July 28, 2014, 01:23:10 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 - wickidwombat

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 296
31
Have you tried your 70-200mm with 2x MKIII?

Try it out first before hand you may surprise yourself at how good it is! Certainly did for me.

The most challenging thing is keeping the bird in frame with a prime its even more difficult if its flying toward you. With the zoom my technique is to track the bird at 70mm (140mm with the 2x) then as its coming toward you zoom into 400mm or what ever tele you need to try to fill the frame. Its a lot easier but obviously you loose a little AF speed canon quote 75% but I think this is worst case scenario from digital picture review he explains how the AF speed isn't really an issue with MKII lenses and MKIII extenders. I didn't have any trouble following Puffins and they are quick and unpredictable.

Next on my list is a MKIII extender I think :)

Its OK but the tamron leaves the 70-200 +2x mk3 combo for dead as far as servo performance goes IQ i guess is not too different and this is coming from a once confirmed Tamron hater! i still carry the 2xTC with the 70-200 as an in case but if I know i'll be shooting long stuff I take the tamron

32
isnt this what the FEL button does or did i read your post wrong?

33
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: July 02, 2014, 07:58:42 AM »
What product do you hope-for the most from Canon this year?
a 90% price drop?  ;D

34
EOS Bodies / Re: 5Diii vs Sony A7s vs GH4
« on: July 02, 2014, 07:57:51 AM »
Thank you for the input everyone- I appreciate it. I have all over you suggestions on my list.

I think the astrophotography comparison is a great idea, especially with the high ISO performance of the A7s. Ill do the low light focusing too (its rated down to -4 EV which is supposedly better than the 6D), and the noise performance tests.

Ill post any preliminary stuff here for feedback as well.

Thanks again and keep the ideas coming if you have any more
why not give the 6D a cameo in this aspect of the comparison since its supposed to be better in low light than the 5Dmk3...

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic Range Question
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:29:50 AM »
Try setting the highlight slider to -100 then slowly move the exposure slider + way, watching the histogram as you go to bring the shadows back up. Once the histo reaches the right edge stop. This work for me and gives a more natural look. Avoid increasing the shadow slider too much. Also drop the clarity on this to -10 which gives a little more of a natural look.

If this was a landscape shot you might be OK but I think with people in the shot I process my shots with less clarity.

too much clarity does horrific things to skin i agree dial in some minus globaly and then if needed for tight portraits add some back into eyes etc with the brush

36
Photography Technique / Re: Taking HDR shots
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:22:17 AM »
Photomatix Pro is good in all way for taking HDR shots, according to opinions given by people.

If you are on hallucinogenic drugs, perhaps.... however if you prefer your pictures to look remotely real then its not so good...

C'mon lets face it HDR has got a deservedly bad rep due to the woefully massive amount of horribly processed garbage clogging the internet and photomatix is largely responsible for this.


37
Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition
« on: July 01, 2014, 10:40:26 PM »
Most of my photos are indoor & low light. I'm thinking about DxO Optics Pro 9, Elite Edition as PP software(never use DxO before). I'm a LR user.

For those using DXO, can you guys share your thoughts on this Vs LR5?

Thanks in advance,
Dylan

awesome thread i'm in the same boat and have been thinking of learning DxO in parallel with LR incase the Adobe Licence Nazis get too belligerent and impose more stupid limitations forcing everyone into the cloud of doom.

38
I must be going a little nuts... I'm looking at 200-400's, 300/400 f/2.8's... and I'm seeing the price tag... and I thinking... "That's not bad." 

I remember fondly when I spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and I thought that was a lot of money... I'm off to bed... this bug will surely pass before I wake.

honestly i was seriously looking at the 200-400 but could not justify the price then i decided the tamron 150-600 was so cheap it was worth a shot for my limited usage its gold while it definitely cant hold a candle to the 200-400 its still impressive and worth a look if you are in a similar situation

39
The FD mount has a shorter flange distance than EF - 42mm vs 44mm - so by the time you've added physical mount adapter to the 44mm, you end up with a total lens flange to sensor distance much greater than 42mm. Either you lose infinity focus, or there are optical elements (much like a mild TC) which further degrade the image quality of these old lenses.

In short, nothing works, bar one ingenious solution made by Ed Mika (who is also a member on this forum)

http://www.edmika.com/
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/fd-fl-lenses-on-your-ef-body/

His solution is custom made for each lens. Not all lenses can be adapted, and the cost makes it pointless on a cheap lens. Good L FD lenses are worth converting.

ditto this

I have his adapter on my 600 f4.5 FD lens and its pretty damn good but heavy!

40
Thanks! I love this lens more and more each day. I'm buying a second copy 35 Art over the weekend, hopefully the AF doesn't suck like the first 35 and the first 50  ;D At least now I have the docking and I know that they can work and be epic.

I don't think you will regret the 35 it's AF in servo is amazing and my copy just never misses focus i cant wait to see what they do with the 85! it needs some wide open improvements and AF could be made better over the current version

41
Photography Technique / Re: Taking HDR shots
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:31:51 PM »
Photomatix is the way to go!

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5481/14437808722_638f9eb205_o_d.jpg

bleh photomatix please for the love of god dont join the herd of vomit inducing users of this terrible software
there are substantially cleaner methods of processing HDR that looks tasteful and subtle. try enfuse for lightroom for a start.


42
Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:29:13 PM »
9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.

Honestly i havent used it at all since i got the 50... oh wait i havent taken the 50 off my 5dmk3 since i got it
oh except to attach to the sigma dock for calibration :)

its still a stunningly great lens but I'm just loving the 50 so much at the moment. I will get around to using the 35 again though. I did find the 35 a really nice 56mm equivalent on my EOS-M though too

43
EOS Bodies / Re: ISO D+ function
« on: June 29, 2014, 08:03:15 AM »
Hi wickidwombat

I made the test
2 shots using same ISO (200), speed and f stop
one shot with D+ and another one without
the one with D+ gave me better color results in the overexposed areas when lowering the highlights in ACR

like i said i might be wrong :P

but part of the reason it only does iso 200 is the raw file manipulation
I think neuro will clear it up eventually, in any case i agree bracketing and using enfuse is a much much better solution

44
EOS-M / Re: Next official EF-M Lens
« on: June 29, 2014, 07:59:48 AM »
but the 15-85 is an awesome single lens option for EF-S which is stellar and shouldn't be that hard to reproduce in EF-M mount
that said i will have a good look at the new tamron 18-200 though

45
EOS Bodies / Re: ISO D+ function
« on: June 29, 2014, 07:44:35 AM »
im pretty sure it does sweet FA in raw but i might be wrong.
It just applies a different process to the raw file than it normally would
check the manual

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 296