April 16, 2014, 07:19:49 PM

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 - extremeinstability

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 11:21:04 AM »
Given the weakness of about every 50mm is coma, it'd be great if someone would test coma on this thing.  I'm assuming it will be good to go with sharp corners and aspherical element.

2
Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: January 08, 2014, 04:10:59 PM »

3
Yay for this part, given all the 50s suck at it except an expensive Nikon. 

• Excellent correction of sagittal coma flare

It is ideal for a wide aperture standard lens to have a high rendering performance from open aperture throughout the entire image. For instance, the molded glass aspherical lens elements provide excellent correction to sagittal coma flare. It is perfect for astronomical photography and shooting of illumination because of the reduced blur on the point light sources near the edge of the image. It also creates an attractive bokeh in portraits and indoor shooting.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Quadcopter photography anyone?
« on: December 31, 2013, 01:25:40 PM »
Guess the Fuji's weight is probably too much at 330 g no lens yet.  Guess eos m isn't that far behind at 260 g.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Quadcopter photography anyone?
« on: December 31, 2013, 01:12:35 PM »
Yeah it is all about the weight.  This video gives some idea, evidently that weighs 600g and it does it kind of ok.  Would work down the batteries.  I'd likely use it on a storm(yeah wind issues) so wide is best.  And that seems to be a problem when it comes to lens weight.  So many options not helping figure it out. 
DJI Phantom heavy Weight lift up (600g) Small | Large



Tempting to try the Fuji X-A1 route.  Put in 70d as no eos m option but 70d should be a little better.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=samsung_nx2000&attr13_1=sony_nex6&attr13_2=canon_eos70d&attr13_3=fujifilm_xa1&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.023274831729257144&y=1.0719917401914774

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Quadcopter photography anyone?
« on: December 31, 2013, 12:30:26 PM »
Dang ad on here got me to purchase a quadcopter.  Wondering if anyone else on here has used one for photography much.  Could be rather fun obviously. 

Wondering what the best camera option even is, least for the stills side.  Gopro seems best video option but for stills not so much with just JPGs.  I gather the phantom copters can lift an eos M but not sure with what lens beyond a pancake in weight.  Sort of sucks looking into all the small camera options, knowing next to nothing about all of them. 

7
Some heavy duty quad copter thanks to the ad on here.

8
Canon General / Re: Renaming and storing photos
« on: December 21, 2013, 11:09:42 PM »
I let eos utility load to the computer into a folder by date with a long number at the end after the date..a continuous number.  I then sort them into folder categories later and have file renamer add a new prefix but keep the file number.  They end up like this.  http://extremeinstability.smugmug.com/Thumbnail-Galleries/Supercell-Storms  I have it add SS for the supercell storm ones then a dash and I just use a letter for the year.  So a for first year I started.  Then the continuous number.  Figure maybe no one connects the letter to the year and doesn't want some file because it is "too old" that way.  But yeah, letting the eos utility do it and keep adding the number then file renamer later is what has worked for me.   

9
Lenses / Sigma QC 18-35 or other
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:35:47 PM »
I've only bought one sigma before, a 50mm.  Just picked up the 18-35 F1.8 and had this for de-centering.

http://www.extremeinstability.com/1835.jpg

Wondering if anyone else have had copy variation issues.  The difficulty I had explaining de-centering and the issue to the camera store people upon returning, didn't make me eager to try another one from them that might also end up needing returned.  They'd never heard of decentered before, at two of the stores...actual camera stores.  "You mean it isn't focusing right?"  It was pretty sad.  I even took the full size images down and am not even sure they got it then.  That above I think was F2.8, it was at 18mm.  One framed in upper left corner then just reframed same area to the right side, which was horrible.  So this has me wondering if it's common or not common with this one.   

10
Software & Accessories / Re: My New and Improve GIOTTOS Blower-for safety.
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:16:13 PM »
lol I posted this on facebook and then a friend posted it to reddit.  Hence the 27,000 views at the moment lol.

11
Lenses / Re: Review: Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8
« on: December 21, 2013, 09:04:05 PM »
Best star-lens for Canon IMHO, I LOVE mine.

I was a skeptic until I tried one for myself, now I'm a believer.


Do you have an idea of the amount of coma for the lens?


Down the page a bit with the 14L II with it.  http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens14mm.html

12
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC
« on: December 20, 2013, 11:11:25 AM »

13
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Corners
« on: December 13, 2013, 02:55:42 PM »
Well at infinity in the mid-ranges it's not extreme corners and not even close to ok.  If one wants to save the corners with this one it seems you'll have to focus a bit past center's infinity and sacrifice the middle some.  Here is a 50mm example at F4.

100% crops.  Number 1 is from the center and 2 with it reframed to the upper left corner....so that closer tree is actually even further out in the frame.  Yet once it is in the corner the closer tree gets better as the further stuff goes to hell.  The field curvature is just bending back towards the camera a good bit.  Does it both sides like that and from other reading it sounds like just design related. 

http://www.extremeinstability.com/1.jpg
http://www.extremeinstability.com/2.jpg

But again, on number 2 that is the furthest upper left corner.  The tree is pretty dang great for extreme corner, but alas infinity areas have gone to hell out there.  If you focus using the corner out there you can pull them in good but you then sacrifice the middle sharpness. 

Starting to think this lens isn't out of whack and that is just how it is using it at infinity. 

More talk on it here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52164436  THink that was the place I saw someone setting their afma purposely off a hair to help the corners. 

14
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Corners
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:48:03 PM »
Yeah I don't get how one would get good results if they shoot it wide open even at infinity if they are all like this.  Couple examples at 50mm F4.

http://www.extremeinstability.com/2470-50-f4b.jpg
This one the top crop is from the middle..sharp.  I then simply reframed the shot, same focus and put it in the corner. 

http://www.extremeinstability.com/cornerfocus.jpg
And this one is opposite.  I used the corner to focus with live view 10x(did that in center on first one).  I took the photo with it in the corner and it is sharp out there.  I then reframed that area to the middle which is the lower crop. 

One should be able to shoot wide open at infinity and get something worthwhile out there, but least in the case of this one, it's not even close.  It probably has some element being off making it worse or something. 

15
Lenses / Re: 24-70 II Corners
« on: December 12, 2013, 03:32:02 PM »
Nevermind, determined it is all field curvature.  Takes a ton of stopping down to get them worth anything in the 50-70mm range.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10