Jump to content

porter

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    372

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by porter

    Sand under focusing ring (Canon 50mm f/1.4)

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>I did some aerial shooting from a helo in the Sinai desert, but didn't think to put my camera in a plastic bag when landing/taking off, now I have sand caught under the focusing ring of my 50mm. Feels a bit gritty when I turn the ring- makes me cringe. Still works fine though, autofocuses fine too...</p>

    <p>If I continue to use the lens with the sand in there, will it damage the focusing motor being that it has to work "against the grain"? Will it hurt the camera at all?</p>

    <p>I have no ability to get this lens fixed for the time being, and suspect that repair will cost quite a bit. If it comes down to it, I'll just replace it with the 50mm f/1.8.</p>

    <p>Thanks,</p>

    <p>Patrick</p>

    <p>Ps. Hate posts that have no pic ;)<br>

    <a title="MCpl Alain Bosse by Patrick E Porter, on Flickr" href=" MCpl Alain Bosse src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7180/6958124173_dc789b3494_z.jpg" alt="MCpl Alain Bosse" width="640" height="426" /></a></p>

    Canon 5D Mark II Soft Images !

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Example shots available?</p>

    <p>Suggest you take a pic on a tripod using live view for focusing to test it a bit more accurately. Process your images in Canon's DPP and play with the sharpness. FWIW I like my sharpness set to +6. Seems to render quite sharp results using my two lenses (28mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4). </p>

    <p>Hope that helps.</p>

    Arial Photography

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Along with what everyone above has mentioned regarding the technical aspects of aerial photos; remember that flying in helicopters (and taking pictures from them) is a wonderful opportunity. Have fun and enjoy yourself. If you are going up more than once, maybe consider not taking your camera the first time and just "taking it in". You'll appreciate the scenery differently than if you were looking through a viewfinder and will see things you might have missed otherwise. How does this help your pictures? Just like with all types of photography, to get your best shots you need to see the beauty before you can record the beauty.</p>

    <p>D7000 // 10-24mm lens @10mm<br>

    <a title="In the Sea King by Patrick E Porter, on Flickr" href=" In the Sea King src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6046/5909794059_37966674ac_z.jpg" alt="In the Sea King" width="640" height="424" /></a></p>

    E-5

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>If you're going to shoot for profit, don't bother using an Olympus camera. Can be fun to play with and good results are certainly obtainable, but the last thing you should concern yourself with is your gear underperforming. Go get a Nikon or Canon.</p>

    <p>I had an Olympus E-5 and it was no better than my E-P2, so I ditched the former.</p>

    Olympus OM-D

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>@ Dan: Fake scoops didn't induct any air and were useless. The OM-D's hump, that you think should be a pentaprism for an SLR, doesn't just sit there looking cool- it houses the viewfinder and the accessory port. If you put your eye to it, you will see an image, similar to that old SLR, so I'm not sure but it seems your comment was just made out of ignorance.</p>

    Olympus Troubles

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Add to my above post: I see that on a recent Facebook Q&A session with consumers, Olympus stated something to the effect of "possibly" adding pro support services to the O-MD line up. Interesting.</p>

    Does APS-C sensor provide better bokeh than FF and why?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>To the fellow who said something disparaging about 4/3 and their lack of lenses able to produce 'good' bokeh:<br>

     <br>

    <a href=" spacer.png title="Untitled by awallphoto, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6591800353_1d54967180_z.jpg" width="479" height="640" alt=""></a><br>

     <br>

    from awallphoto (flickr)<br>

     <br>

    Nex might have trouble in this area, but 4/3 has a lot of really good professional (and expensive) glass that can produce amazing results (including bokeh).</p>

    Olympus Troubles

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>I don't think anyone would consider using m4/3 for professional wedding work. Aside from battery life and lack of a fast 24-70 equivalent lens, Olympus isn't set up to cater to professionals needs the way Nikon and Canon are. Canon and Nikon Pro Services just aren't something you can live without if you make your living with cameras...</p>

    <p>What is m4/3 for if not to shoot professionally? To shoot for fun in situations that a larger camera is too cumbersome for. Lots of older folks find it difficult to continue lugging around heavy lenses and bodies, but still want good quality images to retain precious memories. Great for them.</p>

    Olympus Troubles

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Well, I get special prices on Nikon gear, so when I choose to sell it I usually get back what I paid. I have lost (waisted) a lot of money changing systems though. I went from the E620 to a Nikon D90, to a Nikon D700, to an E-5 and E-P2, back to a different D700, to a D7000, to the 5Dii. Each time I've changed systems I've sold everything off except for flashes. Favourite lens I've owned? Probably the Nikon 105mm f/2 DC or Olympus' 50mm f/2.<br>

    Only thing that sits collecting dust at my house is a Panasonic LX-3 and a Nikon F55. I did shoot two rolls of Portra with the F55 last year though ;)</p>

    <p>Back to the topic at hand though. Zach is probably right, more pros will probably (some already have) pick up m4/3 gear. Why? Fast primes and true size benefits if you choose to shoot with pancakes. If I look at my shots over the past couple years, majority have been taken with the 20mm. Hands down.</p>

    Olympus Troubles

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Say what you will about protruding lenses and what not, but m4/3 cameras still have a nice little place in the world. 4/3 cameras on the other hand... Not so much. I had an E-520, E-620 and an E-5, all of which were nice cameras, but none of which are still in my hands. They were simply too big for the results I was getting, so like you, I switched to a Canon camera. Guess what? My 5Dii is around the same size as an E-5, but about a million times better. Seriously. Did I completely give up? No, I've had my E-P2 for a long time now, longer than any other digital camera by a long shot. With the 20mm, I can slip it in my jacket pocket and get some great shots. Do I have gripes about it? Sure, but it is still a great piece of kit.</p>

    <p>Does the camera REALLY matter all that much in the end? Not really. So long as you enjoy using it, you'll get the shots you're after. I didn't really like the D7000 (crazy? right), so I got rid of it. E-P2 stayed.</p>

    <p>Canon 5D2 w/ 28mm<br>

    <a title="Untitled by Patrick E Porter, on Flickr" href=" spacer.png src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7012/6576527547_8a1e5ff078_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="436" /></a><br>

    Olympus E-P2 w/ 20mm <br>

    <a title="What do you want, Shazoo? by Patrick E Porter, on Flickr" href=" What do you want, Shazoo? src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5320/5836029713_c067a9752b_z.jpg" alt="What do you want, Shazoo?" width="640" height="443" /></a><br>

    Nikon D7000 w/ 35mm<br>

    <a title="Untitled by Patrick E Porter, on Flickr" href=" spacer.png src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5082/5726737822_2283e5c3d6_z.jpg" alt="" width="435" height="640" /></a></p>

    Panoramas: Getting a continuous sky colour

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Shot in RAW and converted with Canon's software. All the images when viewed alone look to be the same exposure, so maybe the stitching software is doing something weird. I don't remember the name of the software (am at work now), but it came with my Panasonic LX-3. I think there is another stitching program on my computer that came bundled with the rest of the Canon stuff, maybe I'll try that.</p>

    <p>Only filter I had on was a UV. Perhaps I should take it off just to see if that had an adverse effect.</p>

    <p>Hey, maybe it is a bit of glare on the glass/filter? I'll put the hood on (it wasn't on at the time), take the filter off, and try again.</p>

    <p>If it helps, this is with a 5D2 and 28mm f/1.8 lens @ f11</p>

×
×
  • Create New...