January 31, 2015, 05:53:07 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 - Dylan777

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 299
826
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:46:28 AM »
My last post to wrap up this thread. A final goodbye to the 17-40L for me and looking back at some of my favorite photos it captured before it's sold on evilbay.

Very cool little discussion that really makes me want to take some ND filters with me more often.  Thanks for the nice walk through some of your fun images and their back story.  This helps inspire me to try more stuff, even when I'm tired or not always in the mood while travelling!
Thank you rusty. I know what it's like to travel around and arrive late at the hotel. You end up wanting to just sleep the night away but we could miss so many opportunities. I can't say how important it is, no matter what lens you got, to stay out a bit later and strive to make some cool photos.

I didn't know at the the time that this photo would make it on the cover of the London Planner, but hey! I'm glad I stayed out longer. :) I'd highly recommend a set of NDs for your travel photos.

Priceless, Congrats RLPhoto  ;)

827
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:42:06 AM »
Kids night time hockey practice in pouring rain. (High ISO)

400mm, 
f2.8, 
1/1000,
ISO 12,800.

Great capture Menace. Love the water action and back light. 12fps helps  ;)

828
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:28:50 PM »
I don't use UV (protection) filters on my 40/2.8 pancake or on my EF-M lenses, but I do on the all the others that take them.

-1...with Neuro  ;D YUP -1 with Neuro  ;D ;D

I treat all my kids equally :P
Short or tall...I love them all

829

Have you tried it on kids?  It couldn't keep up with mine... 


I have no problem with any critter moving towards me or away. I use center point AI servo. 


Quote
Like the 5DII before it, it does a decent job at tracking subjects moving across the frame, like the bighorns in your excellent image.  Where the 5DII and 6D fail are when a subject is moving toward or away from the camera (away is worse).   I just processed a burst sequence taken with my 1D X and 70-200/2.8L IS II of a gymnast running straight at me and vaulting from springboard onto the pad (which I was standing behind).  All 26 shots in the burst are in crisp focus (lighting was pretty poor, shots were at 1/800 s, f/3.2, ISO 12800).  The 7D would have gotten many of the shots in focus (but they'd have been unusable due to the ISO noise or the motion blur with a slower shutter speed. The noise from the 6D would have been acceptable, but after the first couple of frames, most of the shots would have been backfocused (and I'd have had far fewer shots, of course).


The 7D was the worst Canon DSLR I have owned. It was widely regarded as a "wildlife" lens, yet most big  wildlife is crepuscular in nature, a time when the 7D falls flat. I used my 7D and the 6D in that bighorn series, and the 7D failed. Many, many out of focus shots riddled with noise. Something about even light just played haywire with the copy I had when combined with telephotos.

I'm not surprised at the 1DX results. Awesome camera. 

While not the best photos, here are a couple examples of my 6D with a 300 prime and quick animals (much quicker than children). Very low sunset light, too. I've also attached the corresponding 100% crops.

Everything is do able, little challenging that all. I used mirrorless to shoot my kids jump toward me.

This reminded me how egyptian pyramids were built  ::) times and efforts  ::) ::) ::)






830
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:51:18 PM »
I stacked cpl on top of bw 007 clear very often. Same for nd.

831
Software & Accessories / Re: Rain protection for 5D3 and lens
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:45:01 PM »
Have not yet touched tammy....my 5 iii and 70-200 survived couple heavy rain while I was in Hong Kong. Both still working just fine.

832
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:38:44 PM »
True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D


What does the price of a filter have to do with vignetting?
And while brass is less sensitive to thermal expansion than aluminum, if there is a bit of grime or moisture, it can still make two thin rings stick. The inner ring of a B+W CP-L is very thin and hard to grip to produce sufficient torque.
Sorry, I was just trying to be helpful. I am aware you are not using $ 20 filters.
There is no different in iq (in my own eyes) with or without bw 007. I stacked the two quite often. No problem with removing the CPL so far.

Thanks for head up though

833
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:02:28 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

1. It can cause vignetting.
2. It can make it hard to separate the two filters afterwards.

Good thing you haven't been bitten by the square filter bug yet, you'd HAVE to remove your protective filter for those... ;)
With bw 007 I have no issues with what you mentioned.
Could happen on $20 filters though ;D

834
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 10:19:30 AM »
As someone who uses filters - all of the time unless I'm shooting into the sun or using a CPL/ND filters - I am amazed at how some of my 4-6 year old filters look.  Most of them have at least a few serious scratches on them and all of them are covered with numerous minor scratches.  These are high quality filters - B+W & Hoya HD - so that's the not the issue, but obviously they are doing their job.  If my front element looked like this, I'd be very sad, even though I know that it really doesn't affect image quality.  It would kill the resale value.  I've sold lenses with a fair bit of external wear, but perfect glass, and they've always sold well.

Also, I bought the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (010M) for 16-35 f/4 IS and it fits great.  The inner barrel of the lens moves back & forth a lot more than any other Canon lens I've owned so I think a filter is a good idea on this lens.
Same here. My work is more important than cuddling my lenses front element. Fast lens swapping in and out of bags, fingerprints, residue, dust and then needing to hurry to clean them off with my sweat soaked shirt on a summer Texas wedding, the occasional spray of champagne at the reception or some booze that happens to find my lens from party happy patrons. Then take the same lens to the beach the next day for a session with the groom and bride alone with sand blowing against my lens. Go home, rinse off all the sand from my camera and wipe off my lenses.

Broke a filter once from a stray rock directly into my lens, no hood would have helped, grabbed my tshirt and unscrewed the broken filter and continued shooting.

I'm always surprised when I unscrew the filter to sell a lens to see the damage it takes and a pristine perfect front element.
Glad to hear that I'm not the only one, and I also use hoods nearly 100% of the time.  I haven't broken a filter yet, but I have trashed several hoods.

True BW clear filter is 007  ;)

BW 007 are on my lenses as front protection - never remove. CPL can go right on top if needed.

835
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:15:19 AM »
I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs.  They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them.  I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job.  I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera.  They are cameras, that's all!   

The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones.  For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures.  So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet.  When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else.  Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR.  That's what my crystal ball says!   

There was an article I saw 3-4yrs ago. It said "DSLR will die within 5yrs"  ::)

836
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:06:20 AM »
keep your eye on the......puck.

Good catch Northstar. It's a wonderful camera for fast action.

Nice one.

Thanks Menace

837
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 13, 2014, 02:04:26 AM »
keep your eye on the......puck.

Good catch Northstar. It's a wonderful camera for fast action.

838
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:41:22 AM »
Not the best camera for landscape, o-well...why not.

Taken with 400mm f2.8 IS II + 1.4x TC III - HEAVY crop

839
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 13, 2014, 01:36:24 AM »
My 8 year old son yesterday at the local zoo.

400mm, f4.0, ISO800, 1/1000.

That's pretty cool Menace. The sooner, the better ;)

840
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 03:48:02 PM »
Hope IQ will be super- good. 100-400 zoom range is nice to have.

Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 299