Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 14-24 or 16-35 for Nikon D600?

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:27:40 PM »

Well, that's certainly a new angle on sports photography.

2

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:42:59 AM »

Here's our latest picture, shot with the 5D mkii and 24-105 f4.

Taken from a small mountain in the English Lake District National Park called Haystacks, looking north west, late evening.

Did someone on CR once call this lens 'garbage" ? 

3

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 16, 2013, 02:05:41 AM »

I think maybe you should own one of these lenses Justin. The pictures produced were the best from one of your review to date ! 

4

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:13:08 AM »

1Dx 85f/1.2 L II, Shot @ f/4.5 & 1/160th ISO320

Love this Lens

I seem to recall that someone stated in another thread that no pictures posted on CR come close to those found in National Geographic       What a load of b*****ks.

Another wonderfully emotive picture aml58 !  If you don't shoot for NG, why not ? They're missing out.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Review - Real World

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:07:49 AM »

More and more users keep reporting how much they enjoy and are satisfied by the 6D.

It just goes to show how an excellent camera cannot be seen beyond its specs by the spec sheet nazis who wanted to leave Canon as soon as it was announced.

+1

I seem to remember that when the 70-300L was announced there were howls of derision, but have now turned into grunts of respect.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D vs. 6D AF

« on: May 15, 2013, 02:06:54 AM »

I've had no issues with my 6D AF in real life.  On the internet, I've found that it can't even capture pyramids in focus, and forget about getting a clean shot of a bride walking down the aisle.

+1. 

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?

« on: May 14, 2013, 01:30:10 PM »

According to the manual, the M Raw uses 11M pixels, so what I should have probably asked is if this is equivalent to a full RAW file shot with an 11m camera?  I had a 5D, which was only 12M, and it still took beautiful photos, but it sounds like there is some degradation of the data to get the 20M pixel photo down to 11.  Which probably doesn't make it worth it.  Thanks for the help everyone.

To give a specific example. Until recently we used a 5D ( 12.7mp) and a 5D mkii (21mp).

The 'sRaw' on the mkii at 10mp gave significantly higher resolution than the 12.7mp camera.
Rather surprisingly it also appeared to require more processing time from the computers.

I've found an example, both at 200% 'cos at 100% on the web I'm not sure you'll see any difference. These are both originally raw shots, converted to tiff, then jpeg'd for the web. No modifications including no sharpening.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?

« on: May 14, 2013, 11:06:07 AM »

Wrong !

What's 'wrong' is Canon's explanation of M RAW.  It doesn't have 'all the advantages' of RAW because the data aren't raw. A RAW file is just that - the actual pixel luminance values with the color assignment from the CFA. The M RAW file is de-mosaiced and color interpolated (and 1/4 of the pixels are double-interpolated - their color value is interpolated from their already-interpolated neighbors).

I did actually explain, or rather try to explain why the statement in red is wrong, but I kept getting 'access denied' ! All it would accept in the end was 'wrong' 

s or m RAW still allows conversion to a 16 bit TIFF, and thereby important post processing data, a very useful feature for working photographers who may shoot over 1000 frames at an event, any number of which may require pp.

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:44:32 AM »

Good question because why using an inferior raw file?
The purpose of getting the most of a picture is lost!

Some good explanations from Canon:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_compression/file_types_raw_sraw_and_jpeg.do

Hope it helps,

Wrong !

10

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:25:34 PM »

All is not in vain 

If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance. 

Trouble is I don't intend to swim one handed whilst holding the camera up above the water, and I can't afford a 600mm lens 

What to do ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOD1imznwRY

That'll work!

 

And I never even got my feet wet ! Like it

11

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:23:24 PM »

@ sanj - if I had taken a picture of such beautiful creatures as these, but had been frustrated by the flat sky, I would have probably done something like this with it in order to produce a picture. The shot of the three animals is lovely, and deserves more.

I don't think this is 'unethical' because at the end of the day you want a picture, and you already have nearly all the pieces in place.

It's nigh on impossible to cut out from such a low res, highly jpeg'd sample, but it could have been done properly on the original. This was one of the first skys I come to, and I did it in five minutes so the balance isn't quite right, but it gives an idea.

To me, photography should be 'art' so it doesn't matter how it is achieved if the result is pleasing.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 12:55:59 PM »

All is not in vain 

If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance. 

Trouble is I don't intend to swim one handed whilst holding the camera up above the water, and I can't afford a 600mm lens 

What to do ?

13

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: May 13, 2013, 09:40:34 AM »

Landscapes are my favorite to photograph but I can never really capture the true beauty that I see with my eyes.  The view from the top of this mountain was incredible but the picture is mediocre at best.


Summit by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr

Portrait can be challenging for landscapes at the best of times. The rock in the foreground is taking up around 55% of the frame. The (rather boring) sky is taking a further 40% of the frame. The focal point is about 5%. This is not how you will have been seeing it as you admired the vista.

Under mid day white, flat light you will never record the scene photographically as you believed you actually saw it.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: SL1 or Fuji X-EX1 or Sony Nex 6?? Would like your thoughts

« on: May 13, 2013, 07:22:05 AM »

Of course, there's always the Fuji X-Pro1 with both an optical viewfinder and EVF.  Best of both worlds. 

While I'm not an EVF advocate and generally prefer an optical viewfinder, I find an EVF sometimes useful in low light because of the way the EVF can boost the image - Easier to frame and ensure focus is spot on.  When it is REALLY dark, you'll get a lot of noise, but I'm not sure is a pentamirrored, low magnification SL1 would be any better.  EVFs are also much better with infrared filters - Anyone tried focusing or framing through an OVF with an R72 filter recently?   Without removing your eye from the viewfinder, there is also instant playback of the image you've just taken, focus peaking, image magnification, and the ability to see how the photo looks before taking the photo, along with adding some extra information such as a level, grids, highlight warnings etc.  Like most things, some downsides but also some upsides.

Fair points.

The truth is there has never been so much choice. Kids in candy shops etc   

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: SL1 or Fuji X-EX1 or Sony Nex 6?? Would like your thoughts

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:25:03 AM »

NEX 6, Mirrorless is the future.

Nope.  Mirrorless is the ancient past.  Most of the early digital cameras used electronic viewfinders.  There's a reason DSLRs ate their lunch: You can't usefully use an EVF at night or in the dark.  EVFs blow out your night vision in one eye.

Having used both, I really can't imagine ever going back to the dark days of EVFs.  And by dark days, I mean dark nights, and by dark, I mean in the one eye that you've had up to the camera, and light in the other.... 

+1, and EVFs have many other drawbacks from a good OVF.

Also I have always found that people actually enjoy looking through a good optical system

I'd get the SL1 - in fact I might very well !