Messages

3031

Lenses / Re: What UWA options do I have with 77mm Filter size?

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:28:24 PM »

I have the 17-40, but I've never used the 16-35 (either version) for comparison. At f/16, it is pretty soft in the corners at 17mm on full frame, but it is handy for specific effects, particularly where you can use the distortion creatively. Once you get to 24mm though, I find it is sharper than my 24-105 and there is certainly less barrel distortion. As with any UWA, use of polarisers is problematic, if you point it towards the sky and you can't really use it fully zoomed out with a second section of a Lee filter set, as the adaptor is in frame in the corners.

to solve this issue buy a cheap ebay cokin filter holder (the plastic one) only a couple of bucks
and get a hack saw then saw off the extended holder section so you only have 1 filter slot. I find doing this stops the corner interference on full frame at 16mm. it introduces another problem in that light gets in between the filter and the lens so you need to make a little shroud that goes around the edge of the square filter and over the lens barrel. hope this helps

3032

Lenses / Re: I've got a feeling: EF 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8...

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:22:16 PM »

I am really not sure wht people are carrying on about EF-s primes it just doesnt make business sense to make EF-S primes, there would be no size/weight savings to speak of and the EF range can be used on both EFa nd EF-s bodies you just have to use different lenses to get the desired focal length on EF-S. It's hardly a matter of APS-C vs FF if anything FF miss out because they cant use the 17-55 f2.8 IS

3033

Australia / Re: Insurance

« on: February 06, 2012, 06:35:58 AM »

there should be more insurance polies for us photographers who don't make a living from taking photos. anyone know if RACV/AAMI has insurance for photographic equipment? i don't own the deed to the house i'm living in so i'm not sure how it works. i want 'wear n' tear' kinda of warrantee as well. camera house has one for like $650+ for 2/3 years (depends on what kind of gear you have, obviously the more expensive it is if you have more professional gear).

In Australia GIO platinum home insurance will cover any amount of non professional use gear up to $5000 per item and professional use equipment up to $5000 total

3034

Lenses / Re: How do you think we should spend the money?

« on: February 06, 2012, 06:04:00 AM »

the cards are good but take too long this you just pop on the lens snap a shot off in the general direction and set your custom balance,
here is a review of them

I've not used one of those though I know there are a variety of brands  ranging up to $125 USD as I recall.  For me the cards (specifically the WhiBal same guy makes LensAlign) are pretty quick (they have a target for instant focus) but most importantly I found them most accurate..spot on.  No right or wrong it seems as long as one is cognizant not to use AWB or post processing without a proper WB snapshot(s) prior.

$125 damn these ones are like $2 or so hehehe you should get one and give it a go its pretty good even in crazy mixed light

3035

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron introduces 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS

« on: February 06, 2012, 05:58:49 AM »

interesting it will be good to see some reviews, I'm not a fan of tamron, I wish canon made it instead  

3036

Lenses / Re: 300L 4.0 or 400mmL 5.6

« on: February 06, 2012, 12:47:29 AM »

the 300 f4L IS is great i picked mine up second hand for $800 its IS is very noisey and makes clunking sounds but its very solid comfortable to use (i take the tripod foot off) and f4 is nice I also have the kenko 1.4DGX which i can pop on to make it 420 f5.6 and it keeps IS look for a second hand one

3037

EOS Bodies / Re: Why does Canon hate everyone but sports and wildlife photographers?

« on: February 06, 2012, 12:39:06 AM »

no canon hates wildlife shooters too thats why they took f8 AF away

3038

Lenses / Re: Amateur looking at a Macro, Prime and Walkabout lenses... input please!

« on: February 05, 2012, 08:47:01 PM »

Dont get the genuine tripod ring for the macro you dont need it the lens is light so you can just mount the camera to the tripod I bought the cheap $10 ebay version its avaerage but cheap and i never use it anyway so dont stress it.

It would be good if canon would release a 18-200 that was as good as the nikon one it would be the perfect lens for my parents then (they are still using the kit lens and learning) but its still a reasonable lens I think better than the other supertele options

with your budget I think perhaps look at the 100 macro and maybe pick up a kenko 1.4 dgx teleconverter
it turns it into a 140mm f4 if you want a bit more reach and can give you a good macro boost too (i dont think the genuine canon ones work on the 100 macro) i have the kenko and its great and much cheaper too

the 100f2.8L macro is amazingly sharp I wish they would make a 50mm f1.4L out of the same materials and build quality as this lens for a smaller lighter option than the f1.2L beast.

3039

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X f/8 to be Added? [CR1]

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:05:44 PM »

not possible unless you alter the laws of physics.

According to several bosses I've had... that's no excuse, make it work.

Wow I think we have had the same Bosses!

if it is just firmware I wonder if magic lantern could enable f8 AF on the rest of the line
that would really put the bird togs amongst the pigeons

I would also think if its firmware they can just make the f8 a selectable setting where you can enable or disable and thereby increasing or decreasing the f2.8 sensetivity accordingly and get the best of both worlds.

3040

Lenses / Re: How do you think we should spend the money?

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:02:37 PM »

I use flash a lot - including bright sunshine - as it lets you control the light to bring out the subject from the background, I find turning down exposure compensation (-1/3) and flash exposure up (+1/3) just lifts the subject out of the background without using blur

Yes, this is a great idea. If no flash is permitted as you point out at a reception that raises a whole other issue with the WB.

Whatever the situation flash / no flash, higher ISO lower ISO , I would think a White Balance card needs to be included.  If a wedding photographer used the AWB or any presets that would be a cause for concern from my point of view.

I tend not to use AWB and carry one of these around incase i need a custom WB
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/77mm-77-mm-White-Balance-Lens-Cap-Custom-WB-Filter-NEW-/120792820669?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c1fd02bbd
the cards are good but take too long this you just pop on the lens snap a shot off in the general direction and set your custom balance,
here is a review of them
http://cameradojo.com/2007/05/31/white-balancing-lens-cap-review/

3041

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:12:37 AM »

I hear the 70-300L is as sharp as the 70-200 f/4L IS, which is very, very, very sharp for a zoom lens.
The 28-300mm is nice because of all the range in one lens, but the image quality suffers a bit. If the maximum image quality is your first priority, having two lenses cover that range (like briansquibbs suggestion) would be the best way to go.

If you prefer the versatility of having all range in just one lens, the 70-300L is a fine lens. Its image quality is not the best of Canons L lens range, but understandibly so - it's amazing how they got this much quality in a >10x zoom to begin with.

Another good consideration would be to become acquainted with the push-pull zoom mechanism that the 28-300L has, and not the 70-300L (traditional 'rotating ring' zoom). Some people hate it, but some people really like it. If you turn out to be one of those people that REALLY likes that, it'd definately be something to consider. And vice versa, if you try push-pull for a few weeks or so but really can't get used to it, then the 70-300L is your best bet.

Further notable differences (apart from the image quality) are that the 28-300 is about 60% heavier than the 70-300 (1.7kg or 3.7lbs versus 1.1kg or 2.3lbs), and that the 28-300 has an older generation IS with 3 stops improvement, vs 4 stops for the 70-300L (which is a very new lens).

the push pull design makes it seem even heavier because the front section is very heavy so when extended the moment generated at the end you are holding from the extended weight is higher so it can wear you out quite quickly

3042

Lenses / Re: How do you think we should spend the money?

« on: February 05, 2012, 06:09:08 AM »

I know everyone of the 5D users likes to bash the 7D with the ISO and it is true but are you really going to be using a high ISO if you have a 580 EXii flash?  that was my point.  It's hard to discern with the naked eye on an ISO 100 in RAW from a 5D to a 7D unless it's blown up to a poster size.  on an 8x10 I would be curious to know if you would truly see a difference.  Also, the original poster stated he had a limited budget in mind and trying to stay within that find limitation.  I might be hard pressed to go backward in time with a 1Dmk3s and the small LCD.  I think the 7D would out pixel this camera regardless and hold up better distortion wise.

Also, all the concern about a higher ISO with the 7D might be moot.  It would seem pointless to take those shots anyway as they wouldn't be much good no matter what camera is used.  You're gonna get noise from about 800 onward.  I'd keep the flash on for anything 800 and over

Here's a 1600 ISO shot in RAW on a 400mm 5.6 @ 1250 at dusk then shrunk to a 5148 pixel JPG then shrunk again to a 1920 pixel JPG.


Snowy Egret .......(not at the Zoo, in the Wild) by Revup67, on Flickr

quite often in churches you arent allowed to use flash for the ceremony

also with reception and using flash you need to expose for the background the room ambient and balance the subject to get a nice colour balanced shot this usually means shooting with fast glass wide open high iso and flash otherwise if the flash is dominant then the background gets killed to black or very dark so still shooting 1600 or 3200 depending which lens you are using.

3043

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM vs. Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM Lens

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:23:50 AM »

In my case it is the 70-300L + the 24-105L which I thow in with the 1D4 for my walkabout pack

I would probably be using it with a 1.6x crop factor such as the 600d - so the 17-55mm would probably be more logical than the  24-105mm.

on 1.6 crop definately the 70-300L i found the 28-300 a little too tight on the APS-H at the wide end so still carried the 16-35 and 50 f1.4 around. I sold the 28-300 because i used it mainly at 300mm
so i bought 70-200f2.8 and a 300 f4 instead.
image quality on the 28-300 is still excellent its just quite cumbersome and taking several smaller lenses is more convenient I think.

3044

Lenses / Re: Light Craft for Canon 16-35mm Mkii: Fader ND Digi Pro-HD Round 82mm Review

« on: February 05, 2012, 05:17:59 AM »

Wickid - I do agree and the specs on this are rather strange as you suggest.  It's probably one of those things where they got results of an ND1000 on one lens therefore can propagate the filter can go that high.  They wouldn't dare put a disclaimer stating won't work on 99% of the lenses out there cause then sales would bomb.

In either case, I'm not sorry I acquired the filter, it was clearly worth a shot, I knew it, took the gamble and the seller had agreed to do a full refund.  Only loss was the shipping.

at least you can return it, let us know how you go with the search for a replacement
it seems to be the superzoom of variable ND's
i wonder if the dark end offering is any better the 9 to 12 stop one

3045

Lenses / Re: How do you think we should spend the money?

« on: February 05, 2012, 04:31:15 AM »

wow thats alot, how many eneloops do you have!

I only have 3 580 exii
i also have 3 yongnuo battery packs for them
then i have 24 AA eneloops for each flash so i can do a full change if needed