to see what is happening; however, I am quite surprised at the lack of posts in the Canon forum from the last time I visited the forum.<br>

I would have thought with the digital camera boom where just about everyone has a camera now that the traffic would be much higher than in the past, so this has me wondering what the difference is.<br>

Are our lives just busier now?<br>

Is it that everyone that owns a camera is an expert now and doesn't need advise anymore?<br>

Could it possibly be the popularity of other social environments like Facebook, etc?<br>

I have always enjoyed visiting the forums so many interesting conversations take place. I have never felt qualified to provide advise because I did not feel knowledgeable enough to do so, so I have mainly remained an invisible participant, but I would like to know your thoughts on WHY you think there has been a decline in the Canon forum and will this be the way things will be in the future. I really hope not because I have learned so much from this forum specifically.<br>

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions.<br>

Brian Blattner</p>

<p>Thank you Shun and Matt for the prompt response. I was pretty much favoring the D7000 but your answers have really made me comfortable that the D7000 is the right choice for me.</p>

<p>Yes, the focus points make a great difference in my style of photography so this is a big plus. I haven't really gotten into flash photography as of yet but that is another huge plus for the D7000 because I have always heard that Nikon's flash system is much better than Canon's.</p>

<p>Thanks again for help! I have really learned a lot about photography from the forum so I really appreciate the knowledge and feedback. I am excited to start learning a new system and it sounds like the D7000 is an incredible camera.</p>

<p>I have researched the camera specification differences between the Nikon D5100 and D7000 and have reviewed many of the articles on Photo.net, but I have a question regarding the focus points.</p>

<p>I know that the D5100 has 11 focus points and the D7000 has 39 focus points, and that the D7000's additional focus points are an advantage for sports photography and action. My question is: Does the additional focus points offer any other advantages for still photography and landscape type shots?</p>

<p>I currently own the Canon Rebel T1i but had previously owned the Canon 30D and 5D. For the longest time Canon users have wanted more focus points in the beginner and pro-sumer camera models and now Nikon has accomplished this with the D7000. I am trying to decide between the Nikon D5100 and D7000. I have already started my comparison list between the two cameras but I don't really know much about the Nikon focus point system so I wanted some further clarification. Thank you for your responses.</p>

<p>I have used Canon camera/lenses exclusively since I began using a DSLR about 3 years ago. The photo shot with the 5D Mark II looks similar to many of my landscape shots when using the evaluative metering. I love the depth and clarity in the mountain and sky area, but have always felt that the shadow areas lose a lot of detail.<br>

The image shot by the contax seems to capture the shadow detail much better, but the mountain and sky area seems softer. I agree that it has created a different mood.<br>

I know that some of this is based on the difference in lighting, etc between the two days, but I also know what you are talking about with how each photograph seems to display a different feeling about it. Anyway, I am not sure the reasoning behind the differences. I did find it interesting though that I could tell which photograph was taken with the Canon equipment before I read the caption.</p>

<p>Steven...</p>

<p>Yes, thank you for the clarification. I know that Aperture can used referenced files, instead of importing the actual file; however, it still has to create the thumbnail for each image, and store that within the database. I found it a pain when my file names changes, or I moved the location of the original referenced files.</p>

<p>So I think storing my images in a folder, and using Bridge to preview those folders anytime I want to display, or review those images will work great.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. It is greatly appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>

Steven,

 

Thanks so much for the explanation. For iPhoto and Aperture, you had to import the images before they could be

previewed easily. I am glad that you don't have to do that in Bridge.

 

Thanks again for the clarification. All of my questions have been answered, and I am currently in the process of

streamlining everything through Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. This will make my work-flow so much nicer, and I only have to

upgrade one product this way.

<p>Thanks for all of the great information, it is very helpful; although, there is still one thing that I want to confirm. Based on the latest responses, it does not appear that Bridge would be a good program to store/view your photographs, right? Really, the only reason that I have kept Aperture in the loop for this long is due to the great database it has, where I can view my entire photo collection quickly, and easily.</p>

<p>My suspicion originally is that I would need to add Lightroom into the mix for this last piece of the puzzle, which is what I wanted to avoid if possible. So I guess what I am really trying to find out is that once I have saved my final image as a TIF, JPG, or other format, can those images be stored in folders within Bridge, where they can be previewed? For instance, I have 400 images from 2007...Is it possible to create a folder in Bridge where I can keep those 400 images (in any format), and then have other folders representing other years?</p>

<p>Thanks for the great information. I had never thought of using Photoshop CS5 for everything.</p>

<p>Is Photoshop Bridge user-friendly for organizing your files and does it give the user a lot of flexibility in creating the folder structure to store the files? Can you preview your library of photos in Bridge, where they can be sorted by file name, or groups?</p>

<p>Finally, ACR would receive the RAW file where I can do some basic editing, but does Bridge need convert that file? And if so, is it a Photoshop format file, or does the user have control over the file type that Bridge will store?</p>

<p>I have used Aperture since day one for capturing my RAW files. Originally, all of my edits were done in Aperture, but I now use Photoshop CS5 for most editing. I still use Aperture for importing the files from the camera, setting white balance, and doing other minor corrections.<br>

I have heard many people recommend using DPP for RAW images, but I have never used it before, and don't know if it would provide enough advantage over Aperture to add it to my work-flow.<br>

If I did use DPP, my work-flow would be to import images into DPP, set white balance, make the minor edits there, make my final edits in Photoshop CS5, and only use Aperture for storing/viewing the images. What I need to know is:<br>

(1) Is there enough of an advantage of handling RAW files with DPP over Aperture?<br>

(2) Is there an easy way to edit images from DPP directly to Photoshop? In Aperture, there is a link so that I can quickly open the image in Photoshop, make the changes, and then the edited TIF file is saved in my Aperture library automatically. I know that Lightroom 3 would be a good candidate as well, but I don't want to purchase another product.<br>

Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>It might be the card itself.<br>

They can get damaged, just like any other type of storage device.</p>

<p>I have been wondering the same thing over the past couple of weeks, so I am glad that you started this thread. My personal feelings are that as long as there are buyers willing to pay the cost for full frame sensors, why would Canon reduce the price. I could see Canon dropping the price if another manufacturer begins to sell full frame sensor cameras at a cost considerably less than what Canon currently offers.</p>

<p>I have previously owned the XTI Rebel, 30D, 5D, and now the T1i Rebel. The 5D is a remarkable camera, but is beginning to show its age (in my opinion). With the latest round of Rebel cameras (T1i and T2i), and the amazing number of advanced features offered, I can see why the OP posted this question. Even in Bob Atkin's review of the Rebel T2i on Photo.net, he admits being tempted to purchase a Rebel for the first time, due to the number of advanced features, and the cost of the camera.</p>

<p>When I read through the couple of Photography forums that I like browse through each day, it is apparant that most users are either striving for full frame sensor cameras, or it is on their wish list. In many cases, individuals are looking for advice on which lens to purchase, and more times than not, they will add that they plan on going full frame in the future. So I believe that the forums will help keep the sales of full frame sensor cameras up for a while, because there are so many new DSLR photographers that have joined this hobby in the last few years. I for one will admit that the purchase of my 5D was a direct result of what I read in the forums, opposed to a direct need for the features and advantage of full frame.</p>

<p>Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject.</p>

<p>I have often read and heard that if you have an xx mega-pixel camera, then you can output a photo at xx size; however, I was in a home where there is a 20 x 30 inch family portrait above the fireplace that looks quite good. Later I find out that it was shot using a digital Rebel XT at 6MP.</p>

<p>So my question: is all of the talk about mega-pixels stressed way too much? And do we have to consider many other variables when really determining how many mega-pixels are required to acheive a specific size printed output? From my observation, one of these factors seems to be the distance the viewer will be from the posted work. When I looked closer at some of the pictures shot with lower mega-pixels, I could see they were not as sharp as I first thought. But when viewed from the normal distance expected, they looked quite good.</p>

<p>I shot a family portrait in my living room with a Rebel XTI, using the camera flash. The room has very poor lighting. The picture came out surprisingly good, so I cleaned it up a little using Photoshop, and output an 8-bit TIF file, that was sent to an agency to have a 18 x 24 portrait printed on canvas. The agency seemed to do a little touching up as well, and the end result is a very clean, sharp looking picture, at any distance. So I am wondering what your thoughts and experience are with this topic, as I would like to learn much more.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your comments.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your responses.<br>

My question had nothing to do with money, but if the hoods were not that different in design, I would only be using one of those lenses at any given time, and the reason I was asking the question. In other words, why spend an extra $50 if the 17-40 hood would have worked just fine. I have never used the 17-55 before, so I was not sure how much difference there was between the two hoods.<br>

Anyway, I went ahead and purchased the proper hood for the 17-55 lenses.</p>

<p>I currently have the Canon 17-40 f/4.0 lens with an EW-83E hood.<br>

I am considering getting the Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 lens, and know that the recommended hood would be the EW-83J.<br>

Can the EW-83E hood be used on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens? Or would this cause problems?</p>

<p>I would like to thank everyone for the comments.<br>

I am really relieved to see that most likley, this is something that can be fixed at a much lower cost than the cost of the sensor.<br>

Thanks again for putting my mind at ease. I think that I will try the wet clean first, and if I cannot get rid of all the spots, I will go ahead and send it to Canon.</p>