November 28, 2014, 07:50:48 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 - JPAZ

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39
1
Just thinking a bit more.  There are two ways to get from Albuquerque to Sante Fe: One is the interstate (about 45 minute drive) and the other is the road (I think highway 14 also called the Turquoise Trail) through Golden, Cerillos, and Madrid.  Definitely do the latter. It is only a bit more time but the small towns are fascinating and funky. 

The San Francisco Church (I think it is in Golden) is worth the trip alone.  The is an old adobe structure that is phenomenal in the right light.  And if it is open, there are crutches and braces and other remnants from folks who were "healed" by the religious fervor of the place.  This is a site that is right out of a European pilgimage sight and not typical of the "New World."

Also +1 on the Beaver Street Brewery.

If you get up to the Taos Pueblo, it is worth a visit.


2
Landscape / Re: Alaska mountains
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:24:16 AM »
Marvelous shots!  Denali is a wonderful place.  Unfortunately the weather was not too cooperative on my last trip so I am already thinking about a return visit.

3
You will be under 2 hours from the South Rim (Grand Canyon) so if you have never been, go!!  December is our favorite time of year at the Canyon.  There could be snow at the rim and balmy weather at the river so some interesting scenery for sure.

I concur with layers.  At altitude (Flagstaff and Sante Fe are at about 7000 feet) the temperature plummets when the sun goes down. 

Depending on you tastes, Sante Fe is a marvelous town to just walk around in.  The galleries and shops are great for browsing if you are into that sort of thing.  The food options are marvelous.

I'd vote for the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 unless you want to do some serious macro work.  That is a reasonable carry without overdoing the weight.

4
Lenses / Re: Really bad GAS
« on: November 20, 2014, 04:56:15 PM »
I made a huge "mistake" and rented a 300 f/2.8ii for a birding trip.  By the first evening of photos in a setting sun, I was totally hooked.  Why the mistake?  Because within a year I bought one.

Remember that this lens with a 1.4TC yields about a 420 F/4 and the IQ really holds up.  I can handhold this with a 2x TC on my FF and it is still great.  If you are getting one, this is the one to get.

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Black Rapid Backpack Strap
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:31:25 AM »
No single good answer.  Depends on what you want to carry, what's on your back, and how much "protection" you want to provide.  I have been using a TT holster on my chest with my 5Diii and a lense in that holster.  I keep the camera strap loose around my neck for "insurance" but the camera and lens is totally supported by the holster with the top zipped about 3/4 closed.  This lets me bring out the camera quickly for a shot.  If the weather gets ugly, I can drop the neck strap into the holster and close it completely and even put the TT rain over over it.

I used to attach the holster to the backpack straps using straps from Optecha.  But, this required dealing with the camera when stopping or taking my pack off.  On my last trek, I used the TT harness to hold the holster so the holster remained on my chest when removing the pack and was independent of the pack.

Pros: complete freedom to use trekking poles, good protection from dust/rain/falls, able to use both hands for climbing or scampering over boulders, camera quickly accessible.

Cons: can be hard to see my feet on steep downhills unless I nudge the holster to the side, need to bring an alternate way to carry when not on trail (I keep a shoulder/neck strap in my backpack that clips onto the holster for walking around town or campsites), in hot weather the combo can be uncomfortable cause both the backpack and front holster together are not conducive to ventilation/cooling.

6
Lenses / Re: 70-200 or 100-400 conundrum.....
« on: November 20, 2014, 10:05:32 AM »
Not intending to hijack this but here's another option to consider..........

Given the price of the new 100-400 (> $2000), how about a 70-200 f/2.8 ("street price" $1899 on CPW) and the Tammy 150-600 (about $1000)? I know this is a different approach and would cost about the same as just the 70-200 with the two TC's together.  I know the Tammy has some limitations but gets great reviews for that price point.  I agree, reach is contagious.

BTW, I have used the 100-400 M1 indoors and it is feasible so even though it is not as fast as the 70-200 2.8, it depends on what you are taking photos of.

7
Lenses / Re: MY GAS. ILLNESS COME TO VISIT ME AGAIN.
« on: November 19, 2014, 11:45:11 AM »
Re: CPW streetprice.  I am sure that they get a "commission" for the service but I have saved substantially on 2 occasions using this service.  Frankly, it is a way that a dealer can sell a product without advertising a price lower than the MAP.  The process is very simple:  Indicate your interest and you will be notified by a dealer who will then complete the sale.  I've used both Paypal and a credit card for this process with no issue and the product is a new boxed one that is identical to what I could have done with that dealer myself, but for less $$.

I also am feeling some GAS pain but decided that the few times a year I use the 100-400 Mk1 don't warrant moving up to the new one.  Then I look at some photos of wildlife that I wish were a little clearer and the pain starts again.

If you can afford it, go for it Mr. Surapon!

8
These are interesting times.  I have a 100-400 M1 and have really been thinking about replacing it with a M2 for a lot of reasons that have been stated by others.  But, I thought I'd wait a while until more feedback and reviews are posted.  This led to a lot of thinking.  I am fortunate to have the 70-200 2.8 ii and the 300 2.8 ii along with a 1.4iii and 2.0iii TC.  Maybe I'd just use the 70-200 with the TC's and forgo the new 100-400?

Then what happened was a weekend with my Grandson trying to capture photos in existing light while the little guy was on the go.  The answer to my dilemma became very clear, I just ordered the 24-70 2.8ii and will stick to my "old" lenses for now.

I guess the answer for me is to get what works for your needs.

9
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 04:31:42 PM »
I'd say the critical unknown is whether we can use Canon TC's and there is no mention one way or the other.  Interesting that it is just a bit heavier and longer than the old "push-pull" but better optics at this price is very enticing.

10
Lenses / Re: More EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Talk [CR2]
« on: October 28, 2014, 02:21:56 PM »
Hmmmmm.  Sell the 100-400 now or wait until the new one comes out?  That is the question.  Because if this does get released and if the price is reasonable and the IQ better than the present iteration, the value of the old lens will drop.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How's the RX-100 Miii? Should I?
« on: October 06, 2014, 01:47:20 PM »
Initial impressions:  Very nice little camera.  More importantly, it fits my wife's needs perfectly. 

12
Post Processing / Re: Fast editing of RAWs to "camera like" Jpegs
« on: October 04, 2014, 10:55:26 AM »
Could use DxO.  It will do an automated conversion using the basic settings or whatever ones you pick.  The processing takes a while so you can set it then go have supper.  upon return, there will be the processed photos listed with "DxO" in the title.  They won't all be to your liking but will achieve your goal.....a group of JPEG's processed in batch with an output equivalent to what a camera might do.  And you will still have your RAW fles intact.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: white balance issues
« on: October 03, 2014, 10:00:49 AM »
I concur with what everyone is saying regarding shooting in RAW then using something like DxO or LR.  But every once in a a while, the color balance/temperature just does not seem to be acceptable no matter how hard I try (I am my own worst critic).  Just last night I was doing post on a night shot and the streetlight glow gave me unacceptable color.  I struggled with that even trying to patch and clone in PS but that lost some of the details that I was trying to capture.  Finally, I did what one must sometimes do............gave up on the color altogether.

If I am not happy with the outcome, there are occasions where I just might convert to B&W.  Is that sacrilege? 

14
I have a friend who uses one to charge an accessory battery that he then uses to recharge his phone.  He says it works pretty well.  Sorry I can't be more specific but he is not reachable for a month or so (trekking in Asia). So perhaps charging the supplemental battery (about the size of a fist) and then using that battery to charge his phone offsets any voltage fluctuation.  But the output resembles a USB charger.  Will that work?

15
PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 13, 2014, 01:39:57 PM »
Hmmm.  Maybe it is time to upgrade my G6!  Well, when I want something small I've got my M.  And, my wife is VERY happy with her RX1000iii 'cause she really wanted a viewfinder.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39