September 16, 2014, 11:42:27 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 - Viggo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 136
1
Have the good people of CR completely forgotten the Canon sample shots from the 1dx? It was misfocused, soft, heavy NR and no sharpness. But it didn't turned out be like that in real life now did it?

(Sorry if this has already been said)

2
Lighting / Re: Anything Strobist
« on: September 12, 2014, 05:07:36 AM »
Thanks for sharing ChristopherMarkPerez, great stuff!

3
Lighting / Re: Anything Strobist
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:46:39 AM »
Finally got my camera back after 36 days away on repair and got to test my new Godox+Profoto octa.

They managed to send me the old trigger even though I bought the new one, so no HSS yet, it sucks...

But here's one of the first shots I did. I LOVE the light output from this combo!



And a grey, rainy and cloudy day suddenly looks interesting (to me at least)


4
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:42:32 AM »
25mm x 1.6x = 40mm
No. It's EF-S so it's 24mm on APS-C. If you put EF 24mm on APS-C, then you will get equivalent around 38mm.
Uh. I'm almost sure that an ef 24 has the same FOV as an ef-s 24. The added "S" just means that it's only mountable to crop bodies.
Nope. You can mount EF-S lens on FF as well. But I wouldn't recommend it.
A Canon  EF-S lens will not mount on a Canon FF body.
Can you tell me why? If u can mount FF lens on a crop body?
The EF-S mount is purposely different, because Canon wants to be incompatible. Moreover, the lenses Sigma "DC" fit in the full frame cameras, even if they theoretically may not be compatible.

Yes, but they are not fully compatible and usually requires zooming from the shortest focal and back from the longest to work, so I think it's better to just make them not compatible ...

5
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:05:59 AM »
25mm x 1.6x = 40mm

No. It's EF-S so it's 24mm on APS-C. If you put EF 24mm on APS-C, then you will get equivalent around 38mm.

Uh. I'm almost sure that an ef 24 has the same FOV as an ef-s 24. The added "S" just means that it's only mountable to crop bodies.

That is correct. The focal length displayed on the lens is because it is the LENS that is 24mm no matter what sensor you place behind it. Even if it's made for crop like a 10-22 ef-s the filed of view is still equiv to 16-35,2mm on FF.

6
Lenses / Re: The New Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:21:09 AM »
I'm just glad it wasn't the long awaited 35 L II..

7
1dx @ 95200'ish. Two years old, hobbyshooting .

8
Lighting / Re: Godox Witstro 360 flash with HHS
« on: September 04, 2014, 04:51:52 PM »
After 36 days my 1dx came back, new front and back plate (all buttons new) adjusted sensor plane and calibrated in the new Canon AF rig. Everything top notch!

And finally could try the Godox 360 in my new ProFoto 3' RFi octa.

The only shot I got of my little angel and forth shot I have shot with the 360. And I frikkin love it! Awesome flash! Only REALLY sucky thing is that the CellsII Transmitter I was recommended for HSS, does not work, I'm not
very happy about that to say the least.

Quick shot here , very bright out, but loads of power brought down the white wall in the background.


9
I feel it's a bit soft too, BUT the expression and smoothness and feel of the shot is very very good. Sweet cat shot!

10
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:22:50 PM »
The suggested lenses are a huge disappointment to me. Where's the 14-24, 35 II, 135 II (or mk1 with IS), 100-400. I don't question Canons reasons as they know what will sell better than me, but still disappointed..

11
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:19:33 PM »
Amur Leopard
5DIII, @115mm, 1/100s, f3.2, ISO1600

REALLY cool shot!!

12
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f/2.8L mkii Focus Shift
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:18:21 PM »
Of all the lenses that NEEDED improving is the 24-70 f2.8 L. I can't stand it when I am doing EVERYTHING right... i.e. standing still, bracing my camera tightly, working in good indoor/ outdoor lighting, using a cross point, not shifting the focus... literally taking a picture after being certain there is enough detail to get a good focus lock.. and I am standing directly in front of a person, who somehow manages to become like......3 ft back focused! Why...??????  That should not happen with Professional equipment!!!!!!!!!!  Why would Canon not fix that HUGE problem in the MkII version of this lens...???  a new lens that costs SIGNIFICANTLY MORE money than the cruddy lens that I have put up with for the last 10 years!! This problem has peed-off so many photographers that Google.com is filled with many pages of people all over the world complaining about the focus problems!  Oh wait... I know what the flaw is...  There is none.... This lens was designed this way intentionally, because they know that if we are angry about the cruddy performance of such a lens, we would have to buy a new one, thinking that Canon would have corrected all the problems that the last version was known for!  Oh no!  That stuff will be fixed in the MkIII version... costing a whole lot more than the MkII...  Follow the money!  Canon is known for releasing products with MAJOR flaws.....and for denying problems ever existed.......even after stacks of evidence show otherwise!  Jerks!

Have you afma'd to both tele and wide end?

My 24-70 mk2 is just astonishing when it comes to locking and tracking with any of the 61 points. I can hardly get it to miss if I try. And I shoot running small children indoors.

13
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:57:16 PM »
You mentioned nothing in your original post about needing to shoot low light, so it seems the 200/2 is not necessary for that reason.

You would save so much money by going with the 70-200/f2.8, especially since you don't need that extra stop.  With the money you save over the 200/2, you can pick up a few books on composition in photography, and also on composition in painting (where there is much overlap).  Basically, a book that will teach you about rules of composition, about using contrasting elements, about using negative space, about using symmetry, etc etc.  You don't need to "kill" your background with f2 when you know how to properly compose a photograph.  I used to have the same lust after that lens, luckily I never bought it thanks to the wise words spoken by a professional portrait photographer. 

I've got a few buddies who either have the 85/1.2, 135/2, or 200/2, and I just think "what are you doing???"  They claim those lenses are great for background separation.  You know what else is?  ANY lens and a knowledge of composition.  I saved so much money, and weight, by going with the 70-200 f4, which is also my most expensive lens.  You can tell it eats at my friends' hearts that I am taking better photos with gear that is not high end.  But as they always say, a great photographer can take a better photo with an iPhone than a shitty photographer with the best SLR.

I urge you, because I used to be in the same position of lust for that amazing-bokeh lens as you, to reconsider.  You have the potential to save so much money, which will increase what you can spend on other things.  Not having spent thousands upon thousands (or even tens of thousands) on gear has allowed me to travel much more (which in itself is a lot of fun, whether it be traveling locally, nationally, or even internationally), practice photography more, and just enjoy life more. 

Think about it this way.  You'd be paying thousands more in order to take pictures where less and less stuff is in focus.  Yes, I know that it is a fantastically sharp lens , but let's not kid ourselves about to the real reason most people lust after the lens.  Super thin DOF/background separation.

My head hurts from reading that... It's different what you and I want from our photography, so don't tell anyone what they need or that a 70-200 f4 gives you what you want if you want a 200 f2 just by reading a little...

14
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:37:48 PM »
^ I agree... The 300 II has some incredible bokeh!
Nice examples!  The bokeh on the lizard shot is insane!

I love the lizard shot also, very nice color and the light is spot on ! (Pun intended)

15
Lenses / Re: 200 f/2.0 vs 70-200 f/2.8 II
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:48:04 AM »
It might not be for everyone of course, but I feel a bit of bubbling in my belly when I keep seeing people say "it's almost the same as the 70-200 @ 200" no it is not. It might not be worth it to you, but it's a BIG difference. I must've read a thousand user reviews that said the same and 90% had one thing in common, they were written by people who had read other user revies, not by people owning or using the lens.

The 85 L is wonderful for some things, but "sharpness to die for" when we're talking about the 200 f2? Yeah, not so much.

And I think what makes a lens give that pop, is very high level of sharpness against the smoothest possible background and there there is no lens like the 200, unless you go even higher up. But for portraits I find 200 is the longest you should go for head shots.

Again, it isn't for everyone and god knows it's a lot of money, so if you're happy with the 70-200, there's nothing wrong about that, because it's absolutely killer and one of the best zooms ever made. But it's never going to be "basically the same as the 200".


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 136