Messages

46

Macro / Re: books on macro

« on: February 06, 2013, 07:16:40 PM »

It depends on your skill level.  If you are new to macro, then the above mentioned books will be useful.  If you are already familiar with macro and want to improve your technique, then there's really nothing I know of that is very helpful.  IMHO this is one area where there is a dearth of quality material.

Your best bet is to find a group of people involved in similar macro photography online.

47

Lenses / Re: Telephoto choice for Australia

« on: February 02, 2013, 08:18:50 PM »

Thank you for the replies.  I decided to go with a new 400/5.6 on the last day of Canon rebates.  I plan to take this with me to Australia and figure out what to do about a longer telephoto at the end of the year.  From my reseach this appears to outperform the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III significantly in both image quality and AF.  The lack of IS isn't hugely important to me as I plan to use it mostly on my monopod and I typically use high shutter speeds anyways for birds.  This also shouldn't increase the weight of my bag too much.

For underwater, I am thinking about buying a simple underwater camera (<$300) before I go.  I have thought about buying a housing for some time, but I just do not take enough of those photos to justify it.  I also considered renting a housing - either from a place here or in Australia - but I am a bit concerned about putting my primary (and only) DSLR in a rental housing thousands of miles from home.  Most of my photos should be from the surface (snorkeling) so it should do OK.

48

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Single raw real estate photos

« on: February 02, 2013, 10:13:41 AM »

I shoot RE photos and personally strive to do the best possible job regardless of the property.  The way I look at it, whenever a home is listed with my work it is a public example of my skills.  It does not matter if the property is a $6M waterfront mansion or a $20k half destroyed condo.  If I accept the job, then I put all of my effort into it.  If I believe the effort is not worth the pay, then I do not take the job in the first place.

Sorry to be blunt, but IMHO it is not right to do a fast job just because the pay isn't enough.  This is an example of your work broadcast across the world.

49

Lenses / Re: Help me choose between the two: 70-200 f2.8 IS or 17 TS-E?

« on: February 01, 2013, 07:53:52 PM »

If you shoot weddings, then buy the 70-200/2.8 IS II.  Wedding pay a lot more than RE, so it makes the most sense to invest your money in the area where it will provide the most return.

50

Lenses / Re: Which to buy : the 24mm F1.4 or 24mm TS F3.5?

« on: February 01, 2013, 03:03:02 PM »

These are really quite different lenses and it depends on what you are interested in photographing.  First, if you find the 24-70/2.8 heavy, then the TS-E 24 II will not be a major improvement.

The TS-E 24 is a tilt shift lens and is specialized for architecture and landscapes.  The 24/1.4 is more specialized for abstract, street scenes, and night shots.  It's really not correct to say one is better than the other.  Which one works better for you depends on what you like to photograph.

51

Lenses / Re: Advice for shooting House Interior with 5DIII

« on: February 01, 2013, 11:23:50 AM »

+1 on the TS-E 17.  That is what I use for most of my RE interiors.  For exteriors the TS-E 24 II is king (the TS-E 17 is usually too wide).  If you're a bit worried about tilt shifts, the 16-35/2.8 II is a decent lens and is what I used before tilt shifts.  In all cases make sure to have your camera level on the tripod to get the verticals right.  Missed verticals are the #1 mistake by beginners.

52

Lenses / Re: Telephoto choice for Australia

« on: January 31, 2013, 08:50:29 PM »

Thanks!  I am thinking that I will purchase a used 500/4 regardless of whether I take it to Australia.  If I do purchase one for Australia it will be shortly before the trip because I will need to wait until then to save enough.  Otherwise I will likely wait for the end of the year.  A decent telephoto is really the last lens that I truly need.

Lugging around such a large lens is definitely a concern.  I already take quite a bit with me - on our recent trip to Tuscany I had a 70-200/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 100/2.8 IS macro, 8-15 fisheye, and 24-105/4 + flash + tripod.  I usually wake up very early in the morning and photograph while the family is asleep.  Still, a 500/4 significantly adds to the weight and I only want to take one if it truly will make a difference in the photos.

Disregarding the 500/4, I'm still working on what I will take to Australia but for sure it will include my MP-E 65, MT-24EX, and 100 macro as I am very interested in photographing bugs.  My 70-200/2.8 and TS-E 24 will also likely make it because they are my most used travel lenses.  I'll also likely add the 24-105/4 for shots I don't care too much about.  I'll probably leave the TS-E 17 home in favor of the 16-35/2.8 because it can accept filters and I won't be photographing many interiors.   So, adding a 500/4 to that will equal one very heavy bag.

53

Lenses / Re: Telephoto choice for Australia

« on: January 31, 2013, 01:12:41 PM »

Forgot to add that my camera is a FF 5D3.

54

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.

55

Lenses / Re: 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!

« on: January 29, 2013, 11:46:04 AM »

I think they can definitely improve the optics and AF speed of the existing model.  I used to own a copy but found the 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III was close enough in performance to make it unnecessary to carry around two large lenses.  My guess is a new version will get rid of the push-pull, improve the optics + AF, and add the newest IS.  Ideally it will also function decently with a 1.4x extender on a body that can AF at F8.

I expect the price on such a lens to be about $3k.  The current 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8 I both sold at nearly the same price (70-200/2.8 was a bit pricier).  Therefore I wouldn't expect a new 100-400 to drastically exceed the 70-200/2.8 II.

I would certainly be in the market for such a lens and am currently holding some of my budget in hopes they will come out with something (I would jump on a 400/5.6 IS if they came out with that instead).  I can't afford $11k for the 200-400, nor can I even afford the 300/2.8 II or any of the other big primes.  If I had the money I would certainly buy a 600/4 II, but given my current situation a new 100-400 is a reasonable compromise.  I suspect there are many other buyers like I.

56

Canon General / Re: The tax monster is coming soon. What are you planning on doing with your refund?

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:29:34 PM »

Given that with the latest tax changes we are about $1200 poorer every month, I do not believe I'll be buying anything.

I would say that sucks, but if you are loosing $1200 a month to a 2% tax increase I don't feel sorry for you.

It's a lot more than 2%.

57

Canon General / Re: The tax monster is coming soon. What are you planning on doing with your refund?

« on: January 17, 2013, 12:44:38 PM »

Given that with the latest tax changes we are about $1200 poorer every month, I do not believe I'll be buying anything.

58

Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8

« on: December 31, 2012, 11:58:35 PM »

If they made one it would be at least 20k and the optics would suck compared to the equivalent primes.  In general the longer the focal range the worse the optics.

59

Macro / Re: Is no one interested in macro?

« on: December 23, 2012, 10:39:24 AM »

Springtails are very common right now.  I always found them to be rather cute.


Portrait of a Springtail by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Not sure what this is, but I found the patterns to be interesting.

Beetle Highways by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Here's another water drop photo from yesterday

The Bubbleship by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

60

Underwater / Re: Advice on inexpensive underwater system

« on: December 19, 2012, 05:28:06 PM »

Thank you for all of the replies.  Based on these and other research, the following are some thoughts.

1) Get lucky and find a deal on underwater housing for my 5D3 on EBay.
2) Sell the X10, buy an RX100 and a housing for it + a fisheye lens for it (I have seen them for sale).
3) Buy nothing

The main reason I am looking into underwater equipment at all is we will be travelling to the Great Barrier Reef next year.  We will spend a few days on Lady Elliot Island and another on a daytrip from Port Douglas. However, as interesting as that is I cannot justify spending a lot of money just to get a few underwater shots from the trip.  Therefore it should be usable in swimming pools and half in/half out shots to justify the expense.

Question about strobes - do I need them for snorkeling?  My assumption was they are only really necessary for diving - for snorkeling there is enough light from above the water.