Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots

« on: June 19, 2013, 01:46:12 PM »

Polo.

Sorry, English is not my first language... What's a polo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_(game)

Is there any real difference between different manufacturers? Would that option leave me with AF intact?

The filter looks very convenient, could also be used for some macro stuff on vacation as it wouldn't add too much bulk.

Only in build quality - tubes have no optics.  Personally, I went Canon tubes because my main use for them is with a heavy supertele lens.  For typical macro-type uses, the Kenko tubes are a great option, and would leave AF intact (although you'll see more focus hunting with the tube in place, but that applies to Canon tubes, too).

Both tubes and close-up lenses cause a reduction in IQ, the degree of that impact varies with the lens and the quality of the close-up fliter.  A good filter (like the Canon 250D/500D) on a good lens produces results that are practically hard to distinguish from a dedicated macro lens (I compared the 100L to the 70-200/2.8L IS II with the 500D). 

For a 50mm, extension tubes ... wouldn't degrade the image quality at all.

For a 50mm lens, tubes are a better bet, IMO.  It's not strictly true to say there's no optical degradation.  By forcing the lens to focus outside of it's intended range, you are compromising the optics a bit, and the additional magnification accentuates the native flaws of the lens, too.

I suppose that's true and it wold have been better to say no noticeable reduction.

2

Lenses / Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots

« on: June 19, 2013, 01:44:18 PM »

Hi!

Polo.

Sorry, English is not my first language... What's a polo?

For a 50mm, extension tubes would give you more closeup potential than closeup filters and wouldn't degrade the image quality at all. Depending on the tubes you used, you may get some vignetting. For other macro shots and if you don't want to get as close to the subject, then one of the 100mm macros would give you more flexibility, as would the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 105mm.

Is there any real difference between different manufacturers? Would that option leave me with AF intact?

The filter looks very convenient, could also be used for some macro stuff on vacation as it wouldn't add too much bulk.

Thanks!
RadioPath

In terms of IQ, there is no difference between manufacturers of extension tubes, as there is no glass to degrade the image. However, there is a difference in build quality and not all will maintain AF (although the main options do). A set of Kenko tubes are the best value and maintain AF, although the Canon ones are better built. One thing you do need to watch (moreso with heavier lenses), is that the Kenko tubes are easier to accidentally detach, as the buttons are proud on the tubes, making them easy to push when holding the lens.

3

Lenses / Re: Marco Equipment for Baby shots

« on: June 19, 2013, 03:52:36 AM »

For a 50mm, extension tubes would give you more closeup potential than closeup filters and wouldn't degrade the image quality at all. Depending on the tubes you used, you may get some vignetting. For other macro shots and if you don't want to get as close to the subject, then one of the 100mm macros would give you more flexibility, as would the Tamron 90mm or the Sigma 105mm.

4

Site Information / Re: Minimum CR Forum IQ?

« on: June 14, 2013, 03:08:04 PM »

Yikes ! Even the mods can't spell humour humor correctly 

It's worth pointing out that the spelling of English words has a heritage running back about 2000 years as it is strongly influenced by the latin ( Romans )  and as that developed over the millennia into other ( but not all ) European languages. This is why humour is spelt with a 'our' instead of how it sounds: 'or'

The trouble with spelling phonetically in the UK, is that many words would need to be respelt if you travelled around 30 miles or so . Where I "cums frum", we pronounce humour as heeoomur. I once heard that the UK has the highest number of dialects and/or pronunciation in a unit area than any other country, although I think Norway must run it close.

5

Animal Kingdom / Re: Reptiles and Amphibians

« on: June 12, 2013, 02:18:45 PM »

Common Toadlet on Mossy Rock by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Female Common Lizard on Rock by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Young Common Lizard by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Common Lizard Head on View by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

6

Lenses / Re: What else can I do with my Canon 100mm Macro IS lens?

« on: June 04, 2013, 02:35:49 PM »

But... I wanted to know... what else can I do with this lens?

Omar

You can basically use it for whatever your imagination can dream up. I've used my 100mm macro (non-L/IS) for landscapes (although not often), as well as for macro/closeup of insects, wildflowers, small reptiles/amphibians etc. While I haven't used it for portraits (I also have the 135 f/2), many others have.

7

Camera Body Gallery / Re: 7D - Anything shot BY a 7D

« on: June 03, 2013, 02:41:52 PM »

It's not seen as much use since getting the 5D MkIII, but here are a few older ones.


Hobby Chasing Dragonflies by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Courting Great Crested Grebes Evening Light by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Blue Tit Head on by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Grey Seal Curiosity by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Male Great Spotted Woodpecker Feeding. by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

8

Lenses / Re: The EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Has Arrived!

« on: May 31, 2013, 03:22:48 PM »

Stage 1) In awe.

Stage 2) Lens envy! 

Stage 3) Congrats - Have fun!

Stage 4) Impatiently waiting for sample pics. 

Stage 5) Win the lottery (I suppose I ought to enter first ).

9

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: May 19, 2013, 02:13:52 PM »

Hi Kernuak, Try this, not the best solution, but works.

+ the Singh Ray 4' x 6' (100mm wide) fits the Lee Holder.


http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12/ad-hoc-reverse-nd-grad-filters/

Thanks, something like that has crossed my mind, but I have a bit of an aversion of stacking too many filters, although I have stacked more often lately and not seen too much of a decrease in IQ. I might gice it a go to see how it looks. The other option is the Hi-Tech reverse grad, although I'm a little loath to go back to Hi-Tehc filters,despite the good reviews for the reverse gard. They simply aren't in the same league normally and the standard grad filters are thinner.
I was a bit spoiled before, because the UK/US exchange rate was favourable, making imports much cheaper, but with Sterling being so weak atm, it adds to the cost.

It makes me miss my reverse grad and to a lesser degree the warming polariser. I really need to get myself sorted out and sell the old Singh Ray reverse grad for the Cokin system, so that I can get one to fit my Lee system.

I use both the Lee Filter Holder and the Cokin Z-Pro Filter Holder and the 4"X6" Singh Ray Reverse ND Grad fits nicely on both filter holders. The only issue is that the Singh-Ray Cokin Z-Pro sprocket mount LB warming polarizer is loose when mounted on the Lee Filter holder.

Unfortunately, it is the Cokin P (85mm) sized Singh-Ray reverse grad that I have. Lee do, do an adaptor, but it is made from card and seems to involve sticking it onto the filter (sort of damages the resale value ).

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Canon 5D Mark III

« on: May 19, 2013, 01:48:31 PM »

Congratulations and welcome to CR! That having been said, look forward to you posting pictures!

BTW, I went from 300D to 5D3 and so I understand your delight! One word of caution - the DOF is very different. It takes a while to fully comprehend that... Also don't hesitate to push the ISO. It is not grainy at 800 I had a hard stop at 400 ISO. With the 5D3 even 12800 and 25600 ISO can be workable!

Enjoy!

One more thing - if you think the images are soft even when you take a stationary subject from a tripod, try live view focus. If that is sharp and the normal AF is soft, you need to micro-adjust the AF for your lens.

Define very different.  I heard through the grapevine that full frame cameras are a 1/2 stop shallower in depth of field than crop sensors at the same aperture an focal length.  Is the 1/2 stop that substantial of a change? 

I have enough to get an mkiii... but I don't want to be impatient and buy one only to find that I could have saved an extra $200 in a month.  It's a quandary.

You have to be very careful when talking about DoF differences between crop and full frame. DoF is actually greater with larger sensors, so the 5D MkIII actually has more DoF than the 350D etc. However, when you start talking about the same field of view, then you will have less DoF on fulll frame, because you either have to stand closer or use a longer lens to get the same field of view. For me though, I took the step to full frame for landscapes and the differences in DoF never came into play, for the simple reason, I "see" differently when using full frame and simply frame differently. Of course, when it comes to wildlife and portraits, it would be a different story, as you probably would be looking for similar framing. In addition to that though, the effects of diffraction are less noticeable on full frame, because of the larger pixels and how they interact with physical characteristics introduced by lenses, so you are able to use narrower apertures with less softening due to diffraction. I believe the generally accepted differences in DoF when using the same field of view is around 1 stop, which is made up for (and probably more so, based on my anecdotal experience, not measured scientifically) by the differences in the diffraction limited aperture between full frame and crop sensors.

11

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:59:40 PM »

My most recent sunset shot. 

Visual Symphony
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee 1.2 ND Filter ı Singh Ray 0.9 Reverse ND Grad Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 15s ı f/11 ı ISO 100

Visual Symphony by shutterwideshut on Flickr

It makes me miss my reverse grad and to a lesser degree the warming polariser. I really need to get myself sorted out and sell the old Singh Ray reverse grad for the Cokin system, so that I can get one to fit my Lee system.

12

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:43:19 PM »

I don't have the 100L, but I do have the 100 non-L macro and the 135, so it is sort of the same principle. The difference is, I do shoot macros a fair bit, I also like narrow depth of field, so I never considered getting rid of either of them when I got my 70-200 MkII a couple of months ago. The reason I got it, was artly due to travelling, as it allowed me to travel with less lenses. On thursday, I went out with a friend and her twins and took along the 70-200 to use, but guess which lens I also took, in case I got the opportunity for selective focus? Yep, the 135L. As it happened, that sort of shot isn't really possible for toddlers when they are running about and I didn't even try to use it, but I felt better knowing it was in there. For more standard portraits, particularly actions shots, the 70-200 is probably the one to go for and the 135 won't really be needed, but if you want more artistry, then the 135 is the one to pick up. If you do a mixture (which from some of your work you do), then both will be handy. Also, the 135 gets close to true macro if you use the full Kenko set of extension tubes, so you still have close-up capabilities, even with the Canon set or a single tube, allowing you to dispense with the 100L.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:09:14 AM »

I haven't used f/8 yet on my 5D MK III coz in order to to use f/8 to AF I first need to buy a tele-convertor ... its funny that for almost a year, there been so many people who were cribbing about not having f/8 AF function on 5D MK III, but hardly anyone is talking about what it is like having f/8 capability, now that it is available. Hope this thread has more entries of people who have tried out the f/8 AF.

Interesting observations Either everyone is busy taking photos with f/8 lenses and have no time to write anything on the forum. Or it was just gear craving. Let's wait and see...

When I went to a 5D MkIII CPS event at Focus on Imaging last year a couple of days after its release, someone asked the rep the question about lack of f/8 focus. The rep responded with a question "how often do you use it and is the IQ good enough (on the previous 1D series). The person asking the question admitted that it was rarely and the IQ wasn't really as good, so that seems to bear out RAKAMRAK's observation.

14

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:04:11 AM »

I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

I agree, I believe Andy may have been a little disingenuous

Having met with Andy a few times, been on a couple of his workshops, and heard him be derogatory about other kit - he's pretty much as straight as they come - so I'd be surprised if he was affected by the Canon marketing machine - he may have kept quiet had he hated the lens but I don't believe, based on personal experience of him, that he'd mislead us all. The review is not politically correct in it's irreverent manner either, his enthusiasm really shines through, and that is Andy to a tee, when he loves something he goes bonkers about it - in this case both Shakira and the 200 - 400 lens

I don't know Andy well, having only met him a couple of times, but he certainly isn't one to hide his opinions. I also don't think he'd say something good about equipment just to get access to more. I attended a talk by him and Laurie Campbell (who is a totally different character) a couple of years ago and he was very vocal about Canon's "issues", particularly the IQ at high ISO, which he uses a lot and is one reason he like the D3 and D3s and pushes people to push the ISO. On the other hand, even though Laurie shoots with a D3(s) (and has always shot Nikon, even in the days of film), his mantra is always to use the lowest ISO possible for optimal IQ. Having said all that, I imagine that if he didn't like 200-400, he'd have simply kept quiet, rather than say how bad it was, purely because he has previously said how much he liked the 1Dx and has therefore comitted himself back to Canon (at least for now). Of course, when a lens costs that much, no company is likely to send out something that is less than what it could be. It probably won't be a match for the large primes, but I bet it's pretty close, to the point that only pixel peepers will notice the difference.

15

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Around the Corner? [CR1]

« on: May 13, 2013, 03:12:16 PM »

Let's call this lens Sasquatch...it's off white, it's got a big foot, and while everybody's heard of it, very few have actually SEEN it.

I've seen it twice, does that make me special or a loon . It would be nice to see it announced, even if I can only dream about being able to afford it.