August 22, 2014, 03:52:29 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 - expatinasia

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 60
451
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lens for European Trip
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:59:13 PM »
I have the same question for trip to Italy and Switzerland. Was thinking I might take two lenses. I own a 24-105 but am afraid I might want more reach at times so thought of renting a 70-300 or renting that lens and borrowing a friend's 16-35. I have no personal experience with the 70-300 to help me make the decision as far as image quality, size, and weight.

The 70-300L f/4-5.6 USM IS is an excellent lens to travel with as it is light, excellent IQ and gives you excellent reach. That combined with your friend's 16-35 OR your 24-105 are probably the only two lenses you would need.

452
Lenses / Re: What the 300mm f/2.8 II did for me
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:43:52 PM »
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

There was no need for a challenge, and if indeed there was one, then that's a pretty childish thing to do.

I do not think there is any doubt about just how great the 300 f/2.8 mark ii is, and as you say it works great with the mark iii TCs. I keep looking at the 300, as it is cheaper than the 400, but I know deep down that it is the 400 f/2.8 mark ii I want and need, and if I splurge on the 300 then it will be even longer before I get the 400 so am trying to resist the "cheaper" option  ;).

For lens reviews I love TDPs efforts, as he covers everything you could possibly want to know about lenses.

453
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
« on: May 17, 2013, 08:38:47 AM »
It is more than a year after the the-digital-picture review for example and says less and gives less detail in more words. As for focal length, it says nothing about the performance with the 1.4x and 2xTCs, and doesn't even mention the latter. It says that one con is the weight, but it weighs far less than the 400, 500 and 600mm f/2.8 - f/4 primes and gives IQs not much worse than them with the TCs. The reviewer just doesn't realise that the high quality 300-600mm range in a relatively light package is what this lens is all about.

I have to say I somewhat agree with this. I was quite excited to see that a new review of this lens had been posted (though let's be honest we all know what the conclusion is going to be), and wow those pictures of the owls - amazing! But it was written (as he readily admits) by someone that does not really need, or use that focal length on a regular basis. This is a very expensive lens, though still much cheaper than 400 f/2.8 II, so really the amount of people who are "wondering" whether a 300 f/2.8 is what they need are going to be few and far between, as it is so specialised.

I think the reviewer would have been much better off writing about the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS, because they are focal lengths where he seems to spend more of his time, and as it is much more affordable and versatile it has a much broader potential market base.

When I read it, I found this last part of the conclusion very interesting:

Quote
And while my curiosity was piqued, I think for the more specialized super-telephoto focal lengths, I should step aside and let someone else handle those reviews.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Reviews are tricky things and my favourites are tdp when it comes to lenses. I do think a lens review should only be written by someone that uses the focal length in question frequently rather than someone who is wondering about the extra reach.

I, for example, am saving for the 400 f/2.8 ii but of course have my eyes open for new reviews on the 300 (hey it's a lot cheaper) and the new 200-400 1.4x (but that is not f/2.8 so I doubt it is a realistic option).

Did I say I love the pictures of the owls! Awesome shots.

454
Lenses / Re: I have a weight limit....what would you bring?
« on: May 17, 2013, 03:37:04 AM »
Right now, I am planning to bring my 70-200 f/4 IS, my 24-104, and my 17-40.

Do you really need to fill that 40-70mm gap? 17-40L + 70-200/4L IS could be enough.

+1, I agree.

Sometimes people travel with way too much stuff. This is fine if you are being paid, or may be paid in the future through stock footage stills etc., but if you are going for a holiday then try to pack as little as possible. Believe me, you will enjoy it a lot more.

455
Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: May 14, 2013, 06:23:12 PM »
Looks like it won't take long for the "forum muppets" to appear 8)

?

What on earth does that mean?

Read Andy's review...

Yawn...

456
Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: May 14, 2013, 06:17:14 PM »
Looks like it won't take long for the "forum muppets" to appear 8)

?

What on earth does that mean?

457
Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: May 14, 2013, 05:50:52 PM »
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.

458
Software & Accessories / Re: GoPro Video and Helicopters
« on: May 11, 2013, 10:47:57 PM »
Thanks everyone, I am definitely going to be looking into this a lot more. It just seems like such a great way of getting a few seconds of unique HD video footage.

There is also a lot of fisheye with the hero that becomes distracting.

Here is a photo of helicopter I am using now...

I had not noticed the fisheye effect on the Hero until you mentioned it, but it is very clear in the DJI video that TexPhoto posted.

Using a kite is obviously the cheaper option but I do not see them as a realistic option (for me at least) as there is less control and quite likely to be more buffeting from the wind etc. Nice idea though.

Thanks.

459
Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 11, 2013, 01:34:43 AM »
Interesting thread and I think the worse thing about it is the choice or words in the title. I do not see this as having anything to do with ethics (unless you try to cheat, fraud or break laws etc) and more to do with where the boundaries between art, digital art and photography lie.

I agree with those that say that as soon as you add elements (or take away elements) from a photograph then you are entering the world of make believe, and consequently art. You are creating something that did not exist, but that your mind wanted to see.

One example of this, would be the CR forum member Gary Samples who posted a picture of two eagles fighting. The one on top was pushing the other into a stream. It is an amazing picture, and I would bet money on the fact that Gary changed very, very little and most definitely did not add or subtract anything from the shot (which is in the 1D X image gallery section. I suggested at the time that he enter it into a competition as I had never seen anything like it. That is photography. If he had added a fish to the beak of one and possible added a bear in the background then it becomes digital art. Incidentally if someone were to paint that moment on canvas, I am sure it would make for an amazing painting too. That would be art.

HDR is on the very verge of this, and possibly on the verge of video too, but as it does not actually add, or subtract, elements that did not exist I still see it as photography.

I am quite possibly the worse artist in the world, and that is saying something considering some of the c**p that sells for millions. The camera allows me, and possibly many of us here to be better artists. We recognise the beauty of something, but if you give us paint, canvas and a brush, then it just is not going to come out the way we would like. I admire anyone like Banksie (is that the right spelling?) and I adore his art. I make the best of my limited talents and try to capture moments with a tool which allows me to do so, but I am a billion miles away from ever being an artist. Even digital art is absolutely amazing and requires some very special people to create what they do. Me, I just point and shoot.  :)

460
Software & Accessories / Re: GoPro Video and Helicopters
« on: May 10, 2013, 08:12:06 PM »
I currently use a Hero 3 on my helicopter. It's fun and works for some projects but I am wanting higher quality results. I recently purchased a Sony NEX 5n. It has an APC sensor and is less than 300 grams with a 16mm lens so it is light enough to fly.

Here is a wedding proposal I shot a few weeks ago with the GoPro and Keychain camera on my helicopter.

Thanks for sharing the video, Chris. It just goes to show what can be accomplished with such a toy.

When you say you want higher quality results, what do you feel the Sony NEX 5n offers you over the GoPro which has the advantage of being weather proof (I believe) and perhaps more shock/crash proof?

It is something I would only use for a few seconds worth of video, but it just adds something quite unique to a project.

461
Site Information / Re: Membership Approval Now Required
« on: May 10, 2013, 08:02:51 PM »
Those who think captcha is fool proof are out of date, 10 years out.

I doubt a single person here thinks CAPTCHA is fool proof, and I certainly didn't read such a post. Also it is a system which may be around 10 years old, but has only been in common use for the past 5 year or so, and until someone comes up with something better it remains one option.

Anyway, I join others in thanking you for the work you do. I have worked on high volume forums in the past and it can be a nightmare.

Of course most of these bots - whether they be human bots, clever code, or a combination - nearly all want one thing - links. I would suggest you remove a member's ability to add a link to his/her signature, and manage how (or which) users can add links posts. Once you do that all the bots will (slowly) realise that it isn't worth their time trying to push through the system.

Good luck.

462
Site Information / Re: Membership Approval Now Required
« on: May 10, 2013, 05:03:04 AM »
It is definitely better if a account name has some recognizable link to photography.

Not sure I agree with that last little bit at all.  :o

I know how hard it is to deal with the bots which are getting smarter and smarter everyday. But it is a fine balance, between stopping the bots and trying to make enrolling as easy, simple and fast as possible for those that are real and want to join.

As forceflow suggested, using a form of CAPTCHA of some kind would help reduce this. Even if it means showing a picture with a maths puzzle and asking the person to calculate the total, or something else.

Approvals usually take as day or less to complete.

Not good. I probably would have joined another forum during that time, and would have no interest in returning here. And that is the danger. Anything other than pretty immediate membership could have dire consequences on the future growth of the forum.

Anyway, I wish you luck.

463
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Color Bombs Kill Cameras
« on: May 09, 2013, 12:41:07 AM »
That video ad shows a famous festival in India. Have Americans (guess lensrentals is US?) started doing the same thing at runs? Amazed the local councils have not banned it. Must make an awful mess, and it is not exactly a tradition.

464
Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.
« on: May 08, 2013, 09:17:33 PM »
I voted for the 24-70mm F/2.8L IS USM but would a 24-105mm F/2.8L IS USM be possible? That would be a very handy lens.

465
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Color Bombs Kill Cameras
« on: May 08, 2013, 06:22:56 PM »
A colour bomb? Shame the article does not bother to explain what they are. I have never heard of such a thing. Off to google.......

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 60