March 01, 2015, 02:24:09 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 - Meh

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 48
511
Lenses / Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome: please help!!!
« on: November 11, 2011, 12:35:57 PM »
Get thee to a monastery!

Renounce material goods, become a monk and pray constantly.

But first, send all that iniquitous photo equipment to me. I assure you I will sell it (eventually) and give all money to the poor.

It's the only way!

Actually, on a serious note, the lure of making images is so strong, the famous Trappist monk, Thomas Merton, couldn't resist and published a small book of his pictures. Merton wrote of his camera (a Canon, of course):

"It is fabulous.  What a joy of a thing to work with.The camera is the most eager and helpful of all beings, all full of happy suggestions.  Reminding me of things I have overlooked and cooperating in the creation of new worlds.  So Simply."

So, blessings on you, my son. Go in peace -- and take pictures!

And to you sir, +1

512
Lenses / Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome: please help!!!
« on: November 11, 2011, 10:50:45 AM »
@Paolo... just looked through some of your shots on Flickr.  Very nice.  Actually looks like you have everything you need already!   There's nothing wrong with adding to your kit as long as you're not buying things you can't afford but your gear list doesn't seem extravagant so far so you don't need to be cured.

Actually, I'm not trying to be cheeky.  Accepting that you love photography and that you enjoy the gear might help you make the right choices and not feel like you have to have everything just because.   It's a bit of reverse psychology.

513
Lenses / Re: Gear Acquisition Syndrome: please help!!!
« on: November 11, 2011, 10:17:37 AM »
Do what I do and convince yourself you need the things you want.  It alleviates buyer's remorse completely.

If you love your Sigma 50 f/1.4 then there is no reason not to get the Sigma 85 f/1.4 but you do have that focal length covered, albeit at f/4, so you might want to add something wider than you already have if only adding one lens.

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and love it.  Buying this lens will 'cure' you for several months.   A permanent cure is not possible.   Accepting that will allow full enjoyment of your new gear.




514
Canon General / Re: Price increase
« on: November 11, 2011, 10:08:12 AM »
20% on top of next-to-nothing is still next-to-nothing

Most foreign companies already pay wages to employees (the legal employees) that far exceed local wage standards so there would be little or no effect.

515
Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?
« on: November 10, 2011, 09:44:50 PM »
You guys are missing the point entirely. If you are shooting a 70-200 zoom, and you have the stock hood: you have 2 choices:  Use the hood or don't.   Which of these 2 choices will better control flair at 70mm? Using the Hood.  Which will control flair better at 200mm?  Using the hood.  In fact, if the hood is preventing all flair at 70mm, I will guarantee there is no flair when zoomed to 200mm assuming no other changes.

Now if you want to argue that you should not use the hood you have because a theoretical 200mm only hood (that you do not have) would be better than the stock hood, then you are right from a theoretical standpoint, but wrong from a reducing flair/practical/not just being difficult standpoint. Now if anyone here owns a 200mm only hood for their 70-200, I will... eat a bug/admit defeat/ etc  Whatever.

Sorry but who was saying don't use the hood.   Of course not using the hood is worse than using the hood despite it not providing maximum protection at focal lengths greater than the widest focal length.

The hood on 70-200mm zoom is designed to limit the incident light to to the FOV of a 70mm focal length.   Zoom to anything greater than 70mm and the hood is still allowing the same light to fall upon the front of the lens.   Therefore, at any focal length greater than 70mm light from outside the FOV is entering the lens and can cause flare.

The only point of contention is your assertion that the lens hood prevents all flare regardless of zoom position.


516
PowerShot Cameras / Re: PowerShot S100 reviewed and compared to the S95
« on: November 10, 2011, 06:14:31 PM »
We'll have to wait for neuro to confirm but I think he shot RAW and used the same software to process the RAW files so any noise reduction, and he may not have applied any, would be the same I think?

If you use Canon's included raw conversion software (dpp), it does things differently to different raw files based on the camera model number. s95 raw files clearly (if you've compared them side by side) get a very, very different kind of noise reduction applied to them than the s100 raw files do. (If you want to see examples, see the thread I linked to, there's a bunch of dpp converted raw files for both the s95 and s100 there, the difference in the kind of noise reduction being applied is very obvious).

Fair enough if that's the case.  I tried to follow your links but the images don't display rather it comes up as "gallery image not found" so I'll try again later. 

I did notice your statement at the outset that said "converted in dpp using whatever the defaults were".  So dpp applies different default conversion settings specific to each camera.  Presumably, those defaults are chosen to optimize the final image, but to what standard?  Wouldn't it be a more apples-to-apples comparison to use the same conversion settings and possibly turn off any software NR when trying to compare the noise performance of one camera to another?   The final image is what matters so it might be appropriate to apply the optimal NR algorithms and compare images particularly if for some reason the NR algorithms would work better on one file than the other but I'm not sure that's the case.

517
Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?
« on: November 10, 2011, 06:03:11 PM »
To be fair, I think @texphoto is pointing out that in a zoom lens such as a 70-200mm the lens hood limits the angle of incident light to the front element the same regardless of the internal positions of the zoom mechanism.  This much is true.   However, he's not correct in his statement (I'm paraphrasing) that the zoom position doesn't matter at all.  Clearly, at 200mm the front element is being exposed to a far greater angle of incident light than will be in the field of view of the lens which is how flare is created


518
PowerShot Cameras / Re: PowerShot S100 reviewed and compared to the S95
« on: November 10, 2011, 03:45:06 PM »
Appreciate the posting of the shots and the review!

ISO6400 on the S100 looks less noisy than ISO1600 and almost as good as ISO800 on the S95.

That is because the s100 uses much, much stronger noise reduction than the s95 did. It nearly completely eliminates noise, but at the expense of a little detail, and gives pics a slightly "plasticy" look to them (some people I've asked like it, others don't).


We'll have to wait for neuro to confirm but I think he shot RAW and used the same software to process the RAW files so any noise reduction, and he may not have applied any, would be the same I think?

519
Lenses / Re: Does a lens hood reduce the light?
« on: November 10, 2011, 03:03:25 PM »
I've tested my 70-200 F4 IS with and without its hood...Bottom line: there was no difference in the look of the images. (Did shoot at 200 mm though, so what Neuroanatomist said might the the reason.)

That's exactly the reason, IMO.  If the hood provided adequate flare protection at 200mm, it would vignette heavily with the much wider FoV at 70mm.  So, hoods protect mostly/only at the wide end of zooms.

Adequate or maximum?

520
you guys are very lucky in there photo gears are abundant and the prices are very competitive unlike here in australia all the gears are priced sky high

Yes but on the other hand... you live in Australia!   :D

521
This was the thread... no final post about placing an order though.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2036.msg42067.html#msg42067

522
My question would be will they charge fees going out of the country?  I always step back and look at things when I have to buy things out of the states...

My understanding is there is no duty and they will ship it by USPS via Canada Post so there will be no brokerage fees.  However, I don't know all that for a fact... another member had the same questions a few days ago and was about to place an order... I'll search to see if he made a final posting about it...

523
Aww I can't believe I missed this...You can sell the 24-105 if u don't need it...that would make the 5D II less than 2k brand new!!  :-*

5D2 body has been on sale in Canada for $1999 and will continue till at least Christmas if there's stock.  I got mine for $1899 about a week ago when a large retailer had a 1-day offer of an extra $100 off any camera over $1000  ;D

I think you can still order from Henry's (www.henrys.ca) for $1999.  Shipping to the States (if that's where you are) and the exchange rate will cost a few bucks extra but still a great buy.

524
Lenses / Re: Changing lenses quickly or safely in the field
« on: November 09, 2011, 06:21:50 PM »
I'm curious. How many of you switch off the camera in-between swapping lenses?

I have forgotten several (many!) times to turn off the camera when changing lenses and even when removing the CF card but normally it's because I've put the camera down for a few minutes so technically it was off I suppose.

525
PowerShot Cameras / Re: PowerShot S100 reviewed and compared to the S95
« on: November 09, 2011, 04:42:50 PM »
do I see right, that there ist very little noise in 6400? Looks greate.
Did you shot in raw, or jpeg?

Can you post other shots too?

So i think i'll go for one, if it available here in germany.
Search for an always in pocket cam.

ISO6400 on the S100 looks less noisy than ISO1600 and almost as good as ISO800 on the S95.

Pages: 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 48