April 17, 2014, 11:34:50 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - randym77

Pages: [1] 2
A minor consideration was already having the 300 II and wanting more separation b/t it and a super T.

This was a consideration for me as well (though I have the old 300mm).  I wanted a lens that would get me closer than the 300 f/2.8 with extender. 

I have the 600 II and I am very happy with it. I use it with the 1.4xIII extender most of the time. If you´re not used to long lenses, you´ll be surprised to how many times you´ll say 840mm isn´t enough.

Yes.  This has been my experience as well. 

For me, the weight/size difference between the lenses (and the Sigmonster and similar) were not significant.  There's no way I'm using any of them without some kind of support, so that wasn't really an issue.  If you're a big strong guy who can hand-hold a 500mm, it might be different.

I went with the 600 II. 

It weighs about the same as the old 500, so in comparison to the old versions, it didn't seem all that heavy. 

The extra 100 mm makes a big difference for birds and wildlife, especially if you use it with an extender. 

It's true I wouldn't want to hike Mt. Everest with it, but I wouldn't want to carry the 500mm up a mountain, either. 

Canon General / Re: Comet ISON = ISOFF?
« on: November 15, 2013, 08:55:02 AM »
I am usually up before dawn, now that daylight savings time is gone.  I've gone out and looked the past couple of days, but it's been so cloudy I couldn't see anything.  And it looks like it's only going to get worse over the weekend.

As for equipment...I read on the web somewhere that you should use 2000mm or less.  1000mm or less if you want to get the whole tail.  (Aimed at people who hook their cameras to telescopes, I presume.)  So I was going to try my 600mm (got some nice pics of the moon with it during the recent eclipse). 

But now that the comet's gotten so much brighter, I would think a wide angle would be better.  Get some scenery in, too.  With PANSTARRS, a lot of people got nice photos of the comet without even realizing it.  The comet ended up much brighter in the photos than to the naked eye, because of the long exposure. 

Canon General / Re: Comet ISON = ISOFF?
« on: November 14, 2013, 04:43:56 PM »
There is also another comet I the morning sky called lovejoy.  It's a little brighter right now than iSON.

Not any more!  ISON has gotten 16 times brighter over the last three days.

Canon General / Re: Comet ISON = ISOFF?
« on: November 14, 2013, 04:18:53 PM »
Ison brightened suddenly last night.  This might bode well for a great show later this year, or it could mean the comet is breaking up.

Get out and photograph it now!

Unfortunately, the weather is not cooperating for me.  :(

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: September 29, 2013, 01:44:04 PM »
Thanks, Vivid.  That was very helpful.

I have a PowerShot SX50 HS.  It needs really bright light for good results, so I wasn't sure about bringing it. 

Was that enough memory cards?  And were you shooting RAW?

Lenses / Re: Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: September 29, 2013, 12:21:58 PM »
Thanks for the replies.  I have a tendency to bring too much gear, but I'm really trying to bring a minimal kit this time.

I like Spokane's idea of one long zoom, plus one 50mm for low-light.  I'm also tempted to bring a wide angle, but I could probably just use my point and shoot backup camera for that.  I love my tripod, but I think I'll leave it behind this time.

I'm not sure what I'll be shooting, to be honest.  Wildlife, I assume.  (This is a family trip which I had no part in planning.)

My favorite body is a 1DX, but I'm not sure if that's the one I'll bring. I've heard dust can be a problem, in which case the weather sealing on the 1DX would be good.  OTOH, it's big and heavy and expensive.  I might bring a cheaper, lighter body instead.  Or a 1D Mark IV for a little extra reach?  The autofocus on the 1DX is so much better, though.

Lenses / Tanzania with minimal gear
« on: September 29, 2013, 10:10:51 AM »
I'm going on a trip to Africa next August.  I've searched the forums for other threads on this, and there was some good stuff, but I thought I'd ask for some more specific advice.

It's a two-week "Safari Serengeti" tour.  Arusha, Tarangire, Olduvai Gorge, Serengeti National Park, and the Ngorongoro Highlands & Crater.  It's a more "off the beaten" track type thing.  We'll be sleeping in tents and will have to walk fair distances carrying all our gear at some points, so I don't want to bring too much.  Plus, there are baggage limits.  We'll be given one duffel bag, and everything we need for the two weeks has to fit in it.  Plus a carry-on.  I presume my camera gear will be in the carry-on.

I was thinking maybe one body and two lenses (and maybe a point and shoot as backup). 

I'm willing to buy or rent what I don't have for the trip, so...what should I bring?

I cheated and used a Fuji X-E1 for these.  Whereas my 1DsMkii typically wants exposures in the 2 - 5s range, I can happily snap away with the Fuji at 1/30 - 1/60s.  Its Ok for hand held shots and I'm starting to get into it more.  But OOC, there's not much difference between my Canon and Fuji.  But as you've pointed out and the reason I can't comment on the 600D - every Canon model handles IR differently. 

Thanks for sharing that info.  It supports my experience that newer Canons have much better internal IR filters than older ones, and that means you need longer exposures with newer cameras than with older ones.

I also use a Hoya R72.  Your 1DsMkii (first released in 2004) needs 2-5 seconds.  My 40D (first released in 2007) needs 1.5-2 minutes (the image I posted is a 2 minute exposure).  My 5D Mark II (first released 2008) needs 5 or 6 minutes (the image I posted is a 5.5 minute exposure).

It's good that you can return it, because I think you need a real IR filter.  Try one - IR photography is really interesting and fun.

The filter I use, the R72 (sometimes called an 89B) is probably the most popular.  It will give you that white foliage look, with a little post-processing.

If you want a stronger effect, the 87C filter will produce strong contrast, a more black and white image, with minimal post-processing.

A 665nm filter (sometimes called an enhanced color filter) allows more visible light than the R72, which means the images will have more color.  Some photographers consider it the best of both worlds, though the IR effect will be more muted.  You'll need more post-processing to achieve the traditional IR look.

I'm guessing those out of camera images are from a camera that has been converted to IR.  Not least because most little kids won't stay still long enough for an infrared image from a non-converted camera.  ;-)

I shoot IR with both a converted camera and non-converted cameras with a Hoya RM-72 Infrared Filter.  With the converted camera, the images do look like Hillsilly's directly out of the camera.

With an IR filter, there tends to be a lot more color, especially with newer cameras.  This is what my photos look like directly out of the (unconverted) camera with an IR filter.  The tree is taken by a 40D, the ruins with a 5D Mark II.  I like the 40D images much better.  Its internal IR filter is not as good as the 5D's, which is good if you're doing IR photos.

I ran through that thread and I understand that this is not a problem with my browsers. Why should the same photo uploaded on FB / 500px be rendered correctly while on CR they do not?

Probably because the site changes the files when you upload them.  I am not on 500px, but Facebook is well known for changing the files uploaded (reducing the resolution, etc.)

See the "color management woes" thread in this forum.

I'm guessing the problem is with your browser.  Some browsers color manage, some don't, with some it can be turned off and on. 

Try using Photoshop's auto tone or auto levels, or equivalent in whatever software you use.  IME, that will make the foliage white on infrared photos.

If that doesn't work, I'd guess the infrared filter inside your camera is too good for the screw-on filter you are using.  An exposure long enough to let in enough infrared also lets in too much visible light.  (It might be that the magazine that recommended the filter tried it on an older camera, with an internal filter that let in more infrared than yours.)

A better screw-on filter would probably work.  They make different versions, that let in different amounts of visible light.  Some people prefer some color in their infrared photos.

Use a real infrared filter, and be prepared to do some post-processing.

IME, newer Canons filter out infrared light much better than older ones (like the 40D).  Expect really long exposures and more color than you used to get.

The infrared photos you see these days are almost always heavily post-processed.  You don't get that white foliage look straight out of the camera.

Pages: [1] 2