March 03, 2015, 02:39:56 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 - Hesbehindyou

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Lenses / Re: which telephoto for travel?
« on: February 21, 2015, 07:08:02 AM »
So, the question is whether any of you would recommend a different travel telephoto option?  In particular, I'm thinking about the possibility of switching out my 70-200 4L IS for a 135L.  Good idea or bad idea?

Bad idea, simply horrible. For someone that values portraits the 70-200 f4 is the ideal travel lens. A photographer with more general interests may wish to swap the larger aperture for increased focal length and get a 70-300 f4.x-f5.6.

A travel telephoto should be relatively lightweight, compact and flexible. The 135L scores for the first two but fails at being flexible whereas the 70-200 f4 IS suceeds:

  • You cannot control the background i.e. with subject the same size, 70mm will include more of the beautiful vista behind than 135mm.
  • You still cannot control the background i.e. with subject the same size, 200mm will cut out the distracting, cluttered or ugly part of the background that 135mm forces you to include.
  • 200mm at f4 gives you a sufficiently shallow depth of field that not having 135mm at f2 will likely not be an issue.
  • IS gives you low light capability and sufficient depth of field to get the subject/s in focus. The f2 aperture at 135mm means that even if you can get the subject in the frame you may not be able to get a deep enough depth of field.

Don't kid yourself about zooming with your feet; you'll be time limited with little control over backgrounds, angles and other gawping tourists and wanting to catch spontaneous shots so will have little time to relocate. The 135 is a general purpose telephoto prime but it makes for a very limiting general purpose travel telephoto.

EOS Bodies / Re: Future Canon DSLR Strategy for More Focused Products?
« on: February 05, 2015, 10:23:12 AM »
Are the day of a Canon DSLR that can do a little bit of everything numbered?

No, we'll still see bodies that can do a lot of everything.

It’s suggested at Northlight that the “splitting” of camera lines will be the future of Canon’s DSLR strategy. Each camera model will have a specific customer in mind. As we can see, the 5D line is being split 2 ways (3 if you count the “R” model), can we expect the same with 1D line, or a DSLR that is focused on video first

I thought we already had that in the 1D line?

The reason for a specialism/split is that Canon can't make a 'best of breed' if it contains compromises. Want a high-ISO, high FPS, high dynamic range, high resolution camera? You'll only be able to buy those in cloud cuckoo land.

EOS Bodies / Re: Buying second hand, avoid low shutter count.
« on: January 22, 2015, 04:43:26 PM »
This is a badly flawed study, since you claim to be a engineer, you should recognize that.

Oooh, that comes across as quite catty, especially when you say "claim to be".
There is no testing, just info from random people...

Random would be great but these people are not random!

...with failed shutters

The vast majority had working shutters.

a data point of 1 or 2 is less than useful.

There were over a thousand data points.

The major, overwhelming, flaw in this study is that it uses a self-selecting sample, can't believe you missed that!

To the OP: Hadn't given it much thought before, always assuming the lower the shutter count the better, but finding where the bathtub curve 'bottoms out' makes great sense. Thanks for the analysis, however flawed the source data. Pity you had Mr Negative try to kill the thread before it started :-/

Easy decision - unless the subject will pose for you, any reason to go for the 50 is completely outweighed by the slow focusing.

PowerShot Cameras / User error
« on: January 03, 2015, 10:53:08 AM »
This thread is useless without pictures.[/color][/size]

Post some at full size (links are probably best) and we'll have a look at the settings & images then give you some informed comment.

I'd leave it there but you go on to say:

This may of course be down to me not yet being familiar with getting the best from the camera and its settings, but I'm not overly convinced.
Can anyone enlighten me as to the optimum settings for image quality please, if there are any?

... which makes me think it's user error (hurray, this can be fixed!). Best image quality for any camera is something like aperture down a stop or two from max and base ISO... assuming you needn't worry about shutter speed (camera on tripod with remote release/timer so no camera shake and subject totally still so no motion blur).

Of course it might be something simple like viewing pictures zoomed into at 100% and comparing them to photos at a much lower resolution, also at 100%... we just won't know until you post some pictures :-)

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 or Sigma 24-105?
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:13:50 PM »
Easy choice: 24-105.  Why?

Landscapes don't need f2.8 so you'd only be using it for portraits. With portraits you really want access to longer than 70mm on full frame (to give you that extra compression when shooting people with big noses). It's also useful for cutting distracting backgrounds out of the shot. As another poster pointed out 105 at f4 will look pretty similar to 70 at f2.8 so don't worry about the difference in background blur.

Second, the weather seal/ rubber gasket towards the mount end doesn't make contact with the camera.  I don't see what purpose it serves if it doesn't.  Is it supposed to?


The only thought I've had so far is to see if perhaps Best Buy will allow me to take a few snaps with their floor model of the lens, and then duplicating those shots with my copy.  Although I have no idea if they'd allow me to do that, especially if they know I already own that model!

Return it to Best Buy for a refund then buy another copy from them. If you were in the UK I'd say DO NOT SEND IT BACK TO CANON as if you're unhappy with any repairs Canon make you can't later on demand a refund or replacement. US consumer laws may be different.

Refund then buy another copy = full rights if the new copy has a problem.
Repair of lens = no rights other than the guarantee if it still has a problem/different problem (and you'll be the one paying for postage and being without a lens as it travels back and forth to be repaired).

Both Canon and Best Buy are rich, so play it safe and let them carry the cost and risk of repairs, however slight.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 45x Zoom for Waterproof Camera
« on: July 21, 2014, 07:27:14 AM »
I'm buying an Olympus Tough TG-3, as the D30 was a total dissapointment.

Surely creating a naff product doesn't cost much less than creating a good (not great, but good) product?

I'm guessing a bean counter decided they should save a few bucks by using an existing lens to keep costs down and get rid of excess stock (all their point & shoots seemed to start at 28mm a few years ago, then they moved to 24mm, so it was disappointing when the 'new' D30 didn't get the same treatment).  I can see no other reason for an underwater camera to have such a slow lens other than interfering bean counters - one would normally spec a fast lens in this category.

I too didn't buy one because of the lens (spent the money on beer and women instead).  Better camera phones (water resistance & IQ & handling & responsiveness) mean I'm probably not likely to buy a point n shoot in this category at all now. Instead I'm looking at Go-Pro type cameras (surprised Canon didn't target that segment too).

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 45x Zoom for Waterproof Camera
« on: July 20, 2014, 04:02:33 AM »
Their current waterproof compact is a mediocre compromise

Canon D30 - 28-140mm f/3.9 – f/4.8
Pentax WG4 (and WG3) - 25-100mm f/2-4.9

who wants f/3.9 – f/4.8 underwater, camping at dusk or in the dimly lit pub?

Hopefully Canon will introduce two cameras, one with a fast lens (compromise being small optical zoom range) and a superzoom (compromise being the slow lens).

Canon General / Re: Dragonfly, Powered by Canon Lenses
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:28:16 AM »
images obtained using even the largest, most advanced telescopes today contain scattered light that may be hiding this faint structure [...] Dragonfly is designed to reveal the faint structure by greatly reducing scattered light and internal reflections within its optics. It achieves this using ten, commercially available Canon 400mm lenses with unprecedented nano-fabricated coatings with sub-wavelength structure on optical glasses.


Is this using commercially available lenses with non-commercially available coatings?

Abstract / Re: best missed shots
« on: July 10, 2014, 06:17:13 PM »
The wife was kind enough to book a holiday cottage just north of Machynlleth, of Mach loop fame.  Spent an  afternoon sitting with camera next to me waiting for the jets but missed 'em every time thanks to getting a bite to eat from the fridge/popping to the loo/playing with the baby. Two of these flew over and, thanks to their slower speed, got this from the garden. Shutter speed too high (set for jets) so props are frozen - a cardinal sin (tut tut)

These chaps were on a curtain right by my head. Transferred them to a desk but in my excitement left my 1000D on a high ISO... ruined! - I could have printed these huge and had 'em hanging on my wall :-)

3-8 shots at varying focus + adobe automatic align and blend ... Would love thoughts/comments. No flash was used, just natural light.

It doesn't look stacked - would be good to see one of the frames so we can see the depth of field you were working with.

Couple I took recently - I bought a licence for Zerene Stacker as it does wonders with spider legs and is super-quick:

Two (I think) shots taken hand held in a burst with external flash, moving the camera towards the subject. You can see that I 1) needed more shots as the edge of the abdomen is blurry and 2) did badly with the lighting - the head is too dark (and this is lightened in post). If I could do it again I'd have held the flash so the head wasn't in shadow.

These two were swinging about next to the TV so I grabbed a few shots (hand held with external flash) and combined 3 in Zerene Stacker.  Woodlouse was already very dead but the spider was nice enough to stay still.  I've never worked out how to shoot these spiders from a flattering angle - anyone managed it?

EOS Bodies / Re: The Always Hidden Camera at the World Cup
« on: July 04, 2014, 02:39:11 PM »
I don't like to shoot with rain covers unless I absolutely have to. They are bulky and get in my way. Which makes me wonder, why so many camera's at the World Cup are covered. I have seen several, not just the one in the photo. I could understand, if it was raining, but from what I can tell it hasn't rained or even sprinkled at any game that I have watched.

I agree that there are probably better ways to conceal a prototype, so why else would someone put up with the inconvenience of a cover, in conditions that don't seem to warrant one?

- Rain is not always obvious - you have probably watched a few matches where it's been raining.
- A rain cover may be doubling as a heat shade - I've watched a few matches where most of the crowd had vacated areas of the stadium that were in the sun. A black camera might heat up to levels that caused technical problems or perhaps just made it uncomfortable to use.

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon Pixma Pro-100 $34 at Adorama
« on: June 28, 2014, 03:27:39 PM »
Reading the fine print on the rebate, is this a no go for Canadians???

No-go for Canadians & UKians :-(

From the 'Terms of Offer' on the rebate form at it says:

"Offer good in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico"

Photography Technique / Re: photographing motorsport particularly F1
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:13:02 PM »
I have found that I want my body in its most comfortable resting position at the end of the pan. Then twist your body, with your feed stationary, to where you expect the pan to begin, wait for the car to enter the viewfinder and unwind your body while following the car. If you're most comfortable at the start of the pan, you'll tend to lag behind the car.

My technique is to sit/stand facing 35-45-ish degrees to the point where I'll take the shot. My aim goes off target a little as I go over 45-ish degrees, but by then the subject has been snapped. This is the opposite to Bob's, so I'll change it around and see if his way suits me.

I wanted the car to be directly perpendicular to me or with just a little of the front showing, so timing was extremely tight.

Yeah, the amount of missed shots due to timing :-)  I'm trying to fill the frame with my subjects now which makes things harder as they're RC powerboats (and fast ones at that) and they skip all over the place with slight changes of speed whenever they catch on a ripple (or 'wave' to these models  ;) ). I'm gagging for a large sensor >10 fps camera with no lag in the viewfinder too.

Re shutter speed: 1/200 is fairly conservative. It'll likely give you the blurred background and plenty of keepers but I'd go real s-l-o-w and trade keepers for really blurred backgrounds - it'll give you fewer keepers but they'll have wow factor.  The nature of formula 1 means you'll get plenty of opportunity to take many shots of each car. If it's your first time I'd suggest mixing it up:

- Start out with 1/200 and pixel peep to check you've nailed 'em.
- Once you've nailed a car, reduce shutter speed to see how low you can go.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7