December 17, 2014, 09:36:42 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 - kirispupis

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22
181
I really appreciate all these helpful posts, even Ontarian for hijacking and plugging his gear (just messing with you buddy). ;-)

The 14mm looks great, but in this focal range, I want full control over all types of distortion. Plus, I also feel like the 17mm TS-E is gonna be a better value for giving me so many variables to play with, beyond aperture. I definitely want a lens that can make me some money on the architectural/interiors scene. I'm hoping the 17mm TS-E will force me to step up my "pro" game.

The ability to add a teleconverter to the 17mm TS-E is the deal-winner for me. I've also considered the 45mm TS-E f/2.8, but a 35mm equivalent is close enough!

Thanks again, y'all!

If you are looking for a 35mm equivalent and want to buy one of the current EF lenses, then the TS-E 24 II is a far better choice than the TS-E 17 for the following reasons.

- You lose a lot more quality with a 2x converter than a 1.4x
- The 24 is sharper than the 17 to start out with
- The 17 has serious flare issues (no surprise given the front of the lens).  The 24 handles flare very well.
- The 24 can take filters, the 17 cannot (or at least cannot easily...)
- The do not have to worry as much about the front of the lens and don't have the huge lens cap to carry around

182
Lenses / Re: Macro decisions
« on: May 10, 2012, 11:59:41 AM »
Personally, I am sorry to be a bit rude but if you are comparing the 100 macro with the MP-E 65, wondering which to buy, then you do not really understand macro and you should therefore stick to the 100mm.  These are completely different lenses.  I own and heavily use both of them and they have completely different uses.  I use my 100L for small things in general - flowers, leaves, knick knacks, etc.  My MP-E 65 is used for small bugs.  I almost never use my MP-E 65 without an MT-24EX and CP-E4 (for longer battery life + quicker firing).

Here is a rather typical shot taken with the 100L (handheld)

http://500px.com/photo/7019881

Here is a rather typical shot taken with the MP-E 65 (handheld)

http://500px.com/photo/7389001

While I shoot most of my macro hand held, I do take some tripod based shots.  I do this most often with flowers - which means the 100L or TS-E 90.  I also use a tripod for my drop photography, but that is more for repeatability than for stabilization.

Keep in mind that if you are interested in tripod based macro, besides the obvious macro rail you'll need a very flexible tripod + head.  I use a Gitzo 2541EX - which is the Explorer arm type - and an Acratech GP ball head.  This allows a good deal of flexibility.

For the macro rails themselves I started with the Kirk rail - which is very similar to the Adorama one (I believe they are made by the same company).  I later moved to the RRS two rails system so that I can move in both the X and Y directions.  This rail is more precise and stable than the Kirk rail and I like it much better.  I have heard that the Novoflex is also very good, but have not used it.

The ultimate rail in terms of precision and flexibility is the Cognisys Stackshot.  I own a copy and really like it.  I used it to take this stacked shot.  Note that I still use my RRS rails with it for X and coarse Y adjustments.


Crocus by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Note that a bellows is significantly different from a macro rail.  You can use a bellows + certain lenses to achieve similar magnification (and greater) than the MP-E 65 but you lose the flexibility because a bellows is significantly larger and general is confined to a tripod.  I have seen some people use a Nikon bellows with Canon.  There are other options if you really want to go that route, but personally I find the MP-E 65 so much more useful and if I wanted higher magnification I would just attach a microscope objective to the front.

183
The 14L and TS-E 17 are completely different lenses.  While others have already mentioned that tilt is not possible through the 14L + PP, you cannot replicate shift strictly through PP.  Here is an example.

All of these images were taken with the TS-E 17 and I have not yet processed them.  The first was taken unshifted.  In order to get all of the building in the shot, I needed to pan up.  While the Burj Khalifa does not look too bad because I centered it, you can see that the other buildings' verticals are majorly screwed up.


No shift, panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

You could imagine that with a 14L, the Burj Khalifa would be quite a bit smaller on the shot as 14mm is a lot wider than 17mm.

The following shot is the same building from the same location, but this time shifted.  With this shot I have leveled the camera.


Shifted but not panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The obvious difference is the verticals are now correct.  Unfortunately the entire building is not within view.  In order to have improved on that, I would have had to gain more height, which I was unable to do.  Still, you can see that no amount of PP is going to get the second image from the first.  You may be able to correct the verticals in the smaller buildings at its sides, but you will not get the same perspective in the Burj Khalifa.

Now you could argue that the two images aren't completely the same, as one of them was taken with the camera level (thus missing the top of the building) while the other was not.  Here is the same view taken with the lens fully shifted and the camera panned up slightly to get the top.


Shifted and panned up by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

As you can see between the two images, the Burj Khalifa is about 30% taller on this image than on the first one.  The verticals on the smaller buildings are off but not nearly as badly as in the first shot.  You are not going to be able to stretch the first shot to match this one without a very noticeable quality drop.  Note that a 14L would be even more severe as the Burj Khalifa would be smaller - requiring even more stretching.

I have a number of other shots that demonstrate this but from the above you can see one reason why any serious architectural photographer makes heavy use of TS lenses.  The 14L is a very useful lens for extremely wide spaces (I do not own a copy, but have used one) but it has a completely different purposes from the TS-E 17 and the TS-E 24 II.

184
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.

185
Macro / Re: Gross me out
« on: May 07, 2012, 09:48:40 AM »
I'm curious - what the fly is sitting on (second shot) and how did you shoot it? :)

BTW: Why disgusting only in macro? :)

The fly was sitting on dog sh$#t. I used an MP-E 65 + MT-24EX to shoot it.
You don't have to stick to macro, but IMHO macro does it best. :)

186
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

187
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.

188
EOS Bodies / Re: Really Right Stuff L-Plate 5D3
« on: May 04, 2012, 11:19:46 AM »
Strange.  I have the original RRS L-plate for the 5D3 - the one everyone has complained about.  I have looked at the photos online and have examined my L plate and cannot see any issue.  I even had other photographer friends look at it and no one can see a problem.  It fits just fine.

The gap in question is here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5446.msg116666#msg116666

I looked at that thread but when I take a look at my L-plate on my camera, I see no such gap.

189
EOS Bodies / Re: Really Right Stuff L-Plate 5D3
« on: May 04, 2012, 12:45:27 AM »
Strange.  I have the original RRS L-plate for the 5D3 - the one everyone has complained about.  I have looked at the photos online and have examined my L plate and cannot see any issue.  I even had other photographer friends look at it and no one can see a problem.  It fits just fine.

190
Macro / Re: Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x 2.8 Macro Lens example photos
« on: May 01, 2012, 12:12:45 PM »
Here are a few recent shots with this lens that I took.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/6954829096/#


http://500px.com/photo/6987958

191
Lenses / Re: Going to Disneyland and San Diego and need lens help
« on: April 26, 2012, 11:27:21 AM »
Within the past three years I have been to WDW twice, DL once, HK Disney once, and all of the parks in SD.  In terms of Disney, to be honest I would not take a DSLR there.  I took my 5D2 with me in the past and found it more cumbersome than usual.

There were admittedly times I was glad I had it.  The 5D2 + 50/1.4 were very useful for photographing + videoing the night show at California Adventure.  The 5D2 + 16-35 were also very useful in HK Disney - where we were chosen as Grand Marshalls for the day and were paraded across the park.

On our last trip, though, I only took my Fuji X10 and it was by far the best choice I ever made.  It is small enough to fit in a pocket and takes great pictures.  Here is a set of shots I took with it there - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157628607245971/.  I really felt sorry for the poor souls lugging around DSLRs while trying to hold their kids hands and go on rides.  I have done that myself and it just isn't worth it.

For San Diego, that is a bit different question.  For SeaWorld and LegoLand I would only take my X10.  For the zoo and animal park, you'll really need a DSLR + decent lens.  I used my 70-200/2.8 II quite often for photographing the animals and even added my 2x III extender a number of times.  Of the lenses you list the 70-200/4 IS would probably be the best bet.  You should also consider adding a 1.4 extender.  You could just take a 24-105 if all you're really interested in is family shots and not so much the animals.

192
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Hands-on Experience with the 1DC
« on: April 26, 2012, 12:41:10 AM »
Nice!  Being more into photography I am not very interested in the 1DC, but I am curious what the CN-E 50 is capable of.  From the specs it looks to have amazing bokeh.

193
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 23, 2012, 06:22:30 PM »
But I really don't see the relevance of this. Again, I believe this is just a data dredging exercise that Canon fans have undertaken because they are unhappy with the 5DIII test scores. The complaint is misdirected -- they should be complaining to Canon.

As far as I can see this here is about DXO and how they do their tests (number ratings) and not limited to the academic poor sensor quality of the 5d MKIII... I guess there are 3-4 other threads in this forum here parallel to this one where people who never used the MK III on their own are doing this...  Btw I own both the MKII and MK III so I can at least tell that the MKIII is much better IQ wise... and I have also tested most of lenses myself so I know that the 300mm f2.8 II is the about the highest resolving lens I have ever seen.

I absolutely agree with you here on the 5D2 vs. 5D3.  What I find funny/sad is how many people there are who prefer to trust a number vs. reviews from people who have actually used both cameras.  DXO is a joke. They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.

many people have tested both and surprise, surprise, they get the same dynamic range findings as DxO did, so no, DxO sensor tests are not a joke (maybe their lens tests though ;D)

Really?  Where are these people?  Are they Oompa Loompas or real people?

Of the folks here who owned a 5D2 and now have a 5D3, how many agree with DXO that the 5D3 is only marginally better for high ISO?  Of those who have a 1D4 and a 5D2, how many agree with DXO that the 5D2 has better high ISO (admittedly I do not own a 1D4 but everyone I know who owns both cameras believes the 1D4 is a bit better).

194
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:29:38 AM »
They are like that computer in Hitchhiker's Galaxy that spits out the number 42.

Wait, wait, Douglas Adams have the 5DIII a score of 42?!?   :o

If Douglas Adams did, I would trust it more than I trust the DXO score. :)

195
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sorry 5D3, Insufficient Value
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:27:50 AM »
What I find funny is how all of the negative '5D3 isn't worth it' replies are coming from people who do not actually own the camera.

I think it is valid to make up one's mind based on tech specs, iq comparisons and reading many reviews, and I don't think having something in your hand magically adds something to this apart from the fact that all current dslr bodies are "good and fun to shoot with".

Properly done reviews are useful, but nothing takes the place of actually trying it out for yourself.  It's kind of like reading a review on a new Ferrari. Sure, I can read a review and make a call whether it's worth it, but ultimately if I need to know what the car is truly like I need to get inside one and drive it.

I read quite a bit of info and looked at a lot of sample images of the 5D3 before mine arrived, but there's a big difference between seeing someone else's ISO 12800 shots and examining your own.  Only when you integrate the camera into your professional workflow can you truly see how well the camera fits you.

Keep in mind that my definition of "worth it" is entirely a professional one.  The way I see it, if the income I make from shots not possible (or not sellable) with my 5D2 but possible and sellable from my 5D3 exceeds $3500, then the camera is worth it.  So far, the combination of high ISO performance, much better AF, and little things like the viewfinder leveler mean that for my uses this is very likely the case.

For the hobbyist this is a more difficult decision and depends on where you put your values.  Even a hobbyist, though, will not truly understand the value of the camera without trying it out.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22