January 30, 2015, 03:06:51 PM

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 ... 54
331
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

332
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.

333
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...!!!

334
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

335
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)

336
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

337
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L [CR1]
« on: February 27, 2013, 11:30:06 AM »
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12985"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12985">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Going wider?<br>

</strong>We’ve spoken about the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/12/canon-lens-patents-review/" target="_blank">existence&nbsp;of an EF 14-24 f/2.8L</a>&nbsp;in the past, a lens that a lot of people want to see come to fruition.</p>
<p>We’ve been told that an EF 12-24 f/2.8L exists in prototype form and could become a product instead of the EF 14-24 f/2.8L. I can only recall <a href="ttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001VQ11U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0001VQ11U&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Sigma making such a lens for full frame</a> cameras. Going this wide would certainly put some space between the cheaper (assuming based on Canon pricing history) EF 17-40 f/4L and EF 16-35 f/2.8L II.</p>
<p>This is the first I have heard of an EF 12-24 f/2.8L, so take it with a big grain of salt. This could be a better range in an f/4 variant, as it would be great for both full frame and APS-C and would really reduce size and weight compared to a 2.8 version.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>


Price at f/4.0? Still north of 2k? Then no thanks.

338
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 7DMKII?
« on: February 26, 2013, 06:05:01 AM »
It's actually pretty simple. If you need the AF performance and fps, go for the 7D. If you need the DR and quality and want to get rid of the cropfactor, go for the 6D. If you need all of this, the 5D MkIII will be the way to go. :)

absolutely. and having the 5Diii is a great combo.

339
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 25, 2013, 05:52:05 PM »
Oh yes it does really look great...time to go LR for me. I did everything in DPP until now...That is quite a great RAW converter and denoise software as I can see.

It is a great converter, but keep in mind that a lot of it has to do with the choices I made when converting the file. The default image that comes up in LR isn't going to look much different from what the original post showed. I did about four or five things to the image in LR's "Develop" module to bring out more from the image. It didn't take me long, because I'm experienced in the program, and have a solid photography and retouching background. You'll need to play around and experiment with whatever program you use to process your images.
Oh yes it does really look great...time to go LR for me. I did everything in DPP until now...That is quite a great RAW converter and denoise software as I can see.

Oh yes it does really look great...time to go LR for me. I did everything in DPP until now...That is quite a great RAW converter and denoise software as I can see.

It is a great converter, but keep in mind that a lot of it has to do with the choices I made when converting the file. The default image that comes up in LR isn't going to look much different from what the original post showed. I did about four or five things to the image in LR's "Develop" module to bring out more from the image. It didn't take me long, because I'm experienced in the program, and have a solid photography and retouching background. You'll need to play around and experiment with whatever program you use to process your images.

Stephen, thanks for sharing your settings earlier. It is really a nice professional balance between too much processing and none at all.

@Pedro: the baseline version I posted was intentionally set to LR "zero" to show what one starts out with at this ISO. Refer/download Stephen's file for settings if you end up giving the LR4 free trial a go. I highly recommend the program.

@Stephen, Ray: Thank you so much for your replies. I will. Wanna try out what LR has in store. Saving up for a 16-35 at the time...So LR might be a next...Cheers to ya'll, Pedro

340
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 25, 2013, 11:07:45 AM »
Just uploaded the CR2 raw files to skydrive, hope this works:

The primary shot used here at 1/1000 sec:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=1F78FF9C09DCA480!108&authkey=!ADK2oOGh3O_uCXI

A slightly more exposed 1/800 sec shot taken moments apart with the same set up as the primary:
https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=1F78FF9C09DCA480!107&authkey=!AOL_-sdrd4HXRmY

Here's my work with the primary, using Adobe Lightroom. It took about five minutes:



This is what you posted:


Here's the XMP sidecar file. You can use it to make the changes and look at what I did.
http://galleries.stevemelvin.com/Primary 1-1000sec.xmp

Oh yes it does really look great...time to go LR for me. I did everything in DPP until now...That is quite a great RAW converter and denoise software as I can see.

341
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 24, 2013, 02:31:41 PM »


Anybody else who needs more than this needs a head examination more than they need a better camera....

Cheers,

b&

BIG LOL... Therefore I'll be the first to stand in line for one 8) I mean, a better camera... ;D

342
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:42:49 PM »
Here's my catshot from about a few weeks ago, in comparison to yours it was taken at ISO 51200 "only" 8)

Hi Pedro, no coincidence at all... I was actually inspired by your original cat pic and wanted to test with more stringent (loony? lol) conditions... given the detail we see in the comfortor I thought you had "low" but some morning light to provide the DR apparent.  I also wanted to push the ISO to the max. I really didn't expect to see much at all in the pitch black room with a point light source, but was pleseantly surprised, so I wanted to share.

For the record, I will never take shots like this in in the dark at 1/1000sec in real life. but I am learning a lot in the process of this experiment :)

@Ray: Wow. Thanks for this one. You did great! Dare to go the limits, it is less harmful than bungee jumping 8)

343
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 24, 2013, 01:10:58 PM »
@Stephen: I saw your pic back then and was very impressed! That added to my purchase as well, when I got my copy of a 5D3. It is an "insanely" good camera. Cheers to you, Pedro

344
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 24, 2013, 12:55:49 PM »
Hi Ray, this is great stuff. What a nice coincidence ;-) Did we post the same topic just yesterday? Great! Here's my thread. And I even opened a Group over at flickr called Insane ISOs. Whoever likes to join, you are more than welcome! http://www.flickr.com/groups/insane_isos/
Your 102.400 cleans up nice! let's go to the limit...you 102kers rock!
Cheers, Pedro

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13147.0

And here's the picture

Z96A3506bTLKLEINBW by Peter Hauri, on Flickr

Here's my catshot from about a few weeks ago, in comparison to yours it was taken at ISO 51200 "only" 8)

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

345
Reviews / Re: 5D3 Nightshot at ISO 102400
« on: February 23, 2013, 04:47:25 PM »
@bornshooter: great! I like that.
I just created a flickr group: Insane ISOs
http://www.flickr.com/groups/insane_isos/

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 54