Messages

1

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: May 19, 2013, 02:13:52 PM »

Hi Kernuak, Try this, not the best solution, but works.

+ the Singh Ray 4' x 6' (100mm wide) fits the Lee Holder.


http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12/ad-hoc-reverse-nd-grad-filters/

Thanks, something like that has crossed my mind, but I have a bit of an aversion of stacking too many filters, although I have stacked more often lately and not seen too much of a decrease in IQ. I might gice it a go to see how it looks. The other option is the Hi-Tech reverse grad, although I'm a little loath to go back to Hi-Tehc filters,despite the good reviews for the reverse gard. They simply aren't in the same league normally and the standard grad filters are thinner.
I was a bit spoiled before, because the UK/US exchange rate was favourable, making imports much cheaper, but with Sterling being so weak atm, it adds to the cost.

It makes me miss my reverse grad and to a lesser degree the warming polariser. I really need to get myself sorted out and sell the old Singh Ray reverse grad for the Cokin system, so that I can get one to fit my Lee system.

I use both the Lee Filter Holder and the Cokin Z-Pro Filter Holder and the 4"X6" Singh Ray Reverse ND Grad fits nicely on both filter holders. The only issue is that the Singh-Ray Cokin Z-Pro sprocket mount LB warming polarizer is loose when mounted on the Lee Filter holder.

Unfortunately, it is the Cokin P (85mm) sized Singh-Ray reverse grad that I have. Lee do, do an adaptor, but it is made from card and seems to involve sticking it onto the filter (sort of damages the resale value ).

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Canon 5D Mark III

« on: May 19, 2013, 01:48:31 PM »

Congratulations and welcome to CR! That having been said, look forward to you posting pictures!

BTW, I went from 300D to 5D3 and so I understand your delight! One word of caution - the DOF is very different. It takes a while to fully comprehend that... Also don't hesitate to push the ISO. It is not grainy at 800 I had a hard stop at 400 ISO. With the 5D3 even 12800 and 25600 ISO can be workable!

Enjoy!

One more thing - if you think the images are soft even when you take a stationary subject from a tripod, try live view focus. If that is sharp and the normal AF is soft, you need to micro-adjust the AF for your lens.

Define very different.  I heard through the grapevine that full frame cameras are a 1/2 stop shallower in depth of field than crop sensors at the same aperture an focal length.  Is the 1/2 stop that substantial of a change? 

I have enough to get an mkiii... but I don't want to be impatient and buy one only to find that I could have saved an extra $200 in a month.  It's a quandary.

You have to be very careful when talking about DoF differences between crop and full frame. DoF is actually greater with larger sensors, so the 5D MkIII actually has more DoF than the 350D etc. However, when you start talking about the same field of view, then you will have less DoF on fulll frame, because you either have to stand closer or use a longer lens to get the same field of view. For me though, I took the step to full frame for landscapes and the differences in DoF never came into play, for the simple reason, I "see" differently when using full frame and simply frame differently. Of course, when it comes to wildlife and portraits, it would be a different story, as you probably would be looking for similar framing. In addition to that though, the effects of diffraction are less noticeable on full frame, because of the larger pixels and how they interact with physical characteristics introduced by lenses, so you are able to use narrower apertures with less softening due to diffraction. I believe the generally accepted differences in DoF when using the same field of view is around 1 stop, which is made up for (and probably more so, based on my anecdotal experience, not measured scientifically) by the differences in the diffraction limited aperture between full frame and crop sensors.

3

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:59:40 PM »

My most recent sunset shot. 

Visual Symphony
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon TS-E24mm f/3.5L II ı Lee 1.2 ND Filter ı Singh Ray 0.9 Reverse ND Grad Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 15s ı f/11 ı ISO 100

Visual Symphony by shutterwideshut on Flickr

It makes me miss my reverse grad and to a lesser degree the warming polariser. I really need to get myself sorted out and sell the old Singh Ray reverse grad for the Cokin system, so that I can get one to fit my Lee system.

4

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:43:19 PM »

I don't have the 100L, but I do have the 100 non-L macro and the 135, so it is sort of the same principle. The difference is, I do shoot macros a fair bit, I also like narrow depth of field, so I never considered getting rid of either of them when I got my 70-200 MkII a couple of months ago. The reason I got it, was artly due to travelling, as it allowed me to travel with less lenses. On thursday, I went out with a friend and her twins and took along the 70-200 to use, but guess which lens I also took, in case I got the opportunity for selective focus? Yep, the 135L. As it happened, that sort of shot isn't really possible for toddlers when they are running about and I didn't even try to use it, but I felt better knowing it was in there. For more standard portraits, particularly actions shots, the 70-200 is probably the one to go for and the 135 won't really be needed, but if you want more artistry, then the 135 is the one to pick up. If you do a mixture (which from some of your work you do), then both will be handy. Also, the 135 gets close to true macro if you use the full Kenko set of extension tubes, so you still have close-up capabilities, even with the Canon set or a single tube, allowing you to dispense with the 100L.

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:09:14 AM »

I haven't used f/8 yet on my 5D MK III coz in order to to use f/8 to AF I first need to buy a tele-convertor ... its funny that for almost a year, there been so many people who were cribbing about not having f/8 AF function on 5D MK III, but hardly anyone is talking about what it is like having f/8 capability, now that it is available. Hope this thread has more entries of people who have tried out the f/8 AF.

Interesting observations Either everyone is busy taking photos with f/8 lenses and have no time to write anything on the forum. Or it was just gear craving. Let's wait and see...

When I went to a 5D MkIII CPS event at Focus on Imaging last year a couple of days after its release, someone asked the rep the question about lack of f/8 focus. The rep responded with a question "how often do you use it and is the IQ good enough (on the previous 1D series). The person asking the question admitted that it was rarely and the IQ wasn't really as good, so that seems to bear out RAKAMRAK's observation.

6

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:04:11 AM »

I hate being cynical, but he has had the lens for 6 months and no doubt would like Canon's next toy for 6 months or so too. That does not tend to happen when one is too critical, or sometimes even negative towards the toys they offer.

Still, an interesting read, and I look forward to reading more from others.

I agree, I believe Andy may have been a little disingenuous

Having met with Andy a few times, been on a couple of his workshops, and heard him be derogatory about other kit - he's pretty much as straight as they come - so I'd be surprised if he was affected by the Canon marketing machine - he may have kept quiet had he hated the lens but I don't believe, based on personal experience of him, that he'd mislead us all. The review is not politically correct in it's irreverent manner either, his enthusiasm really shines through, and that is Andy to a tee, when he loves something he goes bonkers about it - in this case both Shakira and the 200 - 400 lens

I don't know Andy well, having only met him a couple of times, but he certainly isn't one to hide his opinions. I also don't think he'd say something good about equipment just to get access to more. I attended a talk by him and Laurie Campbell (who is a totally different character) a couple of years ago and he was very vocal about Canon's "issues", particularly the IQ at high ISO, which he uses a lot and is one reason he like the D3 and D3s and pushes people to push the ISO. On the other hand, even though Laurie shoots with a D3(s) (and has always shot Nikon, even in the days of film), his mantra is always to use the lowest ISO possible for optimal IQ. Having said all that, I imagine that if he didn't like 200-400, he'd have simply kept quiet, rather than say how bad it was, purely because he has previously said how much he liked the 1Dx and has therefore comitted himself back to Canon (at least for now). Of course, when a lens costs that much, no company is likely to send out something that is less than what it could be. It probably won't be a match for the large primes, but I bet it's pretty close, to the point that only pixel peepers will notice the difference.

7

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Around the Corner? [CR1]

« on: May 13, 2013, 03:12:16 PM »

Let's call this lens Sasquatch...it's off white, it's got a big foot, and while everybody's heard of it, very few have actually SEEN it.

I've seen it twice, does that make me special or a loon . It would be nice to see it announced, even if I can only dream about being able to afford it.

8

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

« on: May 12, 2013, 04:27:10 AM »

Bee by q8-mc, on Flickr

Just so you know, it's a hoverfly not a bee.

9

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM

« on: May 06, 2013, 10:26:35 AM »

My friend asked me for a few shots of her for her yoga website. We had very little space to work with in her Brooklyn apt- basically just moved a couch near the one window in the room. I never even considered using the 24mm for this shoot (see the 85mm f/1.2 lens thread for other shots), but I needed some full body poses too, so it saved the day!


Kat 05 by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Kat 06 by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


Kat 07 by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

It's probably one of the few wideangle lenses that work ok for portraits. Bosman has some good ones earlier in the thread and even I've tried some.

10

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

« on: April 15, 2013, 06:01:04 AM »

Welcome back Garry :-)

I had a similar reaction to yours over some posters here, but like you (I think) realise that there are lots of cool people here too.

It got to the point that I let out a snort and backed out of certain threads. Life's too short sometimes to replicate work online .

11

Reviews / Re: 7D2 or 5D3?

« on: April 12, 2013, 12:43:07 PM »

Another question to ask yourself. How good is your fieldcraft and are you able to get closer without scaring the subject or falling into water etc.? If you can get closer, then it's a no brainer, if not, then it's a tough decision. I kept my 7D for the extra reach and will go to ISO 1600 (some scenes ISO 800), but I found that when I used the 5D MkIII in low light last October, the 7D never came out of the bag again for the rest of the week, because the image quality and AF was so much better. For travelling, the 5D MkIII certainly gives you more flexibility when travelling light.

12

Lenses / Re: Prediction for 200-400

« on: April 11, 2013, 03:05:20 PM »

I first saw the lens at Focus on Imaging in March last year as a prototype. I saw it again this year and it has sprouted a lock on the built in extender. The marketing rep hadn't heard anything, but she was expecting it to be announced soon, but then what is the definition of soon when it has already been in the pipeline for a couple of years .

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Studio shoot, 5D MarkII or MarkIII

« on: March 24, 2013, 06:27:21 AM »

I do little in the way of studio work, but the MkIII does come into its own if it is a fast moving shoot. If you have the time to focus manually (especially at wide apertures), then there is no difference. but if you have to react quickly, then the AF of the MkIII is invaluable, due to the speed and accuracy of the AF system and also the number of points, which adds flexibility on placement.

14

Macro / Re: canon 100L+tubes+2x converter ?

« on: March 19, 2013, 06:34:00 PM »

I would say the addition of the extender would  be counter-productive, as tubes work better on shorter focal lengths. You'll probably get more magnification with just the 68mm of the Kenko extension tubes with the 100mm macro, as it's getting towards twice life size. The extender would reduce image quality.

15

Landscape / Re: Landscape photography from around the world, shot on Canon

« on: March 17, 2013, 05:22:00 AM »

Graham can you tell us about the grad ND filters you are using.  Are they screw on, size, made by  purchased from  and how used if not screw on. 

Your photos are ... outstanding in the field.   Really good.

Thank you very much! I'm very much a beginner, however I am more than happy to share with you the equipment specifics. Filters used include:

Singh-Ray 2-stop soft "Galen Rowell" ND grad
Singh-Ray 3-stop soft "Galen Rowell" ND grad
Singh-Ray 2-stop hard reverse ND grad
Singh-Ray 3-stop hard reverse ND grad
B+W 77mm 6-stop ND filter
B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer

I have two sets of filters, one is "P" and the other ix 4x6. I use a Cokin "P" filter holder and a Lee Foundation 4x6 filter for the larger ones. For long exposures I stack the filters and push the ISO down near 50 to increase shutter speeds.

If you're interested, here are some example images with the above mentioned equipment:

My reverse grad is the one filter I miss after switching to the Lee system.

Actually I'm using Singh-Ray with the Lee filter holder (not the lee filters).

Graham

Unfortunately, I have the smaller one for the Cokin P filter set. I'd like to get one to replace it, but the excahnge rate isn't favourable at the moment (unlike when I bought the original) and the shipping costs are extortionate for such a small item.