April 16, 2014, 09:56:05 AM

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 - J.R.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 95
541
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell on Lens Sharpness
« on: September 24, 2013, 12:23:41 PM »
Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW.  Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.

It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.

Yeah ... and he had another one on the lines of why you no longer need a tripod. I guess that was the last time I visited his site. Well, I visited his website again today, only for confirming the fact that his website only contains "aggressive personal opinions" and not "logical presentation of fact"

542
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: September 24, 2013, 12:20:13 PM »
I wish they'd split it into two lenses:

24-35 f/2L IS  and
50-85 f/2L IS

For $ 2,500 each ... I think I'll pass  ;)

543
Canon General / I'm so sick of Canon ...
« on: September 24, 2013, 12:13:12 PM »
... I just ordered a 16-35L f/2.8 II and a 70-200 f/2.8 II ... What to do of this addiction?

544
Underwater / Re: Over - Under -shot not in focus?
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:13:38 AM »
I feel it is refraction ... the experts will chime in I'm sure ...  :)

545
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell on Lens Sharpness
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:08:27 AM »

What the fault with Rockwell's logic? So far I have read only insults.

Becaust Rockwell's logic isn't logic in the first place. This is from the "About" page on his website -

Quote
It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

546
Underwater / Re: Over - Under -shot not in focus?
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:03:23 AM »
Ok. By shooting at another angle I meant if the camera was tilted slightly upward or downward. How and where did you focus while taking the shot?

547
Underwater / Re: Over - Under -shot not in focus?
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:57:20 AM »
My guess is that refraction from the water is altering the plane of focus which would explain why the area underwater is sharp. Did you shoot at any other angle? 

548
Lenses / 135L + 1.4x extender IQ question
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:30:43 AM »
Another TC question ...

I've not yet got any TCs as they would not have been useful for any of my gear. I've been wanting a 200mm f/2.8 prime for some time now but am considering the 135L + 1.4x extender which will given me roughly 190mm at f/2.8.

Has anyone used this combo? Anything I should look out for?

Cheers ... J.R.

549
I've used the 5D3 as well as the 6D at -7C to -10C without any problems. Lenses used were 17-40L, 24-105L, 100mm macro, 100-400L and the 135L. 

550
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: September 21, 2013, 08:11:32 AM »

The IS-version is (like the version II with no IS) not a parfocal lens and delivers the ugly 18 rays from small light sources with an aperture of 16, 22 and so on.

Maybe I'm missing something but which is this IS-Version that you are talking about?

551
Canon General / Re: Patent: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS
« on: September 21, 2013, 07:32:50 AM »
...people may be waiting for a VERY long time for the IS version of this lens.

Personally, I couldn't be happier with my EF24-70 f2.8 II.

+1  I'm extremely happy with my EF 24-70 2.8 II.  Would I like for it to have IS?  Sure, but I'm taking lots of great pictures without IS now.

If the IS lens would be as large as Radiating suggested, I'm not sure I would want one.

+1 ... my thoughts exactly.

I don't know how much better the 24-70 II can get, IQ wise. I see no point in splurging north of $ 3,000 for a replacement with IS. 

552
EOS Bodies / Re: Bad News Closing out 2013? [CR2]
« on: September 21, 2013, 07:30:27 AM »
noooo my precious 14-24!!!

gollum gollum!  ;) ;) ;D ;D

553
Lenses / Re: Results with the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC?
« on: September 21, 2013, 07:23:10 AM »
I use a 5d3 with a 100-400 all the time. It is one of my favorite setups and I have used it extensively for wildlife, birds (including BIF) and even landscapes.

Once they upgraded the firmware to allow AF at f8 I ran a FoCal test with the 1.4x to see what the iq results were. It took 3 test runs to get a result. The program kept telling me it could not produce an accurate result. The IQ numbers it came up with were quite poor. In fact cropping an inage without using a tc would produce a far better result then an image with using tge tc. My 1-400 is very sharp and a "good" copy. My 1.4 is a version ii and has tested excellently on my 300f2.8 and 500 f4 just fine.

Not one to take the word of only a calibration program I took it to my favorite local haunt to photograph osprey, herons, red wings etc to give it a good field test. My conclusion is that this is an unusable combo.

The AF is terrible. It hunts and has trouble locking onto static subjects that fill half the frame. And when it does lock on, it is not always locked on. The images that were relatively close with AF were extremely soft at all apertures. F9,11,14 would not produce usable results. The time of day was sunrise for about 3 hours after on a clear day, so I had plenty of light.

Disappointed I ended up testing the 400f5.6 next with the 1.4x. I was actually very impressed with AF but the iq was not that great. Not horrible, but not great.

IMO neither combo is usable. For more consistently good results I have opted to not use a tc with either lens, and then crop in post. Hope this info helps.

Thanks ... this sounds exactly what I expected but did not want to hear!

554
Lenses / Re: Results with the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC?
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:24:19 AM »
Previous link is for wrong lens :)

Anyway, I've used the 100-400L with Sigma 1.4x. Biggest problem I have is no usable AF (50D, 7D). This means manual focus, which I find impossible to get accurate in viewfinder, and 560mm handholding live view isn't going to end well. If you can use a tripod, I find the image quality ok. Overall hardly worth the effort over 400 and crop.

Some people claim AF success by taping over some teleconverter pins to make it appear not there, but it never locks reliably for me, if at all.

Autofocusing shouldn't be a problem with the 5D3 at f/8 with the center point. I'm only concerned about the IQ

555
Lenses / Results with the 100-400 with a 1.4x TC?
« on: September 21, 2013, 02:43:38 AM »
Has anyone used this combo? How good / bad are the results?

Cheers ... J.R.



 

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 95