February 27, 2015, 06:01:31 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 38
Canon General / Re: The Canon EOS 7D & EF 400 f/2.8L IS II Break a Record
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:31:12 PM »
There is a crappy video of this rig in action on this page: http://www.dr-clauss.de/de/blog-3/current/item/243-london-320

Lenses / Re: Photozone has released their review of the Sigma 35 1.4...
« on: February 21, 2013, 03:04:20 PM »
Have you tried AF speed and accuracy against the 35 L?

The AF speed and accuracy are as good as anything Canon offers. Sigma has finally nailed AF with Canon.
I would argue this is a better lens than 35L in every way but weather sealing. Some would favor the OOF rendering of the Canon over the razor sharpness of the Sigma. To each their own. No reason for a current 35L owner to switch though.

EOS Bodies / Re: 2013 Predictions for Canon EOS Products
« on: February 19, 2013, 06:16:30 PM »
The 3D will have eye-controlled focus and a blink-activated shutter. You heard it here first.   :P

You joke, but I like the eye controlled focus of my Elan 7e. I don't know if the technology is accurate enough to select and individual AF point in a 61pt grid, but if it's close it would be awesome.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 09:48:49 AM »

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 09:40:54 AM »
Even Sony's 24mp APS-C sensor has too much noise. Do we really believe for a second that Canon is going to come out with a sensor that beats theirs? I'm not down on Canon...I LOVE my 5D Mk III, I just feel like people in this thread are getting their hopes up A LOT.

Heptagon, I sold my 24-105 in favor of the Tamron last month. You don't say which body you will use it on, but I had to AFMA the Tamron on my Mk3 where-as the 24-105 was spot on out of the box.

And this is a Canon rumour because..............?

Because it's B&H selling 'em maybe.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mark iii noise at 1600
« on: February 12, 2013, 04:49:14 PM »
The dog picture has been resized down to 900px wide. You really aren't going to see any noise in an image resized that small anyway.

Lenses / Re: EF 85mm f1.2 ii - Dust Issues?
« on: February 12, 2013, 04:44:52 PM »
I had one and it got a noticeable amount of dust inside the rear element after use outside on a windy day. The gap is quite large between the lens body and and the barrel containing the front element. This barrel is what moves in and out when you focus. I was able to clean the rear element* and decided to sell it in favor of the Sigma. I don't regret this decision at all. The Sigma was roughly half the cost, had much better AF, and with a UV filter on the focusing barrel is contained.

*the rear element is mounted to the lens mount, so removing the four screws holding the lens mount in place will allow you to pivot it out where you can blow off the dust. I did this while wearing a dust mask and un-powdered latex gloves to avoid adding anything worse to the situation. It came out looking like new, but the whole process made me quite nervous.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d Mark iii noise at 1600
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:54:30 PM »
I haven't read through this whole thread, so I don't know what was previously discussed, but I've found the default lightroom sharpening to be too agressive... accentuating high-iso noise. Also, under Camera Calibration:Profile, try Camera Faithful or Camera Neutral...it may give you a better rendering than Adobe Standard depending on what you are going for. Let me know if any of that helps you out. I'm genuinely curious.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: jpg vs. RAW...
« on: February 07, 2013, 02:58:07 PM »
Is there a rule of thumb about how many frames per second you want to be shooting?

There are two formulas I use depending on the situation. If you know you want to speed up reality 10x it means you will need 1/10 the number of frames per second. If your final video is 24fps, this means you need to capture 2.4 frames per second. My intervalometer only goes down to 1fps, which means the least amount I can speed up reality is 24x, assuming 24fps playback.

On the other hand, if you know that you want to make a 30 second clip that plays at 24fps,  you know you will need 30*24 or 720 total frames. If you know that you want to capture 1 hour of reality (3600 seconds), you're interval would be 3600 seconds/720 frames or 5 seconds between frames(interval).

Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!
« on: February 07, 2013, 10:00:57 AM »
the 400 f2.8 IS is like 5,4 KG?

Yes, it would be trading weight for cost and focal length. Adding a 1.4 extender would get him a 560mm f/4. I agree that before he spends that kind of money, he should buy the 100-400 or 400 5.6 and only consider going bigger if those lenses truly don't meet his needs.

Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!
« on: February 07, 2013, 09:47:57 AM »
Don't overlook the 400mm 2.8 L IS as a much cheaper alternative.

I feel like they wouldn't have presented it to a scientific journal if their claims weren't accurate.

I'm always very excited to read about these kinds of breakthroughs.

Street & City / Re: Your best street shots of any kind.
« on: January 22, 2013, 04:40:57 PM »

a beggar by bchernicoff, on Flickr

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 38