October 24, 2014, 11:51:17 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 - Quasimodo

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 63
271
Some beautiful pictures here Surapon:) Love the idea behind the DIY, and I think you have eliminated the need for two out of the three helpers. You still need one to hold the fill light/diffusor, as the contrast seems a bit steep in some of the pictures, imho.

272
Lenses / Re: teleconverters and resolving power
« on: December 20, 2013, 05:53:10 PM »
But seriously, this is a great topic, and it would be interesting to see the results on what which lenses does, or performs, with a different type of teleconverter (and the threshold from where you are punished by using it, to where you gain by using it). If there are differences on the results based on the scale of sensors, well then; it should be included too. The 50x zoom cameras and such is imho a sidetrack, as the real questions was the effect of using a TC.

As much as I think this is a great question, I find it hard to believe that this has not been explored before as a comparison, lens by lens.

G.

273
Lenses / Re: teleconverters and resolving power
« on: December 20, 2013, 03:05:03 PM »
I love the idea for this thread! I have a 2xIII TC and have had excellent results with the 70-200 II, 135L, 200/2L, 300/2.8L II, and the 500/4L II.

I would like if you or anyone else could do a real test of this, given FOV variations and such. :)

274
Landscape / Re: Sky on Fire!
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:55:32 AM »
Just realised, I never followed up on my photos to follow comment.


Fiery Sunset over Loch Leven by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Fiery Skies over Loch Leven by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

And one from a few years ago.


Fire and Water by Kernuak (avalonlightphotoart.co.uk), on Flickr

Beautiful shots Richard!

The first and third have an impressive light and detail in the foreground. Did you use any filters? Reason I am asking is that I will on the new year start off with the Lee system.

275
Lenses / Re: Should I choose the 70-200 2.8 II?
« on: December 18, 2013, 05:59:32 PM »
I think you should wait and have fun with the 100L first. Then borrow or rent someone's 70-200 2.8 and make a decision.  If you ask whether this is a great lens the answer is yes.  If you want to know whether this is for you, only you know that answer.  I'd rather have the f4 version plus a 135L. Now that I have 100L I may not even need my telezoom.  Again everyone is different and you need to decide for yourself.  I once borrowed the 2.8 from a friend.  I think it's wonderful for events and pretty impractical for travel and hiking.

+1

Sunnyvan makes a lot of sense here. I have it, and as everyone agrees upon, it is a superb lens, ... but so are other lenses. I use it less and less, and tend to have more fun with my primes, eg. 35, 85, and especially my favorite lens the 135L. The latter, once you´ve tried it never leaves you :)


276
Landscape / Re: Sky on Fire!
« on: December 18, 2013, 12:15:59 PM »
Ironically, the thread title has some bearing on my recent experience. Last week, I was in Scotland and travelling back, I stopped off in a small town called Kinlochleven for a couple of nights. The last night, I was busy photographing the best sunset of the year so far. Job done and I was heading bakc to the hotel, when a family was rushing in the other direction. Next I hear the little girl say "Mummy, it looks like the end of the road is on fire". Photos to follow...
Nice capture of the sunset, it isn't easy to capture the full beauty of a good sunset a lot of the time.

Looking forward to it :)

277
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 07:54:58 AM »
.
How do you improve on the 135L?

+ 100

278
Canon General / Re: Useless or absurd accessories
« on: December 15, 2013, 01:43:54 PM »
Someone once said (may have been my Father), when you have a great idea, wait awhile, it generally goes away.

The attached is one of the most useless pieces of equipment I've ever had a good idea about.

I think in these Images the "joints" must have been super glued.
I actually bought the ballhead version of this. After trying it and concluding that it doesn't work, it's been collecting dust.
But when I saw this thread started, I thought we would see loads of useless crap, but after close to 40 years, I have a hard time thinking of any really useless and/or absurd gadgets.
The area where I have wasted most money is probably on tripods and heads. Always trying to cope with something cheap, always ending up buying something better and more expensive.

It is actually not a bad idea, imho.. I have never had a Gorillapod, but I bought the tiny Manfrotto table tripod with a ball head. I can hold my 5D II gripped plus 70-200 II steady without a problem. I bring it when I travel far away for the possibility to capture nighttime long exposures. The Gorillapods I have seen, have not pretended to be supportive of DSLRs.

My most stupid buy was a cheap ring flash. Its recycling time is horrendous, and the quaity of light is really ugly. There are no such things as a real cheap good ring flash. The plastic thing that you mount to your flash can be fun.

279
Software & Accessories / Re: Lee Big Stopper
« on: December 13, 2013, 01:51:54 PM »
I have a question for those of you who have used the Lee system (100mm). Is it compatible with the Cokin Z system? I see that their adaptorrings and such are much cheaper.
Yes it is compatible

Thanks :)

280
Lenses / Re: Canon 2X III teleconverter
« on: December 13, 2013, 01:50:41 PM »
Hmm, I am just about to pick up one of those. But as it's the first negative experience I've heard of I won't heditate.

 I hope you'll get a good one when you get it changed.

I have a 2x III that I bought at Adorama. I have used it on a 5D II, 1Dx, and a 1Ds III, and without any problems at all. Actually, this summer I shot it with the new 300L on a 1Dx, and it worked like a charm. I think the OP just got a bad copy and should get it replaced.

281
Lighting / Re: Shaping the Lite
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:11:23 PM »
Interesting and informative

282
I have a Pixma Pro 1 and I am very happy with it.

Printing home is expensive, and ink is only of of several factors, paper being the second most cost-driving issue. I use Canson A3+ paper, and each paper costs me around 7 dollar per print, and with the ink included I reckon a print costs me around 12 dollars. That said, I have complete control over the printing process, and the ability to download or create separate ICC profiles is a very nice feature. I seriously doubt if printing at a professional service would give me better results, maybe with the exception if I were to send my prints to Ilford in the UK.

283
Its hard not to read this as anything else than; too little, too late. While the original EOS M could be read as a test baloon in the mirrorless market, the new version does not communicate that they deem this market interesting.

284
Software & Accessories / Re: Long exposure photography
« on: November 28, 2013, 10:17:06 AM »
You're absolutely right of course, any way at all that you can restrict the light from reaching your sensor will necessarily require a slower shutter speed to obtain a given exposure. So cracking-down on your aperture all the way & slapping-on a 2x TC will certainly give you a longer exposure time, but the resulting hit to your image quality will likely be pretty high... To minimize diffraction (& maximize sharpness) I try not to crank down my apertures any smaller than f/16. And I'll only use a TC if the "field of view" demands it.

If you just have to have that extra 3-stops of exposure time (from f/16 to f/64), I'll again urge you to consider stacking an additional filter on top of your Big Stopper. To achive that additional 3-stops I'd use my Lee 3-stop 4x4" glass filter http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/491473-REG/LEE_Filters_9NDG_4x4_Neutral_Density_ND.html; which is a bit expensive, but the resin filters are almost as good and much more reasonably priced.

Of course, if I forgot my extra ND filters (or I'm just too lazy to walk back to the truck) I'll do what ever I have to do to get the long exposure time that I want -- I'll use a polarizer even if I don't really need it, I'll crank-down the aperture to a ridiculously small size, what ever it takes...

Richard

Yeah, diffraction worries me too, but I will get to see how bad it actually is for different scenes. I am getting a .6 ND as well as part of the startup kit, so I´ll get an additional two stops there. I agree that stacking is probably the way to go, and that is probably where I will end up finally. Nevertheless, I will experiment with all kind of stuff (using the EC for instance) and see how my pictures are punished. I have also surmised that there is a limit to how many filters it is wise to stack given its impact on IQ, so I given the need for extra stops will probably have to cough up for some expensive high stop filters (hence the alluring Z system;)

With very good filters I'd probably only stack two or three max. Also I'd try and keep the aperture at around f/8 - 16 maybe f/22 if really required. It also helps to shoot on cloudy or slightly dullish days rather than bright sun. Shoot late afternoon and blue hour to get some color in your shots.

I'm getting into long exposures myself. Just recently bought a ND400 just to experiment a bit. If I like it I might buy into the more expensive stuff.

I am really looking forward to test this. I just also bought the linear polarizer (the round one) and the holder, hoping that I will be able to catch those beautiful colors. I will not get the chance to experiment before Christmas as they are my gifts :)

285
Software & Accessories / Re: Long exposure photography
« on: November 26, 2013, 05:42:40 PM »
You're absolutely right of course, any way at all that you can restrict the light from reaching your sensor will necessarily require a slower shutter speed to obtain a given exposure. So cracking-down on your aperture all the way & slapping-on a 2x TC will certainly give you a longer exposure time, but the resulting hit to your image quality will likely be pretty high... To minimize diffraction (& maximize sharpness) I try not to crank down my apertures any smaller than f/16. And I'll only use a TC if the "field of view" demands it.

If you just have to have that extra 3-stops of exposure time (from f/16 to f/64), I'll again urge you to consider stacking an additional filter on top of your Big Stopper. To achive that additional 3-stops I'd use my Lee 3-stop 4x4" glass filter http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/491473-REG/LEE_Filters_9NDG_4x4_Neutral_Density_ND.html; which is a bit expensive, but the resin filters are almost as good and much more reasonably priced.

Of course, if I forgot my extra ND filters (or I'm just too lazy to walk back to the truck) I'll do what ever I have to do to get the long exposure time that I want -- I'll use a polarizer even if I don't really need it, I'll crank-down the aperture to a ridiculously small size, what ever it takes...

Richard

Yeah, diffraction worries me too, but I will get to see how bad it actually is for different scenes. I am getting a .6 ND as well as part of the startup kit, so I´ll get an additional two stops there. I agree that stacking is probably the way to go, and that is probably where I will end up finally. Nevertheless, I will experiment with all kind of stuff (using the EC for instance) and see how my pictures are punished. I have also surmised that there is a limit to how many filters it is wise to stack given its impact on IQ, so I given the need for extra stops will probably have to cough up for some expensive high stop filters (hence the alluring Z system;)

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 63