April 19, 2014, 06:11:15 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 - CarlTN

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 145
Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:37:35 AM »
70-300L, 6D, hand held 1/20, ISO 100, f/16.  Not much color in this, even after some LR adjustment.  I still didn't want to go B&W though.  This my favorite old oak tree in my yard.  I think I've taken about 3000 images of it over the past few years!

Reviews / Re: Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:36:16 AM »
I'm not looking for an endless discussing

You're in luck there, people WRITING IN CAPITALS usually are ignored sooner or later :->

Are you cocking a snoop at the 18 mp 1Dx ?

Wupps, you got me there, putting "less" in a "more" camera is so Canon-unlike this information refuses to stick :-o

Sorry for the capitals. This is my first post ever on a forum.
Had the chance to handle the 1dx and the 5d III, and compare the original raw files from a friend. I just thought i could publish my experience here. I work as IT and am quite good in photoshop and publishing media.
At our photo club, there is no place for the words "cocking" or "Snooping" at a specific cam. Only the final picture counts without judging the cam. We only judge a cam if we are in the need of bying a new cam thats suites the purpose for his shooting. Thank you for your understanding.

You bought the right camera for the job it seems like.

Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:33:11 AM »
I think (hope) we will see the 100-400 IS replacement, the 17-40 L replacement, the 14-24 2.8 L, the 24-70 2.8 IS lens, the 50 mm 1.4 replacement and the Tilt-Shift replacements.

Me too. The long rumored 100-400 replacement is a bit of a mythical unicorn....along with a 35mm f1.4 L replacement.
Personally, I'm not too fussed with a 24-70 L IS...I know some are looking forwards to it. But the mkII non IS is very very good. A 14-24L would be nice, a 12-24L would be better and not preclude the need for a 17-40 or 16-35.

Do you ever use the Sigma 12-24?  It's supposed to be decent.

Easy to shoot when they sit down but horrible to get right when they fly around.

The blue to green saturation here is superb, great job!!  I see you used the 135 f/2.  Not surprised, its color is off the chart in this part of the spectrum...and of course its sharpness, contrast, and bokeh are beyond reproach!  You must have been quite close to the bird...how did you do that?  Were you in a sort of bird blind?  Or is it just a very tame bird?

It was in a Hummingbird 'garden' in Monteverde, Costa Rica. I believe there where about 10 feeders and 500 Humming birds. It was off season so not a lot of people. The birds where quite tame when they were eating but quite nervous when hovering. So with some pre-focus and patience and not chasing them it was doable. I was also pretty determined to get this blue type so skipped some other bird shooting opportunities. When I see the results of 90% missed focus (or totally missing bird) I would say it was 50% luck, 45% gear and 5% of knowing what the heck I was doing ;).

The hovering bird picture wasn't perfect because I wanted motion blur in the wings but not in the rest of the body (like the claws now are motion blurred). But when I take a look at the sharpness, the colors and the details of the left over food on its beak I am a proud man again ;)

I forget, which lens was this?  And don't say the Tamron!

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:26:38 AM »
Staying with the Menacing/Big Teeth Theme.

Both shot with the 5DMK III & 300 f/2.8 II

I agree that bottom one is to die for, incredible!  Processing in LR?

Menace yours is great too, and I agree...can't help but imagine what it would be like to be eaten alive...horrible!!

Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 28, 2014, 05:19:46 AM »
70-300L + 6D, cropped 1:1, shot as jpeg, minor LR tweaks but no sharpening or NR added, and I blurred the license plate.

Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:50:58 AM »
A visit to Nottingham University - more expense coming  :(

Took my point-and-shoot @ f2.8 ( 5D + 40 pancake).

If that's your daughter, congrats!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 04:38:57 AM »
The formal answer is that with any lens detail contrast drops as resolution increases. This relationship is illustrated by the lens MTF curve. A lens has more contrast at 10 lpmm then at 20 lpmm. When you frame a scene onto a smaller sensor, the details occur at a higher lpmm frequency and therefore have less contrast.

However, at low to mid ISO it's a meaningless difference because the contrast can easily be restored in post processing, whether in a tool like Photoshop or in camera using the sharpness setting. Detail contrast is not an unlimited good, and at ISO 800 and below it's trivial to make an APS-C file as sharp as an optimally processed FF file. At high ISO FF has a true sharpness advantage because when you apply extra sharpening to the ASP-C file you emphasize noise that's not in the FF file.

+1, well said! 

Full frame is generally sharper than crop, because the pixels are larger, thus the lens need not be as sharp to achieve a desired level of sharpness.

The link to the EF 200 f/2L comparison is interesting, because it is showing the border and corner resolution inferior on the 70D, to that of the 1Ds3, yet the center resolution appears identical.  This alone should show you that the difference here, is that the 1Ds3's pixels are so much larger than the 70D's, that the lens's loss of "sharpness" towards the full frame borders, is hardly noticed by those larger pixels.  Yet the 70D is finding the loss halfway to those borders, within its own..."crop circle"! :P

This is why I have said (and got pounced on for it), that a future 50+ MP full frame camera, is rarely if ever going to fully resolve detail on all of its pixels on most every lens there is (if not actually every one, even perhaps including the Zeiss Otus...especially if it's more like a 60+ MP full frame sensor).  The reason being that you would see unbelievable softness at the pixel level, as you get closer to the full frame borders and corners (especially on even such a fine "big white" as the 200 f/2, shot wide open).  I've rented this lens briefly, and I liked it more than every other lens I've tried or owned...so I am not biased against it whatsoever.  I frankly feel it has the kind of color rendition that no other lens in the world has...almost everything about it was as close to perfect as I could ask for.

Here is one of my favorite images that I shot with it.  It's not full size, because I try not to show those.  Camera was the 50D. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:28:01 AM »
I think manual live view focus would be better than live view AF.

Actually the best option is using Magic Lantern's live view 10x zoom, and then mf :-)

Why is it better than Canon's 10x live view?

Canon General / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:26:08 AM »
With regard to the 400k ISO, IMO the real question should be "where does the ability of the AF to work crap out?"  Super high ISO isn't of much use if you can't focus clearly.

I've seen this comment by others also and one answer could be, and this goes for me, it's not about the pitch black use of it, it's about shutter speeds. I often use ISO 5000 outdoor in not too low light to get my 1/1000s-1/4000s shutters. When shooting sports indoors and you want some dof for example, it makes sense to have a very high iso. Have I ever needed above 51k on my 1dx, no, but I like to shoot with the widest of apertures.

Well said.  I'm really just curious how the rest of the ISO noise levels compare to the 1DX, which I assume we will see in the coming weeks when the tests start getting posted.  It's entirely possible the D4S could pull ahead, even though its normal range still does not extend to 52k like the 1DX's.  Time will tell. 

I personally could make use of, and have used, ISO 102k with my 6D...but of course the noise is not good, and this was with positive exposure compensation.  Not sure it would work at all with no compensation.

But yes, you could not use the D4S for say a 1/5 second exposure at ISO 400k, with a fast aperture lens.  Its autofocus wouldn't work, in any case...neither would the 6D's.  Although just recently I was able to get my 6D to AF with live view in very dark outdoor conditions, with my Sigma 24mm f/1.8...where the phase AF would not work at all.  Obviously this is not a technique that would be useful/reliable for servo tracking, though.  But then there are those that think servo AF can't even be done with the 6D in bright noontime.

Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:17:46 AM »
Having not even read all of that yet, and doubt I will tonight...let me just say that, I think you knew I was being sarcastic, because that actually is really what I think of you.  And I know you think even worse of me, so I know you were also being sarcastic.  But it's kind of fun to not let our personal mutual disgust get in the way of other important things such as photography.

I also wanted to say that, having not thought much about what I asked above (apparently), I can answer my own question with a simple answer (as in, why not get a scope instead, etc.).

(Besides the fact that you are a birder)...It's because you want a wider field of view than most telescopes provide, correct?  I'm pretty sure most of the astro images I've seen, that needed a wider field of view, were not shot with telescopes, but rather SLR cameras and lenses.

Ok, I read some of the end of one of your posts.  9 micro meters for a pixel on a medium format imager...impressive.  Would you happen to know what sort of imagers some of the well known observatories use?  I'm sure it's probably customized, or "bespoke" componentry, but was just curious.  I imagine the sensor is even larger than medium format.  The one in the Hubble Space Telescope I assume, is quite large, but probably not the largest.  Perhaps the "wide field" space scope uses an even larger imager (the one that hunts extra-solar planets, detects phase shifts from stars)...I think this is not even really called an imager, is it?

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:59:43 PM »
I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.

The bands that are talented and clever enough to write raw, gutsy music (like the Stones or Nirvana or even the Pumpkins or Pixies more recently) are now for whatever reason doing esoteric music that’s too cold and intellectual and difficult to access. And the emotional immediacy isn’t there; it’s just very formal and cold and you need to think about it to appreciate it.

I like the immediacy of Miley or Britney Spears, but the music is written by committee and takes no risks whatsoever. It’s garbage, but some of it is good, well-crafted garbage...

The loudness wars… that’s another issue. Speakers are so bad music needs to be compressed to fit into a tiny dynamic range. Reminds me of HDR, actually, which I think is hideous and only looks good on a small iPhone screen or something (never printed large) and is why I like these 8x10 photos.

That said, Gursky to me falls into the visual camp that’s analogous to bands that are talented musicians but too distant and self-aware to make anything raw. Which is why this photo is so silly in many respects. And why high art is so silly (it’s too intellectual). But I do think a lot of his work is good, and prefer this photo to any HDR. (There is some good commercial photography, too, but most of it is in print… actual commercials. A lot of middlebow “art” is horrible. Stuck in Customs is the worst photography I’ve ever seen. It's like Kinkade's paintings. I’m sorry to be a snob, but this stuff is the worst of both worlds. There has been good stuff that occupies this space, and it's the best stuff… Beatles, Spielberg, etc.)

I honestly think Miley is someone who can only be appreciated by people near her age, who haven't lived through when music meant more, concerts meant more, and it wasn't all promoted and pigeonholed to where it had to either be idiot "hip hop pop", just "hip hop", "rap", or "country". 

Rock is dead, because that's how the industry wants it.  If they promoted it, kids today would love it.  Just ask what type of music most kids in Northern and central Europe...and South America like.  Bands like Iron Maiden couldn't tour the way they have in these places, if the youth didn't love them.

I also disagree that MTV kept rock music alive.  The fans kept it alive IN SPITE OF MTV.  MTV really promoted "new wave" and top 40 pop music such as Madonna and Boy George ("Culture Club"), more than "rock" acts of the time.  It wasn't until the late 80's that "hair metal" became the rage.  And plaid shirts, saggy pants, the whole Seattle cultural takeover, was a direct reaction by the music industry, to find something that was the opposite of hair metal, but that was still "rock".  After a time they needed to modify it further, so was born "heavy industrial"...but then in the late '90's, there was a brief European influence of "techno pop", because people got tired of angry plaid wearing Seattle artists whose daddies died when they were age 13...then when they discovered Neil Young could be their surrogate daddy, a lot of their fans stopped thinking of them as relevant. 

In the 1980's, we would have never liked the type of music that most kids like today.  We still like the music from that era, when our favorite bands tour, we attend in droves.  Some of today's youth also attend, even without their parents.  I've seen them.  U2 set the record for highest grossing, and longest single tour, with "360" (2009 to 2011).  It also cost the most to produce.  Having seen it twice, I feel it was worth it.  But those counted toward the nearly 50 large concerts I've attended in my life.

In 2000, for KISS's "farewell tour" of that time, they actually sold more tickets than Britney Spears (and that was at Spears' peak).  Her tour however, grossed more money, because ticket prices were jacked up a lot for her, and those fans paid.  But 2000, was 24 years after KISS was at their peak (1976).

24 years from now, will Cyrus, or Spears (in her case 10 years from now...and pathetically she's Cyrus' "idol")...be able to tour and sell more tickets than whatever the current popular act is of that time?  Nope...no way.  Why?  I say because their "fans" are not fans of them or their music, only of a culture of idiocy promoted by people who don't care a whit about artistry. 

Music today, is simply a much smaller industry than before Napster and MP3 music sharing took off (and eventually before Apple's iPod took over).  The profit margin is a lot lower, because of downloadable music.  So the industry, promotes a few acts, to a degree...but ignores the rest.  And the music companies, apparently hate rock music.  That's why it's not promoted...not because the artists are too esoteric.  There are plenty of local rock bands in every city that are good enough to have made the big time (at least one from each city I would guess), were they in a different era in time.

None of today's acts in the USA are "mega artists", on the level of the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, or even U2.  Why?  Well, because their music is not as good, and as artists, they aren't as good.  History will show that.

Lady Gaga, in my opinion, is more of an artist than most of the other females who have made it big.  She actually sings, dances, plays piano, and writes much of her own music.  The others don't seem to be able to play a musical instrument.  Miley can play an acoustic guitar on occasion, but I don't get the sense she enjoys it.  Taylor Swift enjoys playing guitar, but she's another story.

As for speakers being bad, compressor limiters have been around since the 1960's.  The whole reason for it, has more to do with ambient noise in the end user's listening environment, rather than speakers.  It's also the reason compression is used for live performances (that and to put less stress on the PA).  Basically, popular music needs to be compressed, because it needs to sound loud, even when it is played back fairly quietly...because most consumers are listening in a car, or in some place where people are trying to shout over the music. 

Ever been to a party or concert where people don't try to yell over the music?  I've not.

In summation, what I'm trying to say is, it's a good thing Jay Z wasn't around to stomp out early blues and rock from the 1950's, that southern people (and people in Chicago and especially Detroit)...of his own race, invented.  I'm glad it took so long for rock music to die.  Hopefully it will be resurrected for the youth culture, but I guess it will be different than it was. 

Youth culture today, musically celebrates thuggery, vulgarity, misogyny, in a way that is very hypocritical...not to mention it sounds really lame.  And it's because the people in charge of what music gets promoted and played on air, want it that way.  It's got little to nothing to do with a spontaneous desire for such, by the consumers of that music.

Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:32:08 PM »
The question : "Bad Photography becomes salable art " can apply to music. Never sold as much bad music sells nowadays. It is also a fact that never did so much bad photography as today. The internet is full of bad photos . But no one can force me to buy a stock that I do not like , and no one can force me to agree that a photo is good just because it was sold for a fortune .

The problem is that the "average taste" is undemanding when it comes to CONTENTS . A photo cell can be good if the theme is interressante and achievement is well taken . Similarly , a photograph of medium format camera can be uninteresting ( even if technically perfect ) for lack of subject content .

I'm sure Billie Holiday would not need to make a music video like Miley Cyrus ( nude in a wrecking ball ) because the music was enough to hold the attention . Tanbem think Cartier - Bresson would not need to use the perfect technique to mask the lack of content in your photographs .

Well said.  Billie Holiday had a magical voice and talent.  Unfortunately our culture today celebrates the mundane and the vulgar.  It celebrates the idiocy of youth. 

Do you own any Tesla stock, out of curiousity?  I have strong opinions about Elon Musk...haha.  I've never bought that stock, but am beginning to wonder if it isn't worth trading after all.  That way I too, like Elon, can profit off the taxpayers' backs.

I think a lot of this is fallout from MTV of the 80's.

I mean, yes..it did seem to save rock music, but it also propogated that only GOOD LOOKING folks are to be promoted to be todays music stars...not talent.

Many of my favorite groups of the past were butt-ugly, but you didn't see them that often, you heard them and learned to love quality songs/albums they put out. 

And also, there is the proliferation of music today listened to on really low quality systems...ipods with horrible earbuds (most people don't replace them with quality ones), or now, the Beats headphones, that are just awful middle of the road bad bass, with no real dynamics. This has all led to the compression wars that have killed dynamic range on music in order to just make it louder sounding. I grates on the ears....and it has affected even old recordings when remastered.

Wow, ok, I'm getting way off photography...but still, I still amaze kids that come by and hear what a REAL high end stereo system can sounds like...tube SET amps running Klipschorn speakers.  http://www.klipsch.com/klipschorn-floorstanding-speaker
Now that is a pleasing system to listen to..while post processing images.

There...I brought it back to photography!!


That's a superb speaker!  I've owned some highend stuff as well.  Still have a Rogue 88 tube amp, sold my bottlehead Paramour 2A3 monoblock kits to a cousin.  Haven't heard if he's built them.  We should talk audio sometime!

Landscape / Re: Landscape photio advice needed
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:13:59 PM »
...In my opinion the main reason to use tripods for daylight images, is when you want to blur water or other things that are in motion.  Or if you are nuts about shooting everything at ISO 50 or 100.  But if you're that nuts about that, you should be using a D800 and a Zeiss lens...at least until Canon bring out their high MP camera (and even then you'll need a Zeiss lens).

Or, if you're really a purist, you'll insist on a 50 pound wooden tripod with 8x10 film plates with a donkey or two and an assistant to carry it all for you ;)

:D...but...but...but then you didn't do all the work yourself, so you can't truthfully do what those types do, and complain about having to hike 50 miles in the dark to the location while carrying said huge field camera with cast iron tripod on your shoulder!

LOL and speaking of that, "When the Banner Peak photo became famous, Harold loved telling everybody, 'I held Ansel's ass while he made that picture!'"
Source: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/ansel-adams-wilderness/poole-text
LOL, until I read the reference I tended to think that Harold was Ansel Adam's donkey  ;D  ;D ;D

OK donkeys don't speak but still that was deducted from above (without the url reference) ;D ;D ;D


Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:11:32 PM »
Now it's gone but here it is yesterday shot as in the previous one.


Great job!!

Thanks CarlTN.  Your photos and the previous bird swallowing the berry have prompted me to post these waxwing shots.  I got so many, I'm not sure if I posted this on the bird thread also.  The birds literally fought over the best pools of water.

Early December and still lots of mountain ash berries on my tries for the waxwings to gorge on and that's what they were doing.  Meanwhile I was out watering my little creek pond about 200' from my house, that I skate on.  The waxwings will swallow up to a dozen berries at a time and then they later regurgitate the skins - on my rink - not good for skating!  Anyway, it was fairly mild and the water was puddling and these guys flew down in numbers, major numbers, so I ran to the house and got the camera.  Unfortunately the lighting was minimal and I had to shoot at higher ISOs plus I needed 300 X2.  Still I was thrilled with the experience sitting in the snow bank. :)

1600th F8 ISO 1600

1600th F5.6  ISO 5000


No problem, Jack!  And thank you, however I can't take credit for the waxwing photo, that was someone else.  I've not seen it, but I have seen shots of waxwings eating berries.  Btw I like these of yours too, great job!

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 145