December 20, 2014, 04:07:47 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 - rmfagan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
I tend to agree, but I don't know enough about the physics to be certain. The reason I ask is I am torn between buying a 300 IS II  plus 7d ii or a 500 IS VER 1 for wildlife. Really tough call and this talk about only 1.2x advantage in reality is confounding.

2
Hello all-

I've seen several posts lately which have left me confused. My understanding of the crop factor (1.6x in Canon's case) is that FOV is decreased by 1.6x, effectively cropping the photo. It doesn't replace focal length in that you do not gain additional telephoto compression. However, this crop effect could still be useful to the focal length limited photographer (let's say 300IS II + 2x TC III as opposed to a 500 or 600 prime) because to crop a FF image in post throws out pixels, while a sensor forced crop puts relatively greater number of pixels on target (ie a 7d2 vs a 5d3).

Now I've read posts alluding to a "real" benefit of closer to 1.2x due to increased camera movement. Why? Would this camera movement not also occur at a comparable FOV on FF? Would a 300 + 1.4x not have roughly the same movement as a 400?

Thanks in advance for clearing this up.

3
Lenses / Re: 300 or 500I or 500II or 7D2... HELP!
« on: December 06, 2014, 03:05:07 PM »
I am indeed concerned about the IQ as compared to what I am used to from the 5D3, but I am also quite wary of bringing only one camera on these trips. Most of them are in fairly harsh elements where a failure of a body spells the end of my trip and renders a 500 II quite useless.

I have of course entertained the idea of renting a 2nd, but 6 rentals would have me at the same cost as buying something essentially.

Would it be more useful to just grab a 2nd 5D3? In that case, I'd be in either 300 II or 500 I territory, in which case I'm uncertain which is a better move. I've heard great thingsaot the 300 with TCs...enough to offset the reach off 500 native?

4
Lenses / 300 or 500I or 500II or 7D2... HELP!
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:55:51 PM »
Hello all-

I'm at a bit of a purchasing impasse and I'm hoping you can help. I'm looking to make a big purchase or two between now and mid-January, with a mind to use it/them on trips I have scheduled throughout the year.

 I'm photographing snowy owls in Canada in January, Iceland in February, eagles in Utah followed by mammals in Teton in March, an abandoned prison in April, Glacier NP/Yellowstone NP in June, storms in AZ in July, whales/puffins in Maine in August, and 9/11 in NYC by helicopter in September.

My current gear is Canon 5D3, 17TS-E, 16-35L 2.8, 24-70L II, 70-200L IS II, and a 50 1.8 II. I have both the 1.4 TC III and 2.0 TC III, and 3x600EX-RT, as well as the SR-E3-RT. I'm in the process of selling the 16-35 for the new 16-35L IS (I don't find myself needing 2.8).

I enjoy nature/wildlife photography, landscape, portraiture, and travel.

So with that said, I'm looking at the 300 IS II or 500 IS (ver 1) refurb or lightly used respectively, and a 7D II. I could also consider the 500 IS II if I forgo a 2nd body. I'm torn. The 300 II option would see use for more stuff, no doubt, but I feel I'd need the 7D II for reach (?). For the cost of both I could get the 500 IS II.

With either 500, it's a purely wildlife lens. With the 300 I can see portrait, some sports, even tele landscape stuff too. Of course, I'm also looking at the 85L, 135L, and 100L macro, so portrait use isn't critical.

If anyone can offer some advice, it'd be much appreciated.

Side question: I was looking at MTF charts. Is 16-35L IS looking sharper than 24TSE? I'm no good at those charts.

5
Technical Support / Re: DIY. How to shoot the bird from the car.
« on: November 09, 2014, 03:28:07 PM »
Great post Surapon! Bonus point for making me laugh. Almost spit out my lunch when I saw this title! Thought this tutorial was gonna look a bit more like...

6
Canon General / Re: Slick City Kit?
« on: October 27, 2014, 04:25:35 PM »
I'll certainly look. Anyone have feedback on the rest of the kit? Solid choices? Swap 135 for 85? Bring flash? Is a nodal slide needed/worthwhile for the TSE? Would I be better off leaving the 24-70 at home and grabbing a prime?

I suppose a better question would be: What is the perfect kit for shooting architecture, people, cityscapes, night and the like that I might encounter in NYC (or Paris, Rome, Bucharest, etc) that is easy to carry and includes a light tripod? If you were doing it, with a 5D3, what would you bring if you could use anything?

7
Canon General / Re: Slick City Kit?
« on: October 27, 2014, 02:21:19 PM »
The incase bags look intriguing. I wish there were more photos of DSLR gear loaded in them, and that they provided an illustration of the tripod attachment.

My true wish would be if Ona would incorporate loops on the bottom of their fantastic leather bags for lashing a tripod, but alas it does not appear they do. I wonder, could a leather shop attach d-rings or loops, and whether the ransom for such a service would rival the already lofty prices of the bags themselves.

8
Canon General / Slick City Kit?
« on: October 27, 2014, 01:31:38 PM »
Hello all-

With your help, I decided on buying the 17 TS-E, and it's on order. While I anxiously await it's arrival, I'm trying to piece together what I hope would be a slick and versatile kit for shooting in NYC and the like (I could see such a kit equally adaptable for European travel for instance). As I'll be commuting into the city by train and mostly walking once there, weight and portability are certainly parameters for consideration, keeping in mind that image quality is still foremost. For reference, I currently own a 5D3, the 17TSE, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 50 1.8, 3 x 600EX-RT, ST-E3-RT, Gitzo GT3451, Markins Q10i.

With that in mind, I thought my 5D3, the 17 TS-E, my 24-70L II, and purchasing a 135L would be an ideal kit allowing for architecture, unobtrusive street photography, and virtually anything else I might encounter. I can see shallow DOF and low light lacking perhaps, but I'm not sure bringing the 50 is worth it. I considered the 85L but am concerned about it's AF speed for street, and 135 seems to get me close enough to the reach of the 70-200 without the weight or "look at me!" appearance. Thoughts on this kit? Any holes? Should I bring a 600EX-RT?

Now to utilize the 17TSE in particular, I need a tripod, and my GT3451/Q10i seems too big and heavy for maneuvering subways and sidewalks and unnecessary for the kit I'd be deploying. The Gitzo GT1542T paired perhaps with a Q3i Traveller seems a much more compact and viable solution. Given it's on rebate right now, I'm inclined that way unless an argument is made for something different. I love RRS but can't seem to justify the expense in this case.

Lastly, I need a discrete sling or shoulder bag (no backpacks) to carry all this, and here I am stumped. I have a Think Tank Retrospective 30 that mostly fits the bill (though perhaps it has TOO much space for this kit) but I was hoping to have the option of carrying the tripod folded on the outside, perhaps on the bottom? Is the Urban Disguise my only option? Any other bags on the market? It needs to hold the kit, plus some ND, CPL, a remote, batteries, etc.

As always, thanks so much for the suggestions and assistance!

9
Lenses / Re: Which TS-E for NYC?
« on: October 14, 2014, 01:13:19 PM »
A bit of a wrinkle... I also quite enjoy landscape photography and frequently visit Vermont and NH, and occasionally travel to Montana and Utah to visit family. I'm also hoping to do another trip to Iceland in the coming year. Does my 24-70 II perform well enough for landscape uses that the utility of the 17 TS-E for architecture/interiors outweighs the 24 TS-E's benefits for landscape purposes.

To nip the impending suggestion in the bud: I can't afford to buy both.

10
Lenses / Which TS-E for NYC?
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:49:24 AM »
Hello all-

Finally ready to take the plunge on a TS-E lens but still woefully undecided on which. I currently shoot on a 5D3, with the 24-70L II, 70-200L II, and the nifty 50.

Living just outside of NYC it seems a shame I haven't taken the opportunity to photograph it. My primary interest in this context is the phenomenal architecture of the city, though I quite enjoy people photography as well. I'm envisioning the 24-70L II, a 135L, and one of the TS-E's (along with my Gitzo carbon legs and RRS ball head) as a suitable kit to these ends. But I'm undecided on the 17 vs 24.

One the one hand, 17 gives me a perspective 24 can't (though I could take advantage of shift movements). I have the Lee Big Stopper and hope to employ it but I read that is now also possible with the 17. So which is my better investment if I'm hoping to capture shots of the Brooklyn Bridge, Flat Iron Building, GCT, High Line, NY Public Library, and the like?

Thanks in advance!

11
I am aware that uses for a cpl extend beyond darkening skies. Rather I was using that as an example. Regardless, natural or artificial light will scatter and an ultra wide such as the Samyang 14 will result in uneven polarization across the frame, whether that frame includes sky or not. Granted, this phenomenon is most apparent with an even subject such as a blue sky. While other images may not show it as well, it still occurs.

12
A circular polarizer on a 14mm lens on FF is fairly pointless... Because polarization can only occur over a limited angle (90 degree IIRC) using one on such a wide lens would almost certainly result in uneven polarization across the image, i.e. banding in a blue sky.

It is generally not recommended.

13
Canon General / Re: Upcoming trip, any can't miss spots?
« on: January 28, 2014, 10:37:56 PM »
First things first; thanks all for the replies and loads of advice and recommendations! It is greatly appreciated and especially nice to see everyone concerned for my (and my gear's) well-being.  ;)

Now to address a few of the comments...

I feel it is important to stress that the purpose of this trip is specifically photography. I realize now that I didn't clearly indicate that in the OP. True, I am not being paid directly to make images on this trip, but my intent is to build a portfolio worthy of being paid in the future. Regardless of current or future compensation, I would not be taking this trip if it were not for the photographic opportunities. As such, I'm disinclined to go with a one lens approach. I "get" the whole Cartier-Bresson thing, and the "what's in your hand" mentality, but the fact of the matter is that I have the ability to choose to have more at my disposal. The "right" tool(s) for the job(s), as it were.

Leaving the "good" gear at home seems to go against logic, to me at least. Why buy the best lenses, a 5D3, etc but leave it in a safe when there is some risk? It seems to me the risk of exceptional photos often goes hand in hand with the risk of none(i.e. losing your gear).

And yea, I know I'm no NatGeo 'tog, but the idea of just "buying a coffee table book with better pictures" than mine is hard to swallow. Isn't this why we're here? Aren't we out there to learn and get shots that are worthy of publication or admiration. If not, this exercise seems a bit pointless, no?

To that end, I'd think a single 5D3, 24-70, 70-200, and 17 TS-E, as well a tripod and a few filters, is a pretty minimum kit. I'm young and fit and just got back from carrying much more than that (to include a 500 II) on my back for nearly two weeks in Japan. I won't be getting tired walking stairs or climbing hills.

The theft concern is real and valid. I do have insurance, to include rental coverage. I'll also look into the cable-strap posted. That said, I've also backpacked for months on end through El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua and more with gear without a problem. Care, some common sense, and a little luck go a long way, I've found.

Sorry that all came out as a rant. It wasn't really my intent. Just some responses that kind of made me do a double take.

As for gear, I think I will take the advice to go for the 17 in lieu of the 24 TS. I actually HAVE a 16-35 but really wanted the higher IQ and lines. Thinking of selling the 16-35. I'll be carrying my gear in a ThinkTank Retrospective, so at least thats fairly inconspicuous. Torn on the macro. I see one person gave it a thumbs up while most others are saying I've got too much gear.

 

14
Canon General / Upcoming trip, any can't miss spots?
« on: January 28, 2014, 08:57:51 AM »
Hello all. I'm wheels up in 44 days on another trip and I wanted to get the CR take on what to shoot. Any secret spots or can't miss places. General recommendations are welcomed as well.

I'm leaving NYC and have a 24-hr layover in Amsterdam, noon to noon. Then I'm flying into Athens, where I'll spend 3 nights. Then it's off to Istanbul for 4 nights, then a hop to Cappadocia for a night and a sunrise hot air balloon ride over the "chimneys". Then it's back home.

I'm planning on bringing my 5D3, 24-70 II, 70-200 II, nifty 50, my tripod, black glass, a few NDs, and one of my 600EX-RT's. I was considering bringing my 100L macro. Seems some of the Dutch "brownies", Greek food, and the Grand Bazaar beg for macro shots. Thoughts on that? I also intend to rent a TS-E. It's a hard call. The architecture and tight streets seem to scream 17, while Cappadocia might be better served by the 24. Any guidance there is appreciated.

So, any equipment guidance would be great, any input on where to go in the cities listed is even better! Thanks all!

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: January 21, 2014, 11:05:33 PM »
Ha, perhaps not as good as I make it out I guess. Always another side to the story. All my money goes to photography and travel and I otherwise live on a Bud Light-budget to afford it.

It helps that I tend to make very good friends when I travel and am often invited to visit them, which usually negates lodging costs. A lengthy period of time living in the Caribbean and having to travel back and forth to NYC helped me rack up the flyer miles.

When you're flying and sleeping free, trips are a LOT more affordable!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6