March 02, 2015, 06:15:24 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 - mackguyver

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 233
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:59:11 PM »
Thanks MackGyver - if you create a gel filter cutting template and feel like posting it, it could save me (and others) time going trial and error...
Will do

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Accepts Rear Gelatin Filter
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:20:23 PM »
I purchased the Kodak Wratten 2 (ND 3.0) film and it's sitting on my shelf waiting for my lens to arrive (which will be Monday).  I saw the note in the manual this morning and was disappointed it won't work at 11mm.  I'll let you guys know how it works out.  I doubt I'll be able to see enough to focus with it in place, but we'll see if LiveView works in bright light.

Here's a guy that uses it with his 14mm f/2.8:

EOS Bodies / Re: Grey Market 1DX - 5D MK III
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:41:52 PM »
Has anyone purchased one of the Grey Market bodies from one of the eBay dealers. I wanted to know what the experience was like. The no warranty is not as big a factor as making sure all OEM parts are what is included. If I was to purchase a used 1DX I wouldn't have a warranty anyway. Thanks.
I bought mine from Canada through Canon Price Watch and it came with a Canada (only) warranty card, which is unlike all other bodies that come with a North American warranty card.  The only fear I would have with other gray market gear would be that the power cord for the ridiculously expensive charger would be the wrong type.  It's a standard cord, however, so it would be an easy fix.  Also, the manual may not be in English, but you can download the PDF anyways.

Lenses / Re: Anyone receive 11-24 yet (or shipping notice)
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:36:39 PM »
Definitely looks good:
I was wondering if we would see this - earlier he added his Roger's Take on the rental page and it sounded like the results were in, but know we know he had the evidence to make this comment:

"This is a truly unique offering. A full-frame, rectilinear (non-fisheye), L-quality lens that goes as wide as 11mm. Not many people will need 11mm, not many will be able to use it effectively, but it definitely will provide some unique opportunities.

But everyone, and I mean everyone, is going to appreciate the image quality. It’s at least remarkable, and probably should be described as amazing. It’s every bit as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS L, and does it while being much wider. In case you don’t know, wider lenses are supposed to have poorer image quality. This one does not, it’s amazingly good all the way to 11mm and all the way to the corners.

Be forewarned, though, this is a big, heavy lens, weighing in at over 2.5 pounds. The front element is as curved as anything I’ve seen and you are NOT going to mount front filters to this without a matte box or 4 X 4 filter holder. To be honest, though, filters, other than ND filters, usually aren’t a great idea on a lens this wide anyway.

(February, 2015)"

EDIT: Also, very happy to see that UPS finally allows re-routing to a UPS Store, and more importantly, to see that B&H has stopped overriding this choice.  I'm pretty sure last time I ordered something expensive from them UPS told me that had blocked that option.  My lens will arrive on Monday...

Theater, Concert and Event / Re: My First Concert Shoot
« on: February 27, 2015, 03:12:05 PM »
Here's an example where I kept the unholy saturated colors.  At this concert, I had some shots where the guy was entirely pink, with a complete loss of color gradation.  Switching them to B&W brought them back into a more natural look.

Matthew Pynn by yorgasor, on Flickr

I've noticed my 5D3 seems overly sensitive to the red color band.  Often times when I take a picture of someone wearing bright red, I need to scale the red luminosity in Lightroom down several notches to make it look more realistic.  The reds come out looking a little darker, but it's usually better.  At my next concert, I'll try shooting a more even mix with my D3s and my 5D3 and maybe I'll learn whether the Canon is indeed more susceptible to overblown red/pink colors in these situations.
That's a perfect example and from what I understand, all Canon SLRs are known to be more sensitive in the red channel than most other camera makers.  I frequently dial down the red in portraits as it's too strong for most skintones.

Lenses / Re: True reach of 100-400 L II
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:32:36 PM »
Read this post by Arthur Morris / Chuck Westfall:
Is the 100-400 II Really 400mm at the Long End?

Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 27, 2015, 02:30:40 PM »
This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.

There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.

But, in the end of the day, if a commercial photographer is assigned a task of getting a specific shot that an advertising or marketing manager wants of a leopard or wildcat stalking a prey and it has to be to ready for press on friday, t

The sad thing about your example is that images of wildlife have become such a basic commodity.  Currently on Getty, if you search for a lion image, there are 17,701 results...and they are mostly fantastic shots.   

I'm not criticizing you or your comment, I'm just lamenting the fact that there's a lot of "been there done that" in photography now days as a result of the digital camera revolution.

Couldn't agree more.  The digital camera revolution changed everything, many good changed, many very bad changes...  A lot of bad changes for the working photographers, especially with the rise of millions of amateur photographers popping up that weren't there before, many with pocketbooks and equipment greater than the average working pro.  That being said, agencies and business's aren't helping either... It's all about cheaper, quicker, faster...  Much like newspapers firing their pro photographers because of the plethora of other cheaper or in some cases free photos being submitted to them from their stories... Istock and getty are great resources, but in some instances, but depending on usage, licensing CAN become issue, and if they have in house photographers, if they can get the same shot, fraction of the price, most will go that route...  Sucks, but it's the photography business as we know it.
This is why wildlife (and landscape) photography is 99% hobby, 1% sales for me.  I get the occasional print sale, but I rely on the work that amateurs can't easily do to make money.

Lenses / Re: Anyone receive 11-24 yet (or shipping notice)
« on: February 27, 2015, 01:42:51 PM »
I just received my shipping notice from B&H.  Also, Brian at the-digital-picture posted a note that B&H has enough lenses to fill roughly half of the pre-orders but expects another shipment of them early next week.

Theater, Concert and Event / Re: My First Concert Shoot
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:57:22 PM »
I find that AI Servo is more reliable when the musicians are moving around, as long as you use the center point. 

Thanks, I should experiment with AI Servo, since I have barely tried it.   Do you prefer to activate it with a half press of the shutter button or do you use the back button?
I switched to back button focus about 7 years ago and haven't used the shutter to focus since then.  It works better for me, especially to focus & recompose, but it's a matter of personal preference.

Also, yorgasor, those are really nice photos and I understand the B&W as the color is so unpredictable.  A lot of times shots are ruined when a channel (usually red or blue) is oversaturated, which crushes the shadows.  There's not much you can do in post, but over exposing a bit is the solution during capture.  A black shadow looks a lot better than a flat red shadow with no detail.  I might have to go back and re-process some of my concert shots in B&W to see how they look.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Initial Impressions and Photos
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:42:07 PM »
Thank you for sharing your first impressions.  From your sample shots, particularly the cathedral ceiling, I'm shocked (by extremely happy) to see how little distortion there is with this lens.  I don't see any distortion, actually, so even if it's not zero, it's very low.  That's really what I was hoping for with this lens and is pretty remarkable.  The flare resistance looks pretty good, too, in that same shot as I'm pretty sure the TS-E 17 would pick up some flare from that light.  The sunstar looks great, too.  I was using the 17 last night and dealing with the flare from some streetlights was a real pain to control.

Lenses / Re: 50L - taming the beast!?!
« on: February 27, 2015, 12:14:17 PM »

I'm on copy #2, having sold the first one to fund other gear, then buying another.  I use it almost exclusively to shoot portraits between f/1.2 and f/2 in the range of 5-15 feet.  Both copies were AFMA calibrated with FoCal at a distance of about 6 feet.  The AFMA values have been around +2 to +6, I think, but don't have it in front of me.  I have used the lens on the 5DII, 5DIII, and 1D X.  I have never sent one to Canon for calibration.  I have also found that a good FoCal calibration helps a lot to reduce the CA with this lens.

I have not experienced the infamous focus shift, possibly because I don't shoot too close or above f/2.  I don't focus and recompose, unless it's very slight.  I use all AF points, except the very outer ones to lock on the eye and my correctly-focused shot rate is probably 70-80%, mostly because it's handheld in low light.  In good light, it's probably upwards of 90%.  The key for me has been to make sure that I and the person I'm shooting hold still. 

Lenses / Re: Anyone receive 11-24 yet (or shipping notice)
« on: February 27, 2015, 11:32:39 AM »
Like children in front of the Christmas tree on December 24! ;)

Hope it's not like one Christmas when I was about 12 and was absolutely convinced that I was getting a much desired "transistor radio".  When all was quiet and dark I snuck it into my bed and opened it to find .......... a travel alarm clock!  Didn't sleep well at all that night!! :'(

Ha ha, so true.  B&H says mine will ship today, but it sure would have been nice to have received it today instead.  I guess I'll just have to keep dreaming of 11mm and waiting on Santa UPS a little longer ;)

Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: February 27, 2015, 11:29:03 AM »
Game farms have a real use.  I don't want 100s or 1000s of people out in the wilds stressing animals, perhaps causing them to abandon their young.  No picture is worth the animal's life (or yours - but you can control the latter in most cases).

There is a fine line between game farms and animals that are free but are regularly feed/protected or baited.  How do you honestly label the latter?
I agree and unless they are abusing the animals, its gives far more people the opportunity to see/photograph animals than would be possible or responsible to do in the wild.  It's the captioning that is important, at least to me.  I don't think people would think any less of a photo if they knew it was at a game farm upfront, but I think they would be very disappointed if I tried to pass one off as wild and they found out I was lying.

The whole attractant thing is another matter.  If it's a man-made watering hole or a bird feeder that supplements natural food and water sources, I don't think that's a huge deal, but if people use bait, or game calls, that's going too far, IMHO.  It may take animals away from doing activities they need to survive, teach them to become dependent on humans, or in the case of large predators, teach them associate humans with food.  Note, that is humans=food, not humans=creatures who feed us. 

Finally, if it were me, I would caption a photo of a bird, even if the feeder wasn't in the frame, something like "Blue jay visiting my backyard bird feeder". 

Photography Technique / Re: What is your keeper rate?
« on: February 27, 2015, 10:40:40 AM »
so if you are shooting at f/3.5 to f/5.6... you probably will never miss having your target in focus...
Give that a try with the 800 f/5.6 and see how it works out ;).  Here's a shot from at least 50 yards away at f/5.6 with the 800mm:

Ha, yes! Even at f/10, with 1000mm the depth of field is usually pretty thin.

A characteristic of dof that people often misunderstand, the dof for an aperture remains constant for subject magnification. If Mackguyver had been able to walk up to the bird and shoot it with a 16mm, such that the bird was the same size in the frame, at the same aperture the dof would be essentially the same.

The reason the images between a telephoto and a wide angle look so different is not the dof, it is the perspective, and a key aspect of perspective with camera lenses is the angle of view, which is how much background you see in the image.
This photo has an additional bit of trickery as well - the reeds that the hawk is perched upon are a narrow patch and the true background (of which you only see a very narrow portion of per Private's post) is very distant.  That makes it even more blurred making the DOF seem even thinner.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L Shipping This Week in United States
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:57:07 AM »
I agree with Private and see them as two very different lenses.  One for pretty much everyone, the other for much more specialized use.  I think I would only recommend getting the 11-24 if you already have the 16-35 f/4 IS (or similar lens) or know you want/need it.

Also, speaking of filters, the manual is up (link below) and it says that gel filters can't be used in the wide setting, so there are yet more limitations.  Hopefully this will be resolved by Wonderpana, but that's months away and another $400+ on top of the $3k.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 233