October 21, 2014, 11:44:18 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 - tron

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 124
826
EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?
« on: June 22, 2013, 11:33:14 PM »
It's the super-secret 9D..... A camera so secret that it uses the number of a different rumoured camera on it's strap....
So if the camera could speak it would say: My name is D ... 9D  ;D

827
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Just Dropped my 17-40L...
« on: June 22, 2013, 11:29:20 PM »
Last year I was shooting at an archaeological place and I dropped my 24 TS-E 24mm II.
Immediately I put my foot and decelerated its fall a lot. It landed at a wooden floor. It had its cap.
Nothing happened not even a scratch on the  plastic areas    8)

I still try to figure how on earth my 5D2's screen was damaged. Screens are inside and cannot in any way be harmed by a dropping lens (I hadn't put any finger inside).

Anyway I happened to have a Grid Screen which I hadn't used yet. So I replaced the screen and everything was as good as new  :)

828
Unfortunately I was not able to get it behind an ancient temple. So I took a few shots of it.

This is a 100% crop (5D3, 500mm f/4L II, EF2XII).

829
Lenses / Re: A wise lens upgrade?
« on: June 21, 2013, 09:43:58 PM »
Have you considered that you would switch between these two lenses probably often?

830
Lenses / Re: to TS-E or not to TS-E?
« on: June 21, 2013, 10:18:06 AM »
to TS-E by all means. I have got both TS-E 17 and TS-E 24 II and I have no regrets.

They are both part of my travel kit. 

831
A 14-24 f/2.8 would be a very cool lens, negatives include the inevitable stratospheric price and the inevitable bulbous, vulnerable front element that couldn't take filters. For my priorities, use and needs, such a lens would come a fairly close second to an upgraded 16-35 f/2.8 MkIII. Currently my very occasional ultra-wide needs are handled by a very good copy of the Sigma 12-24. These are OK lenses for occasional careful use, but YMMV.

The current 16-35 f/2.8II is a usefully competent lens, but not one that anybody could describe as consistently stellar. Used carefully, it does the job pretty well. The new 24-70 f/2.8II has given us a taste of what Canon is capable of, but given the usual life spans of Canon glass, I doubt there will be a 16-35 f/2.8III for quite some time.

-PW
+1 A 16-35 f/2.8III that has IQ comparable to 24-70 2.8 II would be ideal. I would get that lens to use with my Lee filter base. Now it seems we will wait a few more years ...  :(

832
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: My new camera!
« on: June 20, 2013, 09:23:45 PM »
I'm going to wait for the 1D X starts selling on ebay @ that price ;D
Hmmm I "see" your kids having their own ... kids by then  ;D

833
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: June 20, 2013, 03:44:05 PM »
When I bought the 100l I kinda swore I wouldn't have to get the 135. Just got it, haven't seen the magic yet. Probably won't get to use it till July :(
Never say never  ;D

834
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 03:41:38 PM »
Excellent news! I've had my mouse hovering over the buy button of a 16-35II or 14II for some time

you and me both; for once, the timing of this rumor is a benefit!

16-50 f/4 would fit the crop bodies, to be sure, but wouldn't compete directly with the 17-55 due to the aperture.  I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24
I found a mint & cheap 14mm II so no regrets. However, I was sorry I lost a 16-35 2.8 II used sale.
Not any more. I will use my 16-35 2.8 version 1 and my fixed wide angle lenses in the meantime  ;D

835
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:42:28 AM »
Just give me an ultra sharp 16-35mm f/2.8L III please...

836
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 04:41:19 AM »
Once the 14-24 comes out, many of those who had converted to Nikon might convert back without second thought.
;D  ;D  ;D

837
I am really racially ambiguous.  I can look Chinese, Hawaiian, Philippino, or Hispanic on any given day... so I wasn't given the foreigner treatment when I was there.
Have you considered a career in spying? ;D ... from what I read in the news these days, spies of a powerful nation are getting caught or being accused daily of spying ... with their reputation at stake these days, I'm sure their secret service can use someone like you, with unique abilities to blend as well as your great photographic skill ... that's a rare combination ... I bet you'd get paid handsomely.
Plus, part of the payment could be in the form of big White Canon lenses  ;D

838
Landscape / Re: Stars above.
« on: June 19, 2013, 12:15:37 PM »
....... I had too much light pollution from Margaret River (WA) Town nearby.

That's a very manageable level of light pollution and easily processed out, based on the amount of detail visible in the Milky Way.  I visited Perth/Fremantle >30 years ago, I'll never forget the night skies. 

A couple of quick processing tutorials I put together for my astronomy club friends, specifically for dealing with moderate amounts of light pollution.  First one is for Photoshop, second for GIMP.

pbase(dot)com(slash)emagowan(slash)processing
pbase(dot)com(slash)emagowan(slash)processing_with_gimp
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

839
Lenses / Re: $1000 .. what to buy
« on: June 19, 2013, 11:23:38 AM »
It seems redundant to have more than one telephoto zoom.

Not necessarily...I enjoy the flexibility of having the 70-200 2.8 for indoor use/sports, and having the option of the much smaller, lighter 70-300 for general outdoor photography because not only is it manageable for an entire day, it has 100mm extra reach...

+1

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, also used for indoors/sports and sometimes portraits (when not using primes).  I have the 100-400L for birds/wildlife (when I don't want to carry the 600 II).  I have the 28-300L as a one lens solution that extends into the telezoom range. 

I just ordered the 70-300L as a travel telezoom - lighter, but more importantly more compact than either the 70-200 II or 100-400, fits vertically in my photo backpacks.
I see that you didn't resist finally  :)
As I have already mentioned I am interested in your impressions mostly regarding the opposite use of rings.
P.S It will fit nicely vertically on the bataflae 26L bag I just ordered  :)

840
I see a lot of people who take pictures with their hoods reversed. I've been tempted to ask them what that's all about but I've resisted and just went about my business with my lens hood the right way on hoping they'll take the hint. .

I never understood why people leave the good on reversed.   At least take it off if you are not going to use it
The only  can think of is when it is cloudy, they do have a filter for protection and want to be able to put it in the bag quickly  grabbing a second camera.

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 124