August 01, 2014, 09:15:29 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 - GmwDarkroom

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Canon General / Re: Colombia
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:17:22 PM »
I went there in 1995 under the auspices of the U.S. government and our briefing -- along with the then-relevant "Medellin and Cali are off limits" clause -- included a warning about the use of Scopolamine by criminals to drug and rob people.  The danger is that the doses used were potentially lethal with something like 25% of ER patients involving the drug.  Taxis we're allegedly a popular ambush point, especially if one stopped with more than one person in the car.

In my case, we didn't have to worry about getting around in taxis due to our mission, but a quick search tells me it may still be a problem.  All that said, you're far more likely to be just plain robbed or have your pockets picked.

Lenses / Re: Need help deciding on my next lens
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:27:45 PM »
Shouldn't the excellent EFs 17-55 f2.8 be considered ?
This and the 15-85.  It's pretty much the same debate full frame cameras have between the 24-70 and the 24-105.

I have the 15-85 and it's a great lens.  Nice and sharp.  Decent maximum magnification (.20x, I believe).

Pricewatch Deals / Canon Pixma Pro-100 for $34 AR
« on: June 27, 2014, 11:24:17 AM »
Saw this on another deal site last night, but it's still good and showed up this morning on TDP.  Adorama is the original source, but according to TDP, B&H will honor it over the phone:

It won't show as $334 until you add it to your cart and Adorama auto-adds the paper.

Less than the cost of inks for a Pro9000 Mk2.

The question is whether someone has the $12K -- plus the cost of support equipment -- to get the better quality.  Most don't and I don't think that we're talking about some Bower/Vivitar/Pro Optic lens.

However I found this comment interesting and even a good selling point.  A softer image is better than none at all:
With the Tamron 150-600mm, I had complete freedom of movement and could track the owl easily as he flew past me.  The key is that it can be hand-held.

In fact, had I been using the gimbal-mounted Canon 600mm instead of the hand-held Tamron, I’m really not sure that I would have captured that Snowy Owl shot.

Hey fellas, what's going on? Jack Douglas is using the same bird at the size in the thread about the 300mm f/2.8 II with stacked 1.4 and 2xTCs

Jack's photo is at iso 4000, and he complains that he is not impressed with the results. Download Jack's and Don's image and compare. To my eyes, the stacked TCs have given a significantly sharper image. But, the conditions are different. I have uploaded Jack's here (apologies Jack).

The handheld 60D photo looks pretty damned good to me.  By 60D standards, of course.  Pitting the results of a 60D and a 6D is hardly a fair comparison, though.

Based on TDPs image comparison tools -- since I don't have a 6D to compare to my 60D -- I'd say that the results are at least equivocal.  Certainly the 150-600 is more versatile, less cumbersome, and less convoluted than stacked teleconverters and a prime.

Excellent review.

I am definitely putting this lens on my shopping list.  An extra 200mm over the 100-400 is just what I could use for bird photography.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]
« on: January 17, 2014, 11:02:49 AM »
Seriously, anytime you feel like hauling out the "but Canon sells more!" argument ask yourself if Budweiser really is the best beer in America.
This is not a valid analogy.  If Budweiser were $8-$10 a six pack instead of $8-$10 a case -- or whatever it costs -- the analogy would be valid.  In the case of the Nikon and Canon entry bodies, the pricing is close enough to not matter.  If the D3200 was $800 or more, I'd agree with your statement.  But if Bud were $8 a six pack, nobody would buy it.

Now when Neuro says that Canon is leading because Rebels outsell the D3x, you'll have a valid argument.

Lenses / Re: 6d/100L macro/Kenko 2X TC lockup
« on: December 26, 2013, 04:00:10 PM »
Thanks for your replies. Shutting off AFMA solved the problem, but as my 100L needed a +9 AFMA, not sure the overall solution will be satisfactory...
Back to the original question:

If you're going to be doing macro that close, I'd suggest going to Live View so that the mirror is up when you take the photo.  That kind of vibration can affect the results at that close of a focus distance.  If you use Live View, then the AFMA isn't necessary for accurate focus.

What I don’t get is, why they have to revise the RAW files with every camera model.  It’s my understanding that they’re ‘improving’ the codec, but is that really necessary with every camera model?  What can you improve in the Codec?  You can make the files smaller, and/or compressed faster.  But DNG continue to be slighter smaller than RAW files.  What gives?
From a programming perspective, any given camera's first duty is to quickly and accurately get your RAW file to the cache and then to your storage.  It doesn't matter if your camera has 10fps, if the system can't write the files fast enough so I assume they squash down the files to the absolute minimum bits.  Doing so would mean that even a small change to megapixels or ExIFF data would mean a different file format.

I have a (probably dumb) question. If everytime a new camera comes out and we need a new version of LR to utilize the RAW files, can we convert those files to DNG first and run the DNG file in a previous version of LR?

Is that why the Adobe DNG converter is free?? So you can do that?
Yes, assuming that Adobe doesn't change the format making it incompatible with previous versions.  Given that it's an open standard, I would hope that changes would be extensions not alterations.

Software & Accessories / Re: The Bane of Adobe Creative Cloud
« on: December 10, 2013, 09:29:58 PM »
I don't trust adobe as far as I can throw them.
So out of curiosity, what do you use for image editing?

Software & Accessories / Re: The Bane of Adobe Creative Cloud
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:59:17 PM »
Worse, if you use LR, whenever you open images in Photoshop, it always opens in CC. The worst part is...there seems to be NO WAY to configure LR (either v4.x or v5.x) or other Adobe apps to use the Photoshop version of your choice...your STUCK with CC, unless you uninstall it...and then, you have the hassle of getting CS6 working again. Frustrating, and annoying...Adobe should allow their users to choose which version of Adobe products are used, rather than automatically forcing you to CC.
I do not have CS6, but I have LR4, LR5 (from CC), PS CC, and PSE 10.  I had no problems creating an "Edit in" shortcut in both versions of LR to open a file in PSE instead of PS CC.  Not that I have any real use for PSE anymore, but as an experiment it worked fine.

It is true, however, that installing CC took over the default "Photoshop" source for LR.  Not sure if a re-install of CS6 would take it over or if there's a registry setting.

Software & Accessories / Re: PC Monitor for photo editing
« on: December 10, 2013, 11:26:16 AM »
Again, the Asus has the same IPS panel, with very likely a better matte finish to its screen than the Dell, and it costs just over half with the Dell costs.  It's also pre-calibrated, for what that's worth.  I had to calibrate my own by eye...
The Dell U2412 and the Asus PA248Q use the same panel.  The Dell U2413 and the Asus PA249Q use the same panel.  The latter two are more or less within 10% of each other in cost.

I believe that if one a person is taking more than 300 photos on a vacation while walking around is being trigger happy.
Does one really see 300 great images during a single day???? Really!
300 great images?  Probably not.  However depending on your subject matter, you may need to take that many to get the quantity of keepers you want.  Easily, if the subject isn't static.  If I were doing street or nature photography on vacation, I could easily -- and have -- find places I'd take far more than that in a day.
Such a person would need to carry 8+ rolls of 36 exp film in the old days. Wow!
Indeed.  I shot much differently in those days.  I carefully waited for what I thought was the perfect shot.  I held back in anticipation.  I lost many shots I wish I'd gotten, too.  I'd say the fact that we don't need a raft of film rolls anymore is one of the greatest freedoms to photography we could ever wish for.
I think the A7's are superb for the discerning photographer who wants to travel light.
I completely agree, but it has weaknesses.  Battery life being one of them.  Worse so if your vacation doesn't return you to a power socket every night.

For me, it's an interesting step away from traditional mirror SLR technology which has much promise.  Combined with Canon glass and better performance, it'll be phenomenal.  Just like the first DSLRs.

Dell Ultrasharp U2413 is in the $500 range and has a 99% color gamut.  Other Ultrasharp monitors aren't quite as good at 82%.  I have two U2410 -- older model -- and am quite happy with them.  They definitely need color calibration to fix the default blue-green cast, though.

I use a Spyder 4 Elite on mine, but from what I've read X-Rite and Datacolor both do a good job.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5