December 19, 2014, 08:05:51 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 - CarlTN

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 149
541
Canon General / Re: $4 Million Photograph
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:29:07 PM »
What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?




Not a damned thing, that's what.  If I shot that photograph I couldn't sell it for 1 cent...

542
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:27:33 PM »
The 300 f/2:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/

The white part of the lens looks awesome...I bet no self respecting Nikon fanboi would ever use one with white paint on it!

543
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:25:45 PM »
A few more interesting lenses (well, to me!):
canon 600mm f/8.0 mirror

and a few still in production:
8-15 f/4 zoom fisheye
135 f/2.8 softfocus
sigma 200-500 f/2.8
Schneider 50mm f/2.8 tilt shift (unlike canon t&s, with no knobs!)
Any tilt and shift for that matter
leica noctilux 50mm f/0.95

I mentioned the noctilux.  I didn't mention the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8, because it is so large, pricey, and has no IS (yet).  Have you used or looked through one?  (I realize several of the others mentioned in previous posts in this thread, are even more expensive, larger, etc...)

544
Many people claim that cropped sensors are actually better than full frame and larger sensors for macro applications.
Here is an example:
http://www.43rumors.com/micro-four-thirds-and-macro-photography-by-eugene-kitsios/

Their argument is that for macro photography DoF is the limiting factor. They say that to get the same DoF, the larger the sensor, the smaller the aperture needs to be, which would offsett the light gathering capacity of larger sensors.

As an example, if we compare full frame vs. 4/3 sensors:
- full frame is roughly four times larger than 4/3 (measuring the surface), thus has virtually a two stop advantage in terms of light gathering capacity;
- anyhow, if with four thirds sensor we need to close the aperture to f/8, then on a full frame sensor we would need to close the aperture at f16 to get the same DoF, thus loosing two stop of light (offsetting completely the larger sensor advantage).
I am not sure if the second point is correct. The comparison shall be done considering different lenses on the two systems:
- if we use a 50mm macro on the 4/3 sensor, for correct comparison (to get the same angle of view), a 100mm lens should be used on the full frame (I know there would be slight differences in the final image due to the different aspect ratio).

I am skeptical about the above argument, anyhow I am unable to tell why it would be wrong.
What do you think, is really a crop sensor better than full frame for macro photography? Or is the full frame better? In the latter case, can you explain why?

Thanks!
Fausto

I agree, for macro photography, a crop sensor has the edge.  Unless of course, you're a fan of focus stacking 10 or more images...which I'm not.  A full frame sensor necessarily requires more focus stacking, unless you want your macro images with shallow depth of field...in which case either FF or crop are ok for that.  I don't profess to be a macro expert, though...but I do know that a macro image I shot with an effective 270mm focal length at f/20 on a crop camera, would have needed to be at f/45 or smaller on a full frame sensor, and would have provided 1.6x less magnification to boot.

Let's just be honest and say that generally, full frame sensors have an advantage for medium or wide angle, non macro photography (the advantages there are vast and rarely disputed).  Full frames can also be useful for longer distance telephoto photography (and can be vital for it in low light).  But under optimum conditions, good light, and with the "perfect" lens, a crop sensor can and usually does have a reach advantage.  And for macro with good or controlled light (and especially with stationary subjects and tripods or other mounting devices), I honestly see a disadvantage with a full frame sensor, over a crop sensor (unless perhaps the very poor performing 12 MP crop sensor that was recently discontinued).

545
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:12:56 PM »
The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)?  Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing?  I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion.  Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become.

Like I said, just my thoughts.

I see what you mean.  The problem is though, that the 7D2 will possibly cost almost as much as a 5D3 (recently got down to a hair over $2500).  The 7D2 will only be valuable for use with extremely sharp telephoto lenses, and not much else...in my opinion.  Why?  Its pixels at 24 MP on a 1.6x sensor, will be very critical of a lens, and of focus accuracy.  It will be a waste to use it on most EF-S lenses.  So, they should just make it a 1.3x, or 1.2x crop sensor instead...with larger pixels...but still with a total of 24 MP or more.  Why won't they do that?  Because then it would cut into the overall performance a bit of the 1DX and 5D3, and would necessarily cost more than the 5D3 to boot.  Oh well...perhaps the 1DX ii will have an in camera crop feature to accomplish something similar.  It just won't have enough MP to make as much use of it.

Do we even know for sure the 7D MK2 will have a 24MP sensor though? I understand some of the rumors say that, but I'm skeptical it'll be 24MP. I actually think it'll simply be an upgraded 70D sensor with either Dual DIGIC 5+ or maybe the DIGIC 6 even. But we'll out for sure in the coming months.

That's possible.  But if that's the case, the 70D is going to be seen as even more of a bargain, in my opinion.

546
Sports / Re: Your favourite motorsports events
« on: February 24, 2014, 06:09:02 PM »
I hope you don’t mind, here’s a couple from the recent Motorsports Festival at the Dubai Autodrome, the first one’s drivers name rings a bell ???

Got to love Porsches!!

547
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:33:41 AM »
The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

This is substantial. Are these jpegs or RAW's? If they are RAW files, I'm putting my 7D on Craigslist tonight.

Personally, it's not THAT substantial. Yes, there's a difference, but it's not the difference between using cheap glass versus expensive glass. Just my opinion, anyway.

I say it is substantial...to the point that I'm wondering if all of this difference is solely due to the AA filter and slightly higher pixel density (and newer processing)?  Or is it more due to sample variation of lenses, or a bit of human inaccuracy with focusing?  I guess there are a number of factors in play...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...in my opinion.  Because like it or not, there is sample variation, even among the best, most expensive lenses.

I know there are differences. I guess what I'm getting at is the differences are only really noticeable at the pixel level and by comparing side by side. Don't get me wrong, overall I would consider the 70D a better camera than the 7D (and I own a 7D), but for myself, it's not enough to warrant an upgrade. But one thing I will add is this is perhaps encouraging for the 7D Mark II, as if the 70D is a starting point to what the former will become.

Like I said, just my thoughts.

I see what you mean.  The problem is though, that the 7D2 will possibly cost almost as much as a 5D3 (recently got down to a hair over $2500).  The 7D2 will only be valuable for use with extremely sharp telephoto lenses, and not much else...in my opinion.  Why?  Its pixels at 24 MP on a 1.6x sensor, will be very critical of a lens, and of focus accuracy.  It will be a waste to use it on most EF-S lenses.  So, they should just make it a 1.3x, or 1.2x crop sensor instead...with larger pixels...but still with a total of 24 MP or more.  Why won't they do that?  Because then it would cut into the overall performance a bit of the 1DX and 5D3, and would necessarily cost more than the 5D3 to boot.  Oh well...perhaps the 1DX ii will have an in camera crop feature to accomplish something similar.  It just won't have enough MP to make as much use of it.

548
EOS Bodies / Re: sotchi - canon prototypes
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:18:57 AM »
Tonight during the skating even where the Americans won Gold, I noticed a white lens, on a un-named body.  I record the events, so I took a closer look, and the "Canon" logo was completely blocked out.  It may have been a 7DII, since the skating even is fast, and a fast frame per second would be used.

These have been seen before, probably for the simple reason that non-licensed advertising is forbidden at top sports events so the photogs have to cover any brand names/logos or product specifications.

I have not done the Olympics but do a fair number of major sporting events and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo. The white lens is a bit of a giveaway, and when it rains the Canon rain cover makes it even easier to work out what brand you are using. The same goes for the Nikon users I see too.

It is fairly common to have people cover logos on televised sports events unless they are a sponsor.   There is big money paid for advertising and someone like nikon who pays 2 mill for an ad doesnt want the word canon plastered all over the screen.  Some venues dont care but its usually a sponsor that makes the demand in their contract.

Like I said. I cover quite a few globally televised sporting events every year and have never been asked to cover the Canon logo on the camera(s), nor on the rain cover(s) for the lens/camera(s). Not once. And I have not seen Nikon users have to cover their logo either. There is no point. Everyone knows that Nikon lenses tend to be black and Canon white. In fact the colour of the lens is far more obvious than any miniscule Canon logo on the body.

We do have very strict regulations on what we can do with the pics, what we can wear etc (most of the time given a bib anyway). But nothing to do with the camera's brand, there's no point.

Just watch any sporting event and try to actually read the name of a camera brand on a photographer's camera. You can't unless you really, really, really try. What you can see is what is white and black.

And it's mostly white lenses out there isn't it?

549
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:10:32 AM »
I just wanted to add my thoughts about this lens after about six months of using it all over the world. As far as the optics go, it pretty much crushes my old Canon 35 1.4. Autofocus accuracy is pretty good, and the general construction of the lens is almost "L" quality. That said, I have found one major problem with it. While in Bangkok covering the protests last week, the autofocus driver died numerous times. It was clearly connected to the humidity (which never got THAT bad, about 80% while I was there). I have been in contact with Sigma, and will update when I receive a resolution. Obviously, the Sigma isn't weather sealed, but if the lens can't handle a mildly hot and humid afternoon, I'm not sure if I can give it my trust anymore.

All of that said, unless you are working in weather extremes, buy it, it's a hell of a lens.

Seems there ought to be a DIY way of adding an o-ring at the camera mount.

If the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L is weather sealed, I see no evidence of it.  I suppose it must be, though.

I'm curious if any of you have done astrophotography with this Sigma lens.  If so, is there much coma toward the borders, and if so, how far does it need to be closed down before that goes away?  I'm sure somebody has talked about this before, or perhaps over at lensrentals when they imatested it...but I forget.

550
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« on: February 22, 2014, 04:05:35 AM »
I like hearing your story about seeing the lens on display, and seeing the print!  Moments like that are what make impressions on us.  I've had several moments like that, but they usually have something to do with exotic sports cars or women, haha.  It's a shame the specialty camera shops are going away, or at least they are here.
Yeah, the Camera Exchange still exists as a camera shop, but its moved out from Melbourne (too expensive) and its just a shadow of itself, unfortunately. It was almost like a museum, with the range of second hand gear. A lot of Nikor gear from the late 60's and 70's. Alas, just not the market these days   :-\

I would love to visit Australia someday, especially that valley with the dinosaur-era trees still growing there.  I know it's restricted but somehow I want to go and take pictures of it. 
Wollemi pine, I presume. That's out near the Blue Mountains (some hours drive west of Sydney). A stunning place to visit (the Blue Mountains).

I'm also amazed at the wildfires you have in your rainforests down there...where the tree sap is about as flammable as gasoline...so it doesn't matter if it's a wet season, you can still have forest fires...that's crazy!  The cedar trees and pine trees we have here in Tennessee, have highly flammable sap...but it's nowhere near that bad.  They would not burn easily after days of rain...and most of the hardwoods would not burn at all in the wet.
Eucalyptus (gum) leaves contain a small amount of flammable oil, which means they burn really well, even when green off the tree. The forests tend to be dry in the summer, rather than a rainforest, and very moist in winter. Spring creates a great deal of growth, leading into summer, when it starts to dry out. As a natural process, the trees drop a lot of leaves in this dry time, leading to a high volume (2-4 inches) of dry leaf matter on the ground. This acts as a mulch, to slow the drying out, and reduces the evaporation from the tree (less surface area). But, if a fire starts, then its an issue.

Oops, I'm getting onto one of my pet subjects and way off topic....sorry to the OP.... ;)

Thanks for replying anyway.  I don't think we are hampering the OP, this thread is not very active.

551
Landscape / Re: Arches National Park -- at night
« on: February 22, 2014, 03:23:23 AM »
Great job!  And yes, moonset light is more effective in low light polluted areas, but it works pretty well when it's a full moon even if there is a bit of pollution.  Not sure I agree that moonset light is "better" than sunset...but it's different, and obviously depends on a lot of other factors such as the clouds and moisture in the air...similar to the effect on sunset.

I arrived in Moab last night.   I noticed the clouds had blown away, so I went out for a little hike to Delicate Arch. Just my luck, the clouds came back, and didn't start clearing up until I was almost done with my hike.
Afterwards, I went up to the arch viewpoint where I saw the stars. I thought I could try a short star trail photo using my telephoto lens, but it was really quite windy there and the trails were pretty ragged. One thing is for sure though, when the stars were out, you could see all of them! I wish I could find a place back home without all the light pollution.

For the record, with long exposures in the moonlight, some of these you'd never know it was shot in the middle of the night.  Also, you always hear about the great light at sunrise/sunset.  I've never once heard how great the light is at moonset, it's my new favorite time (although it may only be effective away from light polluted areas).


Moonlit Bridge by yorgasor, on Flickr


Delicate Arch by yorgasor, on Flickr


_MG_3215 by yorgasor, on Flickr


Cabin at night by yorgasor, on Flickr

552
Reviews / Re: Review: Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro VC USD
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:50:35 AM »
nice review as usual but i'm not sure how this will do against the canon 100 f2.8L
I bought my canon for a bit over $800 a couple of years ago brand new off ebay (from digital rev I think)

so there is not much of a price gap certainly not one worth the trade offs related to going tamron over canon

especially considering you say the build isn't up to the canon, its got 10mm less focal length which is important in macro

dunno how it will do its certainly not a situp and take notice lens like the 150-600 or even the new 24-70 and 70-200 combo vs their much more expensive canon competitors

i think this tamron will have a huge price drop in a while when they dont sell well, once that happens they will become more popular no doubt. I think its price needs to be in the $400 to $500 range to have more appeal to people looking for good optics at a lower cost to the canon or nikon genuine lenses

But how do you really feel about it?  :P

553
Carl
I would feel safer shooting large alligators through a 600 than your 24mm.
Here's an 11-footer I shot with my 24-70 - at the 70mm end - I try to stay away from close-ups of things that could eat me:


Fairly close, nice shot...it looks like it just ate and is heading to use the lake's facilities...

That's some vivid olive green color on its back, almost looks like somebody body painted it in camo!

Have you seen the Planet Earth episode where the huge African saltwater crocodile attacks the hind legs of a migrating...I think it's called "gnu"...looks like a skinny bull...?  Shot with a high speed camera and played in slow motion, the scene lasts like 10 minutes but in normal speed, the scene lasted a few seconds.

It looked painful!

554
Carl
I would feel safer shooting large alligators through a 600 than your 24mm.

That's funny, because I was going to suggest to you that they are perfectly docile creatures, and encourage you to shoot some with a fisheye lens!  :P

555
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:38:26 AM »
...but assuming these are two different samples of the 200 f/2L, that would be the biggest factor in the difference, by far...

While Bryan often tests multiple copies of lenses (presumably keeping the best one, he knows about sample variation, too), the 200/2 is part of his personal collection and AFAIK it's the same copy of the lens used for all tests.  I could ask him (or you could), if you're curious...

If it's the same copy, then that would remove a large part of what might otherwise be causing a difference (in my opinion)...that was all I was saying.  I was not criticizing Bryan at all; I like his website, have looked at it for a few years now.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 149