September 19, 2014, 12:13:16 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 - K-amps

Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 102
1381
EOS Bodies / Re: what the 1Dx may tell us about the 5Diii
« on: October 31, 2011, 12:17:08 PM »
i hope the new 1dx is telling us alot about the up coming 5dii, especially given the age we are in and the technological abilities of today.  i know the 1dx is the cream of the crop but even half of these features on the new 5diii would be a major upgrade. 

i hope the ff sensor stays the same, no need for a larger mp sensor.  whats the point?  i personally would like to see a higher frame rate, such as atleast 6 - 7 fps (half of the 1dx would suffice here).  The dig. 5 processor is capable why not.  high iso would be a major plus also, but i would like to see some more comparable features to the nikon d700 or the upcoming d800 such as more bracketing options, and lots of focus points.

who knows whats going to happen, but i can't wait.  if its not up to my spec, i have no problems going over to the nikon d800.  id pay around $3500 for the right camera.  oh btw, i don't care one bit about upgraded video features.

+1

1382
Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?
« on: October 28, 2011, 07:29:27 PM »
Thanks for the link.  I agree with the one comment posted to the review - that was a pretty bad misrepresentation.  As Dr. Croubie points out, the rear element of the lens is right at the back.  I think he mis-typed when stating it's at 300mm - I think it's at 70mm and the rear element moves further 'in' (away from the lens mount) as you zoom to 300mm - at least, that's how most extending zooms behave (except the 24-70mm which uses a reversed design).  So, it's 'compatible' at longer focal lengths, but not 'compatible' (= lens damage) at shorter focal lengths.

An apt theory.. since it will be used for longer lengths anyway, it could work. 

Dr. Croubie: Thanks for the extra pics, I would not have understood it well without them.

Is lens damage really a concern? I mean there's plastic hitting glass, so unless someone is careless, I would think the risk is limited if used with the knowledge that the floating lens hunts, No AF to be used and should keep the zoom at 300mm?... I guess not worth buying a brand new 2x over the 70-300mm unless one had one lying around....

1383
Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?
« on: October 27, 2011, 11:14:08 AM »
For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III

Ahhh the Internet, fountain of Truth.   ::)

The source was: Shutterbug Magazine.

Aug 2011 issue

The reviewer was Farace or something IIRC.

Edit: found it on the "internet" too. Here's the URL for it:http://www.shutterbug.com/content/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56l-usm-long-short-it

1384
Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?
« on: October 26, 2011, 09:46:57 AM »
For birds, I'd definitely take the 7D over the 5Dc with the 70-300 L. 

What lens were you planning to get to use with the 2x TC?  Your 70-300 L cannot take a Canon TC.

I read a review that it takes the Mk. III converters. The guy shot some pics with the 2x Mk. III

1385
Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: October 25, 2011, 06:55:27 PM »
Good example there pelebel   8)  That photo works with a little HDR. A few months ago I was toying with the idea of delving into ND filters and graduated filters, to try and get some decent contrast between dark landscape foreground and bright skies. Then I bought a G12 and found that with a tripod and sticking the thing in HDR mode, I could get properly exposed images. Not the arty HDRs, but properly exposed images. If using HDR techniques is cheating to properly expose photos, then logically, wouldn't using ND filters be cheating too? For me, personally, the biggest selling point of the 1DX is its multi exposure HDR capability.

+1:

 ND filters reduce the contrast, so does HDR. Remember the days when photoshopping was considered cheating too?

I too like the HDR feature of the 1Dx, but $6.8k is too much for me  :-\

1386
Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?
« on: October 25, 2011, 06:45:13 PM »
All:  Thanks for your input.

Neuro/others ... for a given light level, how would the 5d1 compare to the 7D? (if I were to get a 2x mk. III as well)

1387
Lenses / Re: New lens... err body?
« on: October 25, 2011, 06:40:45 PM »
Good plan although from a different direction - the 100-400 won't depreciate as much as the 7d financially.

Yes and thats what is stopping me from placing the order already :)... Got to think about this. Maybe if the 7D2 is not so awesome, I can pick up a 7d for a lower price?

1388
Lenses / New lens... err body?
« on: October 24, 2011, 04:48:15 PM »
This might sound weird to some of you but I wanted to run this by you guys.

I want longer reach... but am thinking of buying a new body to do this.

I currently own a 70-300mm L lens on a 5d Classic body, I would like to take some bird shots, but upgrading to the 100-400mm wont give me much more reach. However if I get a 7D body for the same price of a 100-400mm, I get 480mm effective range due to crop on my current 70-300mm... and maybe more.

I can illuminate more pixels (photosites?) on the 7D's 18 mp sensor thereby giving me an additional increase in resolution of (18mp/12.7mp*100 =) 41.7%... thereby increasing this advantage to 480 * 41.7 = 680mm equivalent resolving power.

Is this making sense or am I way off?

 

1389
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
« on: October 24, 2011, 09:40:08 AM »
Uh Oh, you loaned a reviewer  a bad copy  :-\ ....

You can see from the 2 pics above, it is pretty sharp. I agree with your friend though that the non-L non IS version of the 100mm f2.8 is one very sharp lens!

1390
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
« on: October 23, 2011, 08:05:43 AM »
I used to own the 180L macro some time ago and found it to be too soft.  After owning it for about a year and a half I wound up selling it.  I am not sure if I just had a bad copy but I do know others who have had similar issues.  I also own the 100L IS macro and the MP-E 65. All three are completely different macro lenses, but in terms of pure sharpness the 180 was easily in last place.

The 180 is a useful lens and I used it quite often when I traveled to Mexico for photographing lizards.  It also does a good job for butterflies.  For dragonflies I find my 300/4 a bit more useful because they can be a bit skittish.  For flowers I tend to prefer the flexibility of the TS-E 90 + extenders.

I absolutely love my 100 IS macro.  It is a sharp lens but the main drawing point is the macro.  I use this lens quite often when traveling in markets and shops to photograph small things and I almost always do this hand held.  Without the IS it simply wouldn't be possible.

If Canon were to come out with a new version of the lens I would probably pick it up once reviews confirm that it fixes the sharpness problems of the original.

You are the first person I have heard saying the 180mm is soft, if anything this and the 135 f2 are perhaps Canon's sharpest lenses. Maybe you had a misaligned copy and thats just unfortunate.

You are right, in the macro world, the smallest things are amplified, so this and the 100L are quite different. Also I owned that one too, it was sharp, less sharp than the non;L version but very close, but the 180 seems sharper.

1391
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
« on: October 22, 2011, 07:28:09 PM »
Love the 180mm !!

Not easy to work with though   :P

1392
United States / Re: Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?
« on: October 21, 2011, 01:14:49 PM »
........  You just have to get closer than normal to your subject to narrow your depth of field.  This may make your human subject uncomfortable and act less natural.
......


 :) Yes, thats one of the reasons I got the 180mm 3.5L macro. Gives more more distance from the subject and the amount of bokeh is more than the other lenses due to it's longer reach. See a comparison of Bokeh of the Canon 65mm/100mm & 180mm here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx  Go down about 50% of the page to see a comparison.

Ofcourse, this might get too long for you then, but will do very nice portraits and Macro all in one.

1393
United States / Re: Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?
« on: October 21, 2011, 12:13:53 PM »
I have tried Diapoters...

It is hard as it is taking good macro shots... let's just say adding more glass to existing lenses just makes it less fun. Get a proper Macro if you are into Macro..

Unless you really need IS, the non-L 100mm f2.8 Macro is a great buy for the money, I had one, it was sharper than the L version. It also takes great Portaits. Thats another option.

1394
Landscape / Re: Water Reflections
« on: October 21, 2011, 10:51:34 AM »
Wonderful Ions, the first one is so palpable!

1395
Landscape / Re: Water Reflections
« on: October 21, 2011, 10:50:28 AM »
Please post your reflective pictures of liquid reflections in a natural setting here :-)

Entries could be ocean/shorelines, rivers/creeks, lakes, ice, air ... no matter where ... only that there should not be manmade structures in the main focus of the picture or artificial reflections on glass, chrome, steel etc ...

To give you an idea I will start this with some of mine and hope you will soon add more :-)
         

I love them... I would have backed off the vibrancy just a little though...  :)

I love the bright green grass where the sun hits them. The sun in the last one is a bit overdone, (something easily fixable) but it is a very interesting rendition. Great compositions!

Pages: 1 ... 91 92 [93] 94 95 ... 102