April 25, 2014, 01:31:29 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 - Vossie

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 20, 2014, 02:55:26 AM »
My recommendation would be ff as well. With the shallow DoF it gives you new creative possibilities (the statement that better gear does not give you better photos is not true in my opinion).

Depending on the budget you can choose between the 6D and 5D3. I would certainly not recommend to sell off your 24-70 II and use primes only.

For macro work, a good flash bracket, a good tripod and a macro rail can be good investments.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 16, 2014, 12:15:12 PM »
Great shot; especially the composition with the natural frame from snow!

Snow bunting (European). 70D + Canon 400 5.6L

Animal Kingdom / Re: Osprey
« on: February 16, 2014, 12:09:43 PM »
Wow! truly amazing shots!

A couple of mine

2013-8-16-3 by jim4496, on Flickr

2013-09-02-1 by jim4496, on Flickr

Canon General / Re: Selection help pls
« on: February 13, 2014, 07:59:19 PM »
I would remove the 1st one with the zebras, to me it is the least appealing one. I particularly like #2 and #3; to my eye these are the best ones. #5 has the same atmosphere and although it is no a 'landscape' but an 'urban' picture fits quite well in the set. #4 with the smoking boy fits less well with the rest. Topic-wise #1 fits well with 2 and 3, but the atmosphere is much different (although it may also be the small size of the posted picture that influences my feeling), mostly because it is after-dark.

Canon General / Re: Gear envy
« on: February 07, 2014, 04:34:25 PM »
Wow, quite a collection  :)

Interesting that there is no 600mm and that the two 200mm's are the older f/1.8 and not the current f/2.0 version.

Canon General / Re: Canon PowerShot G2 X Image
« on: February 07, 2014, 04:30:44 PM »
Quite interesting, would be interested to see the full specs of this. The EVF looks to be detachable.

I have been looking for a smaller travel cam that is (almost) pocketable. The EOS M is interesting, but gets quite bulky if you add anything else than the EF-M 22mm. The Fuji X-E2 also has my attention, but its quite expensive and I not convinced about some of the lenses for that system.

Yeah, RRS is simply great. The only pain is that there is only one reseller in Germany and e.g. the 1D-X L plate that i recently purchased was 283 EURO. At least shipping was included in that price ;-)

In The Netherlands I see prices for that L plate of >320 Euros; quite ridiculous given that the US price = $250 = ~190 Eur.

After a long period of thinking, I pulled the trigger and ordered a TVC-33S with BH55 PCLR head. I also ordered a nodal slide and macro rail.

This will be a big upgrade from my heavy and old alumunium Gitzo g2222> I was so fed up with the creep in the head.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
« on: February 04, 2014, 04:42:55 PM »
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM   :)

Wow, from something totally boring like a fence, you managed to create something visually appealing. Great job!

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 02, 2014, 05:29:30 AM »
I am so much on the fence between the Canon 24-70/2.8L II and the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. Would love to hear why you chose one over the other and if you are still happy with your decision. I am very aware of the physical differences between the two and the various test reports out there, but I am more interested in "how they feel and taste", if you know what I mean ... Comments?

I'm probably on the other side of the fence from most people here, as for me I'm not on a budget. I just chose the best lenses that are available.

I started out with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, this lens had been so hyped up that I was one of the first to line up to buy it. After all such an expensive lens had to be good.

It's worth mentioning that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is the only apochromatic normal zoom lens made for full frame cameras. Apochromatic lenses are usually reserved for lenses you've heard a friend of a friend try at a show. They tend to cost $5,000+ and are made of pure moon rock's - I've heard. I hate color fringing and it's my least favorite image quality facet and so I jumped on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II like a kid in a candy store.

The 24-70mm II makes bad photos.

The problem with this lens is the bokeh, contrast and color. They're terrible. When they designed the lens, they messed up the correction for spherical aberration. This causes the bokeh to melt into it's surroundings and areas that are slightly out of focus to be mushy. You can notice a visible lack of contrast and color comparisons between this lenses bokeh and any other lens in this range.

Canon 24-70mm II:

24-70mm Tamron:

24-105mm Canon

Notice the mushiness?

I have never seen a lens make scenes look so bleached and ugly.

If you look at sample photos you can see this same effect.

Images from this lens look flat.

The 24-70mm mk I f/2.8 from Canon was worse as it has weird bokeh and the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 isn't much better (though it's the best out of the 3), but the Tamron 24-70mm VC really has this look that pops. It has more pop than the Canon 24-105mm, which is a lens that has a lot of pop.

The Tamron 24-70mm VC just has better color contrast and pop than any other normal zoom on the planet. Images from it simply look better.

Images from the Canon BORE me. They look pathetically lame and make me want to throw up. I'm a pro photo editor (I edited for Harper's Bazaar before I ever touched a DSLR) and I can manipulate color and contrast and character and texture extremely well so I can fix the flatness issue, but again the flatness is only in the slightly out of the focus to very out of focus areas. That means that to fix it you need to adjust these areas independently. The Tamron does not have this problem and so delivers good images without spot editing.

In the end it was easier to fix the Tamron's color fringing over the Canon's poor rendering of everything more than slightly out of focus, so I went with the Tamron.

If you have any doubts in what I'm saying take a look at this image:

Here we have a dog. Notice how his fur is perfectly contrasty and has nice sharp edges. Now notice the grass. Notice the dark areas of the grass. They are grey. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is a bad lens that makes bad photos. You should not buy it.

I bought the Tamron as a backup lens to use in emergency low light situations that required f/2.8 with VC and to stay in the bag 99% of the time and the Canon as my pride and joy. The Canon actually took such unusually bad photos that I had to stop, wait a second and think to myself "what in the world is wrong with this lens that is supposed to be amazing?". I wasn't even prepared to think that the Canon 24-70mm II took bad photos but they were so bad, I couldn't avoid noticing the problem, despite already making up my mind that I liked it. And the Tamron schooled it so badly that I actually preferred it after I had used a label maker to label it "For emergency low light use only".

Hope that helps, from somebody who's chose between the two regardless of price.

To my eye the bokeh in these 3 pictures looks best in the 24-105, followed by the canon 24-70 and the tamron last. Very strange patterns in the highlights. I cannot compare the tamron 24-70, but I do own both other lenses; all I can say is that the contrast and color in the canon 24-70 are way more attractive compared to the 24-105. The images just have more "pop". I cannot share your conclusion that the 24-70 ii is a bad lens. I believe it is a great lens.

Imagine going back in time to the late 1800's / early 1900's.  Few people traveled widely.  Literacy wasn't universal.  How would you describe a car to someone who hasn't seen one?  An aircraft?  The pyramids?  The Statue of Liberty?  A pineapple?  A rhinoceros?  And then along comes photography and the ability to publish images in newspapers and magazines of all the amazing things in the world.  Wow!  What an eye opener it must have been. 

The term "a picture's worth a thousand words" started to evolve around 1900.  Interestingly, a quick search suggests that the first noted usage of the exact phrase was in the title of a 1918 advertisement for "The San Antonio Light's Pictorial Magazine of the War".  As with all wars, I suspect that the returning servicemen struggled to describe the horrors of trench warfare.  How can you adequately describe that?  And many just wanted to forget.  Photographs could help loved ones understand more.

I agree with helpful, above.  These days, the question shouldn't be "who's words?", but simply, which photographs are worth a thousand words?  In the early days days, photography was important.  But now, the world is saturated with photographs.  Our challenge as photographers is to take photos that people care enough about that they will take the time to look closely at the photo, appreciate the uniqueness/beauty/importance of the image, and have a better life because of it.  I know I want to take photos that are worth a thousand words.

 +1 well said

Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 01, 2014, 01:28:35 PM »
I chose the Canon; hardly considered the Tamron after comparing on-line reviews (before that the 24-105 used to be my walkaround lens). No regrets; sharpness is so mch better that the 24-105.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 26, 2014, 03:43:27 PM »
Wow Mick, these are truly great!

Where did you shoot these and how did you manage to get so close? When I try to photograph a bird of prey, they always fly away before I am even within a few 100 meters.

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 15, 2014, 08:47:57 PM »
the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.

lina par telemaq76, sur Flickr

Great shot! Welcome to CR.

Lenses / Re: New 35mm f2 IS - Potential mount issue?
« on: January 14, 2014, 09:49:48 PM »
I have the same experience of the 40mm being tighter than other lenses. I thought is was just perception given the small size and weight of that lens.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16