September 19, 2014, 04:27:08 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 - DominoDude

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
I'm the kind of customer that's perfectly happy without any of those thingymebobs.

2
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:03:39 PM »
Since I see mentions of video and watching distances...
I had a great chart showing suitable viewing distance for various resolutions and screen sizes, but it's embedded on a site that is highly linked to very X-rated content, so I think we should skip that URL. However, it showed the farthest distance at which an eye with perfect vision could resolve all the detail. In short, and as an example, it boils down to a 60 inch screen best being viewed from less than 10 feet if you want the eye to resolve all detail in a 1080p movie.

Let's toss in some Wikipedia that is less prone to being X-rated -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance#Human_visual_system_limitation

I'd say that for a family of 4-5 to watch and enjoy every minute detail of a high-res video snippet they better huddle together really close. Thankfully the human brain is supposed to watch and enjoy the content, and it won't throw itself on the floor in a temper tantrum just because every single pixel isn't distinguishable.

3
Animal Kingdom / Re: Bears in the Wild
« on: September 18, 2014, 09:25:24 PM »
I only ask as I frequently go for walks in the woods I find their trails often enough, I have a 200-500mm tamron antique and the temptation to just sit down and wait for one has hit me. Theeeeeeen I think other then the few times where I bumped into one and it ran away and the the info from books I have no insight into how they behave in the field. So lets stick to macro shots of mushrooms.

What is the etiquette of bear photography?

I appreciate the humour, at 6'4 my stride means I have plenty of slower companions.
The tammy would make a wicked blunt instrument I might add.

*nods* I can't add anything of substance, but couldn't resist the joke.
We don't have bears here in the south of Sweden - we could, possibly, but not likely, encounter a lynx, or a wolf in the wild. This time of year the worst that we risk meeting is moose, they can get drunk after eating apples that's fallen from trees.
In general, I would say that the best thing to be equipped with in the wild is knowledge, awareness, and humbleness.

4
Animal Kingdom / Re: Bears in the Wild
« on: September 18, 2014, 03:08:32 PM »
For those who went out with the intent of photographing bears, other then your photography gear what else to do you bring? Witnesses? Bear spray?
Just bring someone that is slower than you, and tastier... ;)

5
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:29:10 AM »
Went walking today on the Beach, found this Guy, not as pretty as the recent shot by Eldar, less well fed perhaps.

1Dx & Otus 55f/1.4 @ f/1.4
Oh, this is massively good!
And I believe he came ashore from this ship ...

Nice one, Eldar!
The things you hide at your fjords, I'm amazed. I get the sense that your ship is a little smaller, but on the other hand you have a "Lange" (Molva molva) inside it that hopefully is not done in the same scale as the ship. It's huge.

6
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: September 18, 2014, 10:37:50 AM »
Went walking today on the Beach, found this Guy, not as pretty as the recent shot by Eldar, less well fed perhaps.

1Dx & Otus 55f/1.4 @ f/1.4
Oh, this is massively good!

7
Photography Technique / Re: Square or not?
« on: September 17, 2014, 05:56:21 PM »
I find it very difficult to decide whether the format should be square or not.
I like to know what your opinion is and why?
The warmer colour tones and the square format works best in my opinion.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Pablo Escobar, Canon Shooter
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:40:13 AM »
Did the drug lord really shoot Canon, or is it just a movie prop?

I wouldn't know, but I do know just because you're a mass-murdering bastard doesn't mean you cannot acquire good taste along the way :-o. The interesting question is: If you've really got so much money to spend, what would you buy? Leica?

What do you mean? The company or a camera?

Hahaha That nearly made me lose a good cup of coffee and ruin my keyboard.  ;D
I think you have to sign a contract when you buy a Leica that states that the sum of money is not to be considered as a downpayment on the company.

9
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: September 17, 2014, 11:11:38 AM »
Can't really vote on this one. The one I have and use a lot is my only EF-S, the 10-22. I only regret that it's one lens I never will be able to carry over to a - imagined, and longed for - FF camera. If they release it with EF mount and make it slightly faster, I will be all over it like flies on a turd.

I was in the same situation when I moved to FF. However, I realized 24mm is a lot wider than 17mm on an APS-C (I had the 17-55).
When I need to go wider, the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and TS-E 17mm both offer more unique options. I might still get a UWA zoom but I will wait well into 2015 before I do, and it will possibly be a 16-35 refurb'd.

*nods* The huge image circle and overall lens quality of TS-lenses certainly makes the TS-E 17/4L interesting for a FF.
The whacky UWA set would be a combo of that TS-E, and the even fishier 8-15/4L. Perhaps one would need a more real UW prime or zoom, when tired of the - possibly - surreal outcome of the first two.

10
Lighting / Re: Your experience of Metz flashes.
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:58:25 PM »
Thanks for your thoughts and input, guys! It's much appreciated.

pwp: Metz is cheaper here than Canon SpeedLites at comparable GN's.
         Canon 600EX-RT -> $710
         Metz 64 AF-1 -> $535
$710 for a 600EX-RT? Not any more.  That sound like maximum RRP. Shop around. You should get them for under $500 now.

What about pre-owned? Good 600 EX-RT's can be picked up for under $400 if you're patient, and mint condition 580EX II's can be bought any day of the week for around $300. Canon Speedlights tend to be amazingly robust and reliable bits of kit. I absolutely hammered my pair of 580 EXII's for years until an update to 600 EX-RT's  and I've been hammering my pair mercilessly for over 12 months now. They 100% pass the tough-test.

-pw

It was the lowest prices of that day for both of those flashes. Looked them up on a site specifically for price comparisons. The currency was converted according to the day price, and only slightly rounded. So, sadly, that's the ballpark in which I have to play.

I have to add that I have a habit of being a pest in the shops, so I usually can shave off 15-20% on prices there and then - they want to get rid of me and agree to giving me discounts... ;)
I promise to keep a better eye open towards used ones, that might save a buck, and the nerves of shop owners.

11
Lenses / Re: Choose your Weapon: Ultra Wide Zooms for Canon
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:50:43 PM »
Can't really vote on this one. The one I have and use a lot is my only EF-S, the 10-22. I only regret that it's one lens I never will be able to carry over to a - imagined, and longed for - FF camera. If they release it with EF mount and make it slightly faster, I will be all over it like flies on a turd.

12
Photography Technique / Re: POLL: Did you peak and what did you do about it?
« on: September 16, 2014, 08:39:38 PM »
It's a slippery slope... Some days are good, others are really crappy. In some ways I think I'm much better today, but I often sense that I lack the "eye" I once had. Also lost that feeling I had for shadows and how they helped build depth and interest in a photo. Could be the penalty for shooting loads of birds and BIFs where split vision and split second timing throws me off the sane thinking needed to create a stunning image.
Other distractions in life, also part of the reason for situation as it is.

13
*nods @ Mackguyver* Yeah, I can easily understand how it can be tough in marshes and swamps when the changing water levels alter the entire landscape and forces new routes to be used for approaching the site. With firm ground under the feet and a map, one can at least count paces and get a general feel for the direction and location, canoeing in a swamp have to be quite different even at the best possible circumstances.

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Post your 'Noise by Ten' results
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:52:33 AM »
I didn't mean to say that ISO 320 is, in absolute terms, cleaner than ISO 100. It's the combination I use most to get the exposure I need. In the old film and analogue days I mostly shot 400ASA film to get what I needed.
As an example: I shoot a lot of birds, and frequently find myself with my shoulders and everything above that shoved deep into bushes, and to get a decent exposure I need rather short shutter times and then I go for ISO 320 or ISO 800 to easier find an aperture that match subject, DOF and so on without getting too much of an underexposure.
So I use ISO 160, where others might have gone for ISO 100, or ISO 200. ISO 320, instead of ISO 250, ISO 400, or ISO 500. If available light is in abundance of course I click down to ISO 160, and adjust my aperture, and the shutter, if my hand is steady. On those occasions where other factors rule, it's ISO 320 that is preferred.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:20:10 AM »
An interview with Richard Walch on the 7D Mark II. Made by Swedish "Fotosidan" ->
http://vimeo.com/106236109

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18