November 26, 2014, 10:11:57 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 - Stu_bert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
Also just installed on my laptop and pleased the current version supports 1DX :)

Thank you Mt Spokane.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 16, 2014, 06:09:51 AM »
Thanks for posting  :)

3
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 09, 2014, 06:55:36 AM »
If Canon allow extenders on this and not on the 70-300 L that will be interesting. I think, but hope I am wrong, that Canon may limit teleconverters to avoid encroaching too much on the 200-400. But as others have said, I also will think about a "trade in" against my 70-300 if it matches it optically, unless the Sigma provides comparable in the same range, leaving the 400-600 as a "bonus"

Good that Canon have finally announced it - but a little bizarre they didn't announce it with the 7d mk ii - agree it looks like a great pairing...

4
Seemed a reasonably fair assessment given she uses Canon kit and in her job. A couple of comments are clearly job specific but I think Canon would be happy with her review (given they want pros to use 1dx), and amateurs in the same "shooting category" as the reviewer would be encouraged by her comments...

5
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 04:43:09 PM »

LOL, does he *make* you read this forum? Does he force you to respond to every comment he makes? And if he is making so many people's live a misery then I worry for those people. This site exists based on us coming here, griping, guessing, waxing lyrical, discussing, sharing, informing. I think you need to read your first sentence - this forum is indeed a compromise and if the balance is not to your liking, seek alternative forums or scroll past the postings you don't like..... But please let's avoid the personal stuff...

No.

No, and I don't.

Sure, take the forum for what it is, or make it what it is. Personally I believe the tone has been lowered immeasurably by the constant hijacking, lengthy repetitive posts with bad manners, bad diction, and lots of shouting from the DRoners.

I am not anti jrista nor, at it's core, his point, despite his loathsome cries of persecution I have tried to engage with him seriously in several threads specifically about DR. I am anti the over the top way he broadcasts his opinion, I am anti the shouting and inflammatory way he goes about sharing that opinion, I am against his inconsistency, his rewriting history, his constant hijacking, and his overwhelmingly self righteous belief that anybody that doesn't agree with him is either uneducated, delusional or deluded. I have huge differences of opinion with him on what he considers acceptable IQ, which is funny because it appears my standards are actually higher than his. He strikes me as a really smart guy who over thinks a lot of stuff and gets very committed to a solution he thinks is right whilst being resistant to adjustments to that solution when it is shown to not be quite right or that clearly make it better, easier, faster or more useful.

I have many faults too, I respect jristas opinion at its core, I will happily take more DR when it gets here, and I get as over enthusiastic about rebuttals as he does about his opinion on occasions.

I wish the mods, who do a hell of a good job, would ease back on my culling and warnings a little and increase those on jrista to contain the DR "issue" within a small series of threads truthfully devoted to it, not any and every thread that offers the slightest tangential attachment to it.

I have to admit I drop in and out of this site, especially the forums. There is a whole bunch of good info I have gained from the people here, so I still come back.

But my personal advice, re individuals who just get to you is just "walk away" - whether that is permanent, or just from that thread. Maybe that reflects more on me than you both, I don't know. I enjoy people passionately discussing topics, even if they disagree in the right way. When it stops being nice, then I just get bored....

The Mods are there to hopefully stop the personal comments. If people want to bang on about the same topic, then the rest of the forum members will chose what they want to do regarding those individuals. I dont think the mods should do that.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 03:47:54 PM »
...
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

...
And this:
...
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
...
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20990.msg448151#msg448151

yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....

Then he needs to come to terms with the unavoidable fact that life is a series of compromises, and always will be. He can use a Canon with native Canon lenses, he can use a Canon with third party lenses, he can use Canon lenses on third party bodies, he can use third party lenses on third party bodies, it isn't like he is stuck for choice, he just wants what isn't currently available and rather than acknowledge that and take the best option for him, he wants to make all our lives a misery.

<snip>

LOL, does he *make* you read this forum? Does he force you to respond to every comment he makes? And if he is making so many people's live a misery then I worry for those people. This site exists based on us coming here, griping, guessing, waxing lyrical, discussing, sharing, informing. I think you need to read your first sentence - this forum is indeed a compromise and if the balance is not to your liking, seek alternative forums or scroll past the postings you don't like..... But please let's avoid the personal stuff...

7
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera to Come in Two Variants? [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2014, 02:45:09 PM »
...
I'd jump ship if I could take my lenses with me. It's really difficult when you have some $18,000 invested in lenses that can only be used on Canon equipment. That's also a critical source of frustration for me. I really want better IQ for my landscape photography...and I'd also love some fast UWA lenses that perform as well as the Nikon 14-24mm (the 16-35/4 might be an answer to that, although I do like the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 L II).

I often feel I'm STUCK with Canon because of my lens investment. To really get the best of the alternatives that exist right now, adding the D810 and a couple UWA lenses like the 14-24 is an extremely costly endeavor as well...nearly $6000 with just the one lens, over if you get any other lenses. The A7r (or it's successor, which will hopefully be released early 2015 and bring some much needed improvements for AF and other features with it) is a very viable middle-ground option, and I'm very thankful it exists.

You don't need a UWA lens for landscape photography, in fact relatively recently I could have very handily used a 500mm or 600mm zoom lens ...

I've shot landscapes with telephoto lenses before. It's possible, and can be used to good effect. For example, this:

...
And this:
...
are telephoto panoramas, created with my 100-400mm lens (from a very great distance).

However, for the kind of compositions I really like, sweeping scenes with close, highly detailed foreground objects back to distant mountain scapes or something like that, UWA is the only option. You simply cannot do that with a 500mm or 600mm lens. The ultra wide field of view is what I want, because it lets me do things like this:
...
I could even use a couple mm wider FoV than the 16-35mm. The beauty of UWA is you can get within a mere foot of your key foreground subject, and still bring in a massively expansive landscape behind it. And still have the whole thing pretty sharp (or, if your using a T/S lens, you can have the entire thing super sharp throughout the entire field.) That's a unique capability.

Let me give you a quick critique. What are those two wide angle shots about? The mountain and its reflect or what's under the water? There are two completely different parts of that image and I'm not sure that joining them makes it better. For example, if you crop all of the bottom under water bit off the first, how does it look? Stronger image. What does the rock add to the image? If you cropped it out, would it be better or worse? Wide angle for landscape is hugely over hyped. Wide angle shooting people at events where you can't get far away from people without risk of disturbance is another matter.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20990.msg448151#msg448151

yes but if Jrista wants a zoom UWA wider than 16mm and allows him to take shots of what he likes, in a way that he likes, isn't that ok? I don't believe he's saying *all* his landscapes would be this way, just he would like that option....

8
PowerShot / Re: Official: Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 15, 2014, 04:19:06 PM »
I wish they'd use a DPAF sensor in this little cameras. The little cameras frequently have focusing issues, especially for video.
Video performance will be the deciding factor for me on this one. The Sony RX100 mkIII apparently nails video

If it's a sony sensor, then they'd need to license DPAF from Canon :(

I would expect the AF from Canon to be as good as the Sony.

9
WEX price £1599, I was expecting it to be £1799 in line with the dollar price  :o now where's me piggy bank

Wow, I was going to say just the opposite. Dollar price is roughly £1125-£1150. So you are clearly happier than I paying almost 40% more than our US friends. Yikes...

10
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

A fully grown bald eagle is 1 m long. The size of the image on the sensor for a 300mm lens 75 m away is 4 mm. corresponding to 930 pixels on the 7D or 640 on the 5DIII. 300mm is too short for a decent image. I would use the 300 mm + 2xTC on either camera as 1860 px on the 7D or 1280 on the 5DIII would give an excellent image. You didn't have the 2xTC in your bag, I know but that is bad planning.

Alan - out of curiosity, what's the maths behind subject size, lens, distance, size on sensor please? I've always wanted to be able to calculate this.

Is it focal length/(distance/subject size) = size on sensor?

Thanks in advance.

11
Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:25:38 AM »
I hope that they do the same in the UK!

I'd assumed this was from Japan, although local market changes are possible. Like you, hope it is EU wide :)

12
Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:21:52 AM »
Nice!  Glad I held off on ordering the TS-E 17mm, list will be $100 less than the rebate price, street price likely even better. 

$500 drop on the 24-70mm f/4L IS.  More sensible price now, ouch for those that bought it at higher prices.
You ready for that 300mm? If my 400mm wasn't that good,  I can see 300 & 600mm combo  ;)

That's what I have  ;D. Agonized for ages over the 600mm vs 200-400mm, but I'm hoping the 100-400mk II will fill that "gap"....

13
Lenses / Re: Permanent price drops
« on: August 31, 2014, 05:19:55 AM »
Neuro, interested to hear why you're looking at the TS-E 17mm.  I've been researching the differences between the two lenses lately and in some other threads it sounded like you were pretty happy with the TS-E 24mm.

I'm very happy with my TS-E 24mm...except when I need a wider focal length.  I would be using them both, depending on the focal length needed.

Other than focal length, the 24 is slightly sharper (the 17 is among the very sharpest ultrawide lenses, though).  The 24 can tilt a little more than the 17.  One of the biggest differences is the 24 can take front filters and the 17 cannot.  Since my main TS use is architecture, I rely on a 10-stop ND to 'blur out' people from the scene, so that's one factor that kept me from getting the 17.  Now, there's the Wonderpana system as a 10-stop solution for the 17...not cheap, but I need that option.

One other thing to keep in mind is that the TS-E lenses take the Canon extenders, the 1.4xIII behind the 17 gets you to 24mm with very good IQ.

CS5 / CS6 extended versions have the ability to stack shots and "remove" differences between frames ie people. Also useful for reducing noise. Martin Evening did an article on it ages ago. Take 5-6 shots and then stack the, Believe CC has this functionality as standard. Might be a cheaper option...

14
very nice, thanks for sharing....

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 09:30:51 PM »
Hi all
I m mainly wildlife photographer.
www.500px.com/Vgramatikov

I have one different opinion about sport crop sensor cameras.
It is indeed very strange a sports FF camera to have 16 and 18 mp but crop sensors to have 20/24mp.
Sounds quite misunderstanding...

For most wildlife and sport users shooting sport and widlife with 20/24mp sensor crop camera means simply a lot of post processing. Nothing more...yeah it is great for landscapes and so one. But for natural light sport fast moving or wildlife needs this is totally no sense. We all need not more than 16mp here with bigger buffer and better ISO/DR performance.  Cause when we shoot at 1600-3200 iso it is huge post to get good 10-12 final image.  But this is impossible nowadays.

So... most important is frame rate and AF. So 7d2 will give us both. Bigger buffer ! I`m sure with dial 6 processors it will be done! Better body than 70d and similar to 5d3 done! So there is one thing missing. The sensor. Nobody wants to create a brand new sensor for specific users base on crop sensor camera. They have to be cheap after all... So current 20mp in 70d witch i have now (My 7d dead and i buy 70d) is enough. May be better 1600-3200 iso is required! Because with 5.6 lens like mine 400 5.6 it is very hard to make good IQ image winter time. We shoot constantly at 800-1600 iso at the edge of the shutter speeds required. So it make sense to say...ok if you want more go for 5d3 and 500/4IS :)))

So sensor is the main market level separation here. Sony sensors is not better buy much after 800-1600 iso. They are better at 100-800 iso in DR case. After 800-1600 is equal to the canon 20mp sensor. So our market do not offer better sensors for high iso shooting with crop sensors. Just we may want at least little better performance at 1600-3200 range. May be usable 3200 shots and good 1600 iso. I have a lot of great images at 1600 and 2000 iso with my 7d and my 70d. When the image is right and post is good 1600 iso is not big problem. 3200 iso depends from the scene and light source.

So think twice before you want something... :)))

Sorry for the bad english !

Nice photos, and welcome to the forum. Can I ask where you shoot your nature?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17