Topics

1

Abstract / Some more water drops

« on: February 22, 2013, 07:58:35 PM »

Took these over the last week with my new water drop setup.


The Sound of Colors by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


Water Arch by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

2

Street & City / Tuscany and Cinque Terre with TS-E 24 II and TS-E 17

« on: February 22, 2013, 02:24:55 PM »

Sienna - TS-E 17

Sienna by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Cinque Terre - TS-E 24 II

JSC_2110_HDR.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1013_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1238_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1374-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 17

JSC_1399-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 17

Florence Duomo #2 by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1506_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Pisa - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1667_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Pisa - TS-E 24 II

JSC_1705_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Cinque Terre - TS-E 24 II

JSC_2314_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Sienna - TS-E 24 II + polar mapping

JSC_2847 Stitch-Edit-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

San Gimignano - TS-E 24 II

JSC_3804_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

La Crete - TS-E 24 II

JSC_4166_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Montepulciano - TS-E 17

JSC_4888_HDR-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Florence - TS-E 17

Staircase by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

3

Lenses / Telephoto choice for Australia

« on: January 31, 2013, 11:54:16 AM »

Hello everyone.  We will be travelling to Australia this August and am trying to plan out what my telephoto choice will be there.  We will be travelling to the following locations

- Cairns/Port Douglas area.  We have rented a house outside of Port Douglas on the border with the jungle.
- Fraser Island - staying on the island (Kingfisher Bay)
- Lady Elliott Island
- Gold Coast (obviously not needed for amusement parks, but we may go to the bird park)

My current max telephoto is a 70-200/2.8 II with a 2x III extender.  It works decently well enough that I sold my 100-400 long ago.  My current thought is to buy a used 500/4 v1 and take it with me.  That would be about the extreme of my budget, so anything priced above that is simply not possible.  In terms of the telephoto, the following is my logic.

- Canon is unlikely to release a new 100-400 or 400/5.6 IS before this time.  Even if they announce it, it will not likely ship before then.  Even if it does ship, the 500/4 v1 will still likely outperform it.
- Any other telephoto Canon releases (200-400/4) will almost certainly cost more than a used 500/4 v1
- This is a very popular lens and will be easy to sell for roughly what I paid if I later raise the money for something like a 600/4 II.
- Although big, it is more convenient (especially for travel) than a 600/4 v1
- I won't have the budget for this until early July anyways, so if Canon surprises me I can change direction
- The telephoto isn't just for Australia.  I take a lot of wildlife photos here in the PNW too.

Now, the main question I have is - is it useful to take a lens this size to these locations?  I am mainly interested in photographing birds and mammals.  In particular I want to photograph dingoes on FI.  Does the wildlife get close enough that a larger telephoto is not necessary?

Secondly, will I run into problems on the flights if I carry this on in a Gura Gear bag or something similar?  We are flying Hawaiian to Brisbane (brief stopover in Honolulu), then flying Virgin Australia to Cairns and back to Brisbane.  I am already aware of the weight limits for the flight to LEI.

4

Underwater / Advice on inexpensive underwater system

« on: December 19, 2012, 01:02:22 PM »

I am looking for a decent underwater system and could use advice in what to choose.  The following is what I am looking for.

• I do not plan to take underwater photos very often - mainly on vacation.
• I do not need a high depth rating.  The vast majority of my photos will be in the pool and snorkeling.
• I am interested in taking photos where part is above water and part is underwater
• My budget is not very high. I did look into a sport housing for my 5D3 but that was running about $3k.  I would really like to keep my budget for the underwater part under $1k
• My current thought is to buy a compact camera and put it in a housing.  The housings for these cameras are much less expensive
• I have high standards on image quality.  I have an X10 and that is about the minimum in terms of quality that I can tolerate.  I imagine though that underwater I would have to use it at an unacceptable ISO
• If I buy a new camera for this, it would be nice if the camera is usable above ground too

I will greatly appreciate any recommendations.

5

Macro / Is no one interested in macro?

« on: December 10, 2012, 02:53:15 PM »

I see that hardly anyone is posting in the macro topic.  Thought I would liven it up with a few water drop shots from the last week.


Magic Lamp by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


Barista by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


A Window Into It by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


The Goblet of Drops by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

6

Abstract / Playing around with water drops

« on: December 02, 2012, 11:56:10 PM »

I took these shots over the last week while playing with my Stopshot controllers.


Dressing Up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


Jacob's Ladder by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


Tower Landing by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

7

Macro / More experimentation with water drops

« on: November 26, 2012, 11:34:43 AM »

Now that I am spending less time building my water drop setup and more time playing with it I thought I would share some more progress.

Recently I played around with cross polarization - which is placing polarizing gels on the speedlights and a polarizer over the lens.  When aligned correctly the technique removes most reflections.  I decided to try it on a black liquid to best see the effect.

This is with cross polarization

The River Styx by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

And this is without. Note that I changed the gel for the background between shoots.

Rain Cap by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Personally I found X-polarization useful but it is a technique that really requires more lights.  The polarizer gel and filter took too much light away and required me to go higher in ISO than I preferred.  I also think in retrospect black liquid was a very poor choice for the test.  In the future I plan to  try this again with a lighter liquid and more lights.

In this shot I started trying something much different but didn't meet much luck there.  I wound up playing with the reflections on the drops.  This is caused by the color of the drops themselves combined with the geled speedlight behind them and the effectively geled (through the water) speedlight below.  I like the effect but need to play with this more to better understand it.

Bowling for Bubbles by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

This is another failure.  I started by trying to collide drops in midair - similar to what I did in my 2nd shot above - but I had difficulties getting it to work again.  I then collided drops with the splatter of the first drop, where I succeeded but found the effect not so interesting.  I ended up with this shot.

Into the Wishing Well by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

8

Macro / Playing with water drops

« on: November 12, 2012, 10:24:53 AM »

Just thought I would post a bit about my water drop setup progression.  These photos were all taken with two Stopshots from Cognisys.

This first shot is an example of what I could do before I rebuilt my setup.  The orange is from food coloring while the background is construction paper.  The shot is relatively simple.  I use one drop to get the column then hit it with a second drop to create the splash.

Ending with a Splash by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

In this next shot I rebuilt the siphon system to support three configurable siphons.  This allows me to use three different colored drops in a single photo.  The rest of the system is similar with the same plate holding the water.  I illuminated the background slightly, but otherwise didn't do anything there.

The Well of Souls by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

In the next shot I moved to illuminating from underneath.  I used a Tupperware container and a glass dish.  Although I could use three siphons, I only used one siphon here and the shot is similar in complexity to the first one.  The difference in shape is due to the makeup of the liquid.  There are a number of problems with this shot and I realized after taking it that the Tupperware was not very practical.

Watercolor by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The last shot I took yesterday.  I built a small light table and rested the glass dish on it.  One flash was used to light from below while another was geled and placed behind the table to create the background.  Another flash illuminated from the side.  Two siphons were used.

Drop Playground by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I am getting there, but more work needs to be done.

• The table shook a bit and was not level.  This is the reason for the unlevel background and harsh transition on the side.  I have since fixed this with leveling legs.
• I need more flashes for the setup.  In particular I would like at least two for the background, another one on the other side, and two for underneath (to light up the water behind the drop more).
• I bought polarized filter paper for my flashes and have a polarizer for my lens.  I just need to brave up and cut it ($50/sheet) and use it on the side flashes to see the effect - which I hope removes some of the glare I spend time in PP removing

9

Lenses / Guesses on lenses for Photoplus

« on: October 24, 2012, 02:39:49 PM »

We'll know this for sure within a few days (hours?) but I thought I would take a stab at what lenses they'll announce.

Most likely
35mm 1.4 II - priced somewhere between $1700-$2100
200-400/1.4x - priced at $10k

Possibilities
TS-E 90 II - magnification near .5x, similar updates to other TS lenses, priced at $2100
TS-E 45 II - similar updates to other TS lenses, priced at $2100
400/5.6 II - much sharper.  Has new gen IS.  Priced at $2300.
300/4 II - much sharper, takes extenders better. Has new gen IS.  Priced at $2300

Unlikely
100-400 II - no more push/pull, much sharper and faster.  Priced at $3000.
135/2 II - Priced at $1900.
MP-E 65 II - Significantly better optics, maybe increased magnification.  Priced at $2300.

Not happening
14-24 - Maybe an "in development" announcement, which means 2014

10

Lenses / Need opinions on telephoto choice

« on: October 10, 2012, 11:58:33 PM »

I have been lucky to save up for almost all the lenses I want within the last several years.  I currently have the following - MP-E 65, 100L macro, TS-E 17, TS-E 24, TS-E 90, 16-35 2.8 II, 24-105, 8-15 fisheye, and 70-200/2.8 II.  For the most part I have all of the tripods, lighting, and other things I desire.  My one big hole is a telephoto.

As one of my biggest joys is bird and wildlife photography, this is a big hole.  Ever since I started in photography it has been my desire to have a good telephoto, but right now the best I can do is a 2x III extender on my 70-200/2.8 II.  It does a decent job and I sold my 100-400 because the combo was very comparable, but now I would like something a bit better.

I am mainly looking for something to photograph birds and mammals that I come across.  I am not a true birder, but I do like photographing them and have learned to do a decent job with the equipment I have right now so I am reaching the point where equipment will make a big difference.

I have done a great deal of research for some time, but being ever cautious I thought I would ask for opinions on my choice to make sure it is a wise one - as we are dealing with a lot of money.

First, $7k is about my maximum.  Even that will be extremely difficult and will likely mean no photography purchases for the next year.  I will have to seriously beg my better half and I am unlikely to be able to do something like this for many years afterwards.

Weight and bulk are concerns and are not.  Most of my photography is local, so I have the ability to carry something large.  However, we do travel somewhere interesting each year and sometimes that place has decent wildlife.  Next year we are going to Australia, where it would be nice to use it.  However if the lens is too large to take, then I'll be OK.

Note that this will be for a 5D3.  I used to own a 7D but was not happy with the image quality so I sold it when I bought the 5D3.

The following are options I have considered.

600 II, 500 II, 800/5.6, 400 2.8 II  - These are all above my budget
200-400/1.4x - Doesn't actually exist and will certainly be above my budget
Used 600 I - Strongly considered this, but the thing is so huge.  I handhold most of my bird shots now.  Won't happen with this one.
Used 400 2.8 I - This lens does not handle extenders well
Used 500 I - Smaller than the 600, but used prices are not much less.  This is a tough one, but I think my choice is the better way to go.
Used 300/2.8 - A much cheaper choice, but in this case I believe the 300/2.8 II is the best choice.

The following are reasons why I am leaning towards the 300/2.8 II.
- I am a sucker for new things.  Call me overcautious, but I prefer to have the latest and greatest.
- Optically it looks amazing.  Looking at these charts it appears to compete well with the 500/4 I - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=117&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=739&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1
- It handles extenders very well - even a 2x.  I am sure AF will take a good hit, but I'll have a decent 600/5.6 that will be sharper and likely have better AF than my existing 70-200/2.8 II + 2x.
- It's smaller - making hand holding much easier and I can take it on vacation as necessary

Does this sound logical, or am I overlooking something?


Below are some examples of the photos I have taken so far.

The Successful Hunter by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


Getting Ready by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

11

EOS Bodies / DPReview 5D3 review out

« on: May 22, 2012, 08:52:38 PM »

It's out - http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/05/23/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-review-posted

In a sign of their political awareness, the 5D3 scored the same (82%) as the D800.

I'll let the fanboys comment on individual aspects of the review.  As far as I have been able to tell, both cameras succeed in taking pictures.

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Great review for D800 vs. 5D3 and DxO

« on: May 09, 2012, 11:32:43 AM »

I like the author's tone here and his opion of DxO.  This review pretty much sums up a lot of the current debate - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/comparision-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mark.html

His style is a bit brash, but I agree with him 95% about DxO (I actually have a more negative opinion of them than he does) and about the entire debate.

13

Macro / Gross me out

« on: May 07, 2012, 01:52:17 AM »

Let's see some of your most disgusting macro shots.  Let's try to make this the most feared thread on CR.

I'll start with two of mine.


http://500px.com/photo/7359028


http://500px.com/photo/2913355

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / New D800 vs 5D3 comparison review

« on: May 04, 2012, 11:21:38 AM »

Ron still plans to put more reviews up soon, but for those interested in the resolution difference between the 5D3 and D800 he has this review up - http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/05/first-look-nikon-d800.html

The detail on the D800 looks quite impressive, but I do agree with him that the 5D3 exposed better.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Canon 5D3 vs 7D for birding thoughts

« on: April 03, 2012, 01:09:58 PM »

I currently own a 5D3 and a 7D.  I still have the 5D2 my 5D3 is meant to replace and am waiting for the market to clear a bit before selling it.

Yesterday I photographed a pair of hooded mergansers that I had earlier photographed with my 7D.  The lens was the same - 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III, and the location was exactly the same.  I also photographed the birds at the same exact location in the pond with both cameras.  The only difference was the shots were taken several weeks apart.

I was curious to compare them, so I took two photos of the same merganser at the same location and compared them.  The crop from the 7D made its version larger, but the following is what I noticed with my very unscientific experiment (partly due to laziness and partly because there are flaws in this test I will not post the crops).  Here are two different shots from each shoot, but note that these are not the ones I compared.  They won't tell you much about the quality of the cameras but they'll give you an idea of the conditions.

7D - http://500px.com/photo/5118931
5D3 - http://500px.com/photo/6268179

- The 5D3 had a huge advantage in noise.  I had taken the 7D shots at ISO 800, while the 5D3 shots were taken at ISO 1600.  Nevertheless the 7D had very noticeable noise while the 5D3 was significantly cleaner.
- The 5D3 had far more detail in the shot.  I could see far more details in the feathers than the 7D - even when the crop was taken into account.
- The 5D3 seems to have better dynamic range.  With the 7D the black parts of the bird were solid black, while with the 5D3 there was a lot more detail there.  This may also have been an exposure issue.

When I look at this, I am seeing really no reason to keep the 7D.  Other than having two more fps, the 5D3 outperforms it in every aspect - even when the crop is taken into account.  Perhaps this may not be true for ISO 100, but for bird photography that is extremely rare.

My question is to those who also have both cameras.  What have you noticed in the difference?  I am not looking for theoretical discussions here but practical ones from other individuals who have used both cameras.

This is just a single test and ideally I should test both cameras on a tripod with the same subject at the same time, but I am curious if others have noticed the same thing.  At this point I am strongly leaning towards selling the 7D and going back to a single body, with the proceeds going towards funding a future 600/4 II.