April 24, 2014, 01:38:02 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 99
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech
« on: June 12, 2013, 03:34:16 PM »
I can read, I'm sure that it takes photos larger than 200 pixels.

But then you'd be able to spot all the little gremlins at work fixing the shady parts....

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech
« on: June 12, 2013, 03:01:36 PM »

compared to the latest sony sensors or a 4 year old CCD from fuji.

You missed out 5 year old CMOS tech from Canon...

I hope Canon can License this stuff from Panuji. 29 stops of DR? There goes the re-sale of the D800...

EOS Bodies / Re: IPad Wireless Tethering
« on: June 11, 2013, 05:05:25 PM »
Been waiting for this for quite some time. Would have preferred it at 50% of the MSRP.. but great to see they finally made something for the iPad.

Landscape / Re: How would you edit this?
« on: June 10, 2013, 12:16:21 AM »
I would do it like this.

Focus is not too bad, there is some motion blur and it is not razor sharp, but certainly usable.

Lenses / Re: Why Does the 100-400L Sell So Well Still ?
« on: June 07, 2013, 10:28:28 AM »
@clostridium - not to be difficile  ;) , but while the 100-400 is slightly better in terms of IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2xIII, it's not better enough to be significant in real-world shooting.  (Note this applies to the MkII version of the 70-200 only.)  I have them both, and the difference isn't great enough to warrant taking both white zooms, IMO.

I second that.... having both and tested them. The difference is very minor. The 100-400 had more contrast, but the 70-200mk.ii has newer coatings allowing more shadow detail retrieval. After good PP'ing, it will be hard to choose one over the other.


There have been no upgrade rumors.  Its not a fast selling lens, and is not easy to resell, .

Speaking of which... what do you think is the resale for the similarly priced 300 F2.8 mkII

Lenses / Re: What else can I do with my Canon 100mm Macro IS lens?
« on: June 04, 2013, 03:36:18 PM »
thanks  :)
quite happy to know i can use for portraits as well!

I would not do that.

As soon as the 100mm L senses a portrait being shot,

 it initiates auto-self destruct.

Street & City / Re: Vintage vehicles
« on: June 01, 2013, 10:40:16 AM »
I think the 24-105 is showing a bit of limitation.... and maybe he had to sharpen them. But still nice shots, I like #3.

Street & City / Re: 5DIII and 1DSIII does Kashmir and Rajasthan
« on: June 01, 2013, 10:39:06 AM »
Wonderful shots !!  Love 4 and 6.

Love the way you PP'ed them, great contrast and deep colors.

Really does tell a story.

Love your work!

Lenses / Re: 24-70 2.8f II or 70-200 2.8f II
« on: May 29, 2013, 04:21:36 PM »
I like your suggestion. Didn't really think about having one or the other with a prime. Now the question with having one or the other with a prime is whats the perfect prime to complement either one. I think the 70-200 with a 40 would be nice but then how would you get those wide shots when needed?

That goes both ways.  However, the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II are approximately the same price.  A tele prime in the 135-200mm range is several hundred dollars.  If you get the 200/2.8, you'll likely not use it after getting the 70-200 II.  A 40/2.8 is $150, and given it's conveniently small size, it's useful even after having the 24-70 II.

As for wide shots, someone here (apologies for forgetting who) has pointed out that the 40/2.8 has an exit pupil that's basically at the body, so doing a quick handheld pano shot and stitching the resuting images together is quite easy with that lens, when 40mm isn't wide enough.

This option is novel and just on that basis alone, I would do it :-).

The 24-105 is an ok lens and if i am making money off weddings, I'd get a Loan and invest in the 24-70ii.

EOS Bodies / Re: Digitalrev speculates on D7100 vs. 7D2
« on: May 29, 2013, 02:57:28 PM »
If the 7D MKII will have a crop sensor, I do not understand how the camera will have as good of high ISO performance as the full frame 5D MKIII. 

Does anyone think the speculation of the 7D MKII high ISO performance is based on the in camera jpeg processing, or are they actually talking about the RAW files?


That will never happen.  WHY? - You can't hold 1 gallon of water in 1/2 gallon bucket.

Yeah you don't.....

but you can process the first 1/2 and re-fill another half for one whole gallon.

HINT: Cats eyes...  ;D

200 F2 or the 300 f2.8 ii. I used to think about the 400 f2.8 ii but it is a $5000 premium over the 300mm for which I can buy a nice APS-C body and get same reach or use a 1.4x to get to 400mm (granted the 400mm will go even further) but the price difference is just huge between the two.

If I had to choose between the 200mm and 300mm, I'd go with the 300mm since I already own a 70-200 f2.8.

The 300 2.8ii seems to be one of the sharpest and best performing primes out there in a reasonable size that I can fit into my backpack. It has great micro contrast and amazing sharpness and is very usable with 1.4x and 2x TC's.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 21, 2013, 04:12:09 PM »
As long as the photographer is not entering a competition and not breaking its rules, to me it doesn't matter what the photographer does with the image, it is his image, his vision  ...as far as I'm concerned he can remove/add whatever he wants. Those who are capable of making awesome changes/modifications will continue to do so while those who are incapable will continue to crib that it is unethical.


Times are changing. What was doctoring in the past is post processing now. The workflow has changed for the better...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:54:39 AM »
You missed the point.  It's in the amplification process.  If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush.  Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.

But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support.  No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras.  The reason is the same.  Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

No it's not false and it precisely answers your question.  High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it?  The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?

Unless someone can show me a photo of the DAC or op-amp used to amplify the signal is different in the 5d3 vs 1dx, I am not buying the different amp theory... but I can understand larger pixels will have less noise to begin with, but to me that is a function of ISO at the end of the day. If Both bodies shoot at lets say 160 ISO (fix ISO and vary shutter speed only) for both bodies, I suspect the noise levels will be similar in the RAW files... will they not?

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:18:56 AM »
Messing around last night.  5DIII, 100 2.8L Macro, MR14 ring flash, 2 extension tubes.
That is so cool! How did you make it stay? Every time I approach one it walks up the tree :(

Check out the "bokeh portion"  it's just having too much of a good time to be startled by a lens barrelling down on him.  ;)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 99