Anonymous asked: How is the 5dmk2? Is the lowlight focusing problem that everyone complains about really that bad of a turn-off?
The 5D Mark II is a god of a camera. Really. It is magnificent. People do complain about the focusing, but I find it good enough most of the time - also, I shoot fast paced weddings and low light receptions, events, children and live gigs (in terrible lighting). It’s really all about knowing how to focus. A lot of people expect the camera to just focus on anything you point it at.
The camera is able to focus on things through latching onto contrasting/rigid lines. If you know that, focusing becomes a lot easier. For instance, if you’re shooting a live gig and the musician in front of you is a black blob silhouetted by magnificently powerful lighting, you can’t expect the camera to try and focus on “nothing” by focusing on the center of that blob. You need to actually find the contrast line of their face to focus on.
I really think that around 70% of people who complain about the 5D Mark II’s focusing problems are people who have bad technique when using spot-focusing.
That being said, the 5D Mark II is certainly a tad bit worse at focusing in low light than the D700 is, as well as the 50D or 7D (from my experience). The 5D Mark III is quite incredible at low light focusing, apparently, but I can’t be sure until I’ve had one in my hands.
I still believe that you can mitigate most focusing “issues” with the 5D Mark II by having better technique, and becoming very good at anticipating events.
Busy calibrating my lenses with my #lensalign. It’s good to know that I can trust the focus of my f/1.4 line up, especially on the #5DmII. Thought I would pop into the picture for a self-portrait while I had it all set up and the window light was nice.
All set for my shoot later now. :)
Rifflandia Photographers - Jon Mark, two 5D Mark II’s on his dual Rapidstrap, and his Minolta 35mm. #armedanddangerous
Anonymous asked: Are there any particular evils that you believe should never be committed (photography wise of course)? Or do you support a sort of dadaist approach to all art that it cannot be judged and deemed good or bad?
There are no evils in particular, but there are some close contenders. Immediately, I think of direct, on-camera flash (you know, that thing that pops up when people use DSLR’s on Auto). I use it to blind people as it is rather annoying. One of the best features of the 5D Mark II, or rather a lack thereof, is that it has no on-camera flash. Now people can’t pick it up and create absolutely flat images. There is a place for that technique, though, just not in my books (not yet, at least).
Moving on, I am no dadaist. I think that movement was rather absurd and humorous. Their message was great, though. I don’t believe there is a defined scale with which the integrity of art can be measured against. Art for me is communication, whether it speaks to solely the artist who created it, or people who view and interacted with it. With regards to photography, and it being classified as good or bad, I do think a relatively good distinction can be made on the whole. Inherently, humans process information better when it is composed in a certain way. Trained and natural artists will know why a certain image or painting works. ie subject placement, colour palettes, rule of thirds, golden ratio etc etc.. Untrained eyes will at the same image, and think it is good, but not know exactly what makes it good. Of course, there are many reasons that a person could like a picture, be it content, skill, nostalgia and the like, even when few others like that picture. I stress composition because it is quite a neutral variable. Good composition is good. Based on composition, I do think photography in an artistic spectrum can be deemed good or bad, understanding that there will likely be disagreements with the degree of which it is either good, or bad. If you think of a series of pictures, say a dozen, all taken within a few seconds of each other, with almost entirely the same content, one of those pictures is going to speak louder to you than the rest. That’s you judging whether the picture is good or bad. You do it with the “like” and “reblog” mechanisms of tumblr all the time.
I really enjoyed your question, Anon. More, please? Come out of Anon, I’d like to know who this curious mind belongs to.
Mika took a picture of me at the maccha bar with my 5D2 to try out the 35mm f/1.4L for herself. She did it sneakily. She takes absolutely beautiful pictures, you can see them here on her flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnypapico/
Anonymous asked: what body do you shoot with? and lens?
5D Mark II. I shoot mainly primes.. particularly with a 35mm f/1.4L. I’m a major fan of the 50mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4… All three of those have different aesthetics regarding natural vignetting, distortion, visual compression and the way they react when I freelens with them (which I do a lot), so it really depends what type of shot I’m going for when choosing a lens. The 35mm f/1.4L is my go to lens for everything, though. I also have a 50D which I use when I need the reach because of the 1.6x crop factor.
Shot my first video footage with my 5D mark II in the last two days after my friend asked me to be the cinematographer for a short he was directing. It was a really good time. One of the locations was a beach. I couldn’t resist taking a picture of this family.
I put gel in my hair so that it doesn’t look like this at the end of the day. Today I ran out of gel.
Bokeh panorama from a wedding I shot a few days ago, stitched together from 44 images.
