February 27, 2015, 10:48:50 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 - pedro

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 55
331
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: March 02, 2013, 04:26:49 AM »
If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35  8)
Canon does not publish patents.  They submit a application to the patent office, and the patent office approves and publishes it about 2 years later.  As often as not, a lens is released before the patent is published.  About 1 in 500 patents or less results is a new product release.

Thank you for your explanation. So, no one knows what will happen. They're always good for a surprise.

332
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: March 01, 2013, 04:05:10 PM »
The 16-35II is my most used lens by a lot, I too would add to the ranks to be much happier with a 16-35III than a 16-35IS. I don't need this lens to be much wider than it is (although 14-24 is fine). I really want it to have much better sharpness than it currently does.

Convincing words here. That's why I go 16-35 on the 5D3. Have the 10-22 with my old 30D and that was a very fine lens as the crop equivalent to it. Although it is not that fast.

333
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 12,800ISO 5DMKIII Images
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:59:21 PM »
Another one...ISO 16k

Z96A0936aBWKleinMaster by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

334
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 12,800ISO 5DMKIII Images
« on: March 01, 2013, 02:57:03 PM »
Fog. ISO 25.600. Handheld.

Z96A1230aKLEINTLDEF by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

335
Lenses / Re: 17-40mm advice please!
« on: March 01, 2013, 12:19:23 PM »
Which other lenses do you have? At the moment I am short of a WA with my 5D3 and saving up for the 16-35. On the 30D I used the 10-22 which is its equivalent on a crop body. So for the moment I am using an 28 f/2.8 if I wanna go  wider. In case you are not in a hurry to go FF, I'd wait. Sure, the wait depends on your saving scheme. I cannot throw in a lot of money per month. But even though it takes a while, itis time well used to work the learning curve with the new cam. 8)

336
EOS Bodies / Re: New DSLR at the End of March [CR2]
« on: March 01, 2013, 05:33:48 AM »
It wouldn't make sense to give the 70D the old sensor. That would mean the 70D would be stuck with obsolete technology until 2015.

I would say so. New sensor tech in the 70D can be taken as a sign for Canon's general improvement in sensor tech. And it gives us a faint idea about how FF sensors might improve. My 5D3 is a great cam. Looking at its output sometimes even above ISO 25k (getting great pics even at 51k) I guess that there's some space for IQ improvement. So whatever further improvement we'll see within the next 3 to 4 years starts now. With new sensortech in the 70D.

337
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the 70d have a new sensor?
« on: March 01, 2013, 05:15:43 AM »
Hope so, I'd like to see Canons R+D to materialize! Because if it doesn't happen in current outings, how will it in the higher priced bodies...would be a nice indication that Canon is handling certain issues discussed here.

338
Landscape / Re: 2013 Vistek Emerging Photographer
« on: March 01, 2013, 05:02:56 AM »
got my vote, man. you're by far the most creative! congrats. Cheers, Pedro.

339
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Hi =) -- Need New Camera -- Need Advice
« on: March 01, 2013, 12:53:43 AM »
Hi how is everyone ?

last week I came back from Rome without my camera... because it was Stolen from me =(
It was a 7D with 15 85 lens
Was taken right out of my hands at the "saint maria ella vitoria chaple" .
I'm kind of crippled so running and looking for the thief was no option for me.

so now... i'm scratching money for new camera, but this time I want one with Full Frame .
I love getting good shots without using flash so i was thinking about 5dmk3
I was also saving money for new lens, the 70-200 Lii 2.8 ,   but ,
I came across this video Canon 5D III x 70-200 2.8 IS II issue
what do you think ?

That's a very bad experience! I'm sorry for you and yes, pics are the main loss in such a case... BTW, there are handstraps available you can fix around your wrist...according to your preferencies. Here in Switzerland, your extended insurance on household items includes theft abroad.
On a side note: we should be able to attach a kind of a keyboard or cellphone to a DSLR and put it under password. So it would become plainly useless for any jerk who takes it out of our hands...
Concerning the new cam: I'd go for the 5D3. Coming from a 30D I am still awestruck!  8) It is such a versatile allround body! And as you are taking pictures inside Cathedrals and other dimly lighted buildings: ISO 12800 is a no brainer for things like that. Cheers, Pedro
You may crank up the ISOs even higher, if one's crazy enough as I am. See the photographs I've taken recently.

Z96A3506bTLKLEINBW by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

Shooting my Cat at ISO 51k by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

340
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: March 01, 2013, 12:28:45 AM »
I guess a next update of a 16-35 will be IS. I can see the reason behind that. As videopgraphy is an important medium today. Therefore I'll buy the current version soonish... Less $$$ for us amateurs ;D

341
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2013, 05:47:00 AM »
booah. quite some math...thanks a lot for your highly engaged post. not that I would "get" it, but I will try to figure that out. must be great to know all that about photography, so 600 rule naked and uncensored seems quite a bit "stoneagish"...hence I am not great in math, it must do  8) but I keep on reflecting your formula. saved it to my notebook to have it with me. Best regards.

342
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2013, 03:15:59 AM »
I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!!  ;D

In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds  at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...

@jrista: Did I get that wrong with rule of 600? I thought the calculation 600:lens length refers to its LONG end? So the 16-35 won't give you more than about 16 sec of exposure. Therefore I like the 5D3 which allows me to crank up the ISOs significantly compared to my trust rusty 30D. Cheers, Pedro

It simply referrs to the focal length you are using. Doesn't matter if the lens is prime or zoom...a zoom is nothing more than a lens that lets you change the selected focal length without swapping lenses. If I use the 16-35 @ 16mm, then the rule of 600 would logically apply to 16mm, not 35mm.

@jrista: oh, didn't know that then. great! thanks for the explanation. then I already have my (at least) 16-24 once I purchase the lens. and that's plenty compared to a phantom lens that might surely be sold at twice the price of the 16-35 should it ever reach the shelves...glad to learn this...that gives me at least 35 sec at the wide end then...wow. 8) So taking a picture at let's say ISO 3200 or even 6400 means capturing way more light than at ISO 800 on a 30D...!!!

343
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2013, 02:18:56 AM »
I would absolutely LOVE a 12-24 f/2.8 L for wide-field astrophotography! Imagine the length of exposures you could get, or at lower ISOs, with a 12mm f/2.8 lens! Ooooh, the bliss! I'd spend the money for it, too...12mm f/2.8 astrophotography...man I'm DROOLIN!!  ;D

In terms of exposure time, here is what I figure. Currently, with my 16-35 f/2.8 L, I usually get about 30 seconds  at 16mm out of it, at ISO 800 - 1600, for a decent "printable" shot (i.e. a shot that could be printed at native size...13x19 for the 7D...without particularly noticeable startrailing. Rule of 600 would indicate 38 seconds, so I shorten that a bit for printability). For a web-sized shot, I can usually expose for about 40-45 seconds, and often use a higher ISO. With the 12-24 f/2.8 L, I figure I could get 45-50 seconds out of it for printables, and maybe as much as 65-75 seconds for web-sized shots! And that is nothing to say of the wider field of view, which would be nice at times...

@jrista: Did I get that wrong with rule of 600? I thought the calculation 600:lens length refers to its LONG end? So the 16-35 won't give you more than about 16 sec of exposure. Therefore I like the 5D3 which allows me to crank up the ISOs significantly compared to my trust rusty 30D. Cheers, Pedro

344
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2013, 02:08:36 PM »
If Canon publish a patent, how much time does it take till anouncement? Generally speaking...Not my lens at the moment...Instead of hunting the "phantom" I will go 16-35  8)

345
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 12,800ISO 5DMKIII Images
« on: February 27, 2013, 02:01:40 PM »
Tom you should shoot above 3200 more often as your just barely scratching the surface with the 5diii at 3200. For me 12,800 is very useful and even 25k in a pinch and not printing terribly large.

well done tomscott! great photographs.

@robbymack: well said: that's how things look at ISO 102k  8) Cheers to you, Pedro


Z96A3506bTLKLEINBW by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 55