March 03, 2015, 07:15:06 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.

Topics - birdman

Pages: [1] 2
I know Fred Miranda has forum to buy/sell. What about POTN? I don't want to pay sleazebay or Amabonk all of their crazy commissions. i may have to... :-[

Damn, i hate to get rid of this joker-- mint+++ with less than 8k clicks I believe. The value is bottoming out daily and I want to put a plug in it. When/If another entry level FF is announced the price will tumble so bad that I may be lucky to get $1,400 for it. And I paid $2,500 + tax new less than 2 years ago.

Can anyone provide me with example(s) of pictures that needed high DR to expose/bring out shadows/clip highlights, etc.? I am trying to evaluate how important it is to my shooting.

With the 17-40L, I do need to upgrade in the future to get the most out of this 5d2 sensor. I am including 5d3 users in this conversation as well, since at low ISO these cameras are nearly identical. I think I have seen a few examples where my camera could use more DR, especially when pulling shadows and banding that occur (in these situations).

I just started using LR 4.0 so I have spent tons of time in post, but I do use DPP quite regularly. So, if you can provide some samples would be greatly appreciated.

I am keeping my 5d2 instead of splurging for 5d3. With this choice, and it was a tough one, I decided to update my lenses and here is my budget:

70-200/4 IS L

** I will have buy the two lenses above, in addition to currently owning: 1) 17-40L, 2) 35/1.4L, 3)100mm macro, & 4) 50mm 1.8 Mk 1

This is my budget to the max. I am selling my 28-135 & 70-300 IS (non-L) and may even sell my 100mm macro. Am I making a good decision, guys? Please help me feel better about owning f/4.0 L Zooms. This is the absolute best I can afford!!  Thanks

EOS Bodies / 5d3-- importance of High ISO abilities VS. more DR?
« on: May 13, 2012, 11:40:01 PM »
I have the 5d2, as most readers would know by now. The 5d3 is tempting me, but I shoot mostly low ISO landscapes. I read the DR of the 5d3 is nearly same as 5d2, but of course high ISOs are much, much cleaner as I can clearly see.

Is DR overrated?? Would bracketing correctly be essentially the same fix? Or HDR? I hate the look of most HDR images, as they look uber-fake and photoshopped to the max. I see DR this, DR that in regards to the D800.

Please give an easy laymen's term explanation of the advantage of more DR which Nikon seems to excel in at the moment. Thanks

I know the 70-300L is newer and with better optics and IS system. I have the older 70-300 IS (non-L) and the 300mm IQ is pretty bad. The other option for me is the 70-200 F/4 IS, but after spending a week in San Diego, 200mm on the beach just may not cut it.

I couldn't even get real close shots of bikini-clad women. Sorry if this offends anyone. I've seen sample shots of the 100-400 and they are very good. Same with the 70-300L. What I always hear is from 200mm to 300mm is not THAT noticeable. But from 200mm to 400mm is significantly longer, of course. What to do?

Before everyone gets all huffy and puffy, I need to state I am a proud 5d2 owner. According to "professional reviewers", Canon is currently trailing Nikon in DR and a few other areas. I guess it is really Canon vs. Sony in this sense.

My question is: Will Canon adopt the same sensor technology as Sony to match performance? Surely Canon's R & D will come up with a solution in the future. There is very little from Nikon that I am envious of....but every company has room for improvement. Thanking you for any responses....

First, has anyone ever been there? It's actually going to be a small part of my California vacation. I plan on shooting some at the beaches as well (surfers, sailboats, skimpy bikinis, volleyball games)

I am a 5d2 owner and have decent lenses below 100mm. My telephoto is the 70-300 IS (non-L). I am reluctant to rent the 70-200 f/4.0 IS because I think more reach would be needed.

I am thinking either 70-300L or 100-400L. Maybe the 300 f/4.0 IS? As always, money is an object. Any recommendations will be highly appreciated. Thanks guys

and coming from Canon DPP only, I can see some major improvements on my 5d2 image flexibility. Not to sound snobbish, but my life really hasn't allowed me enough time to learn PS or its variants for the past few years. I am just an amateur, but still enjoy photog very, very much as we all do.

LR4 doesn't seem overly complex, although you can spend several hours on just one RAW file if you needed to. Having a newer custom built PC (i7 2600, 8GB 1866 Ram) it runs seemingly much smoother and faster than DPP does on my machine. Also, I am not suggesting that LR4 has a much superior Canon Raw engine, although it may. I am simply stating that I see my "old" shots have "new" life to them. From the little I know, there are Noise Ninja plug-ins as well as other NR software and tweaks that work with LR4. Be nice to this noob please.

My main question is what steps do you guys use to process your RAW files? Do you run through LR or DPP, then reduce noise with another app, only to further adjust in another program? I admit my knowledge here is extremely lacking. Photoshop CS5 was always too intimidating for me to learn, giving all that I've had going on. LR4 seems like a good compromise between DPP and CS5. I want to start a critique forum soon (like on about pullling shadows, post production techniques, exposure and filter effects, etc, etc, etc. I have noticed the dreaded low ISO "banding" in some of my older 5d2 shots while using LR4. I had to push the crap out of them to see it happen, as they were terribly underexposed to begin with. After using some LR noise reduction, some of the noise went away and some smeared away detail. So my journey begins. There's no doubt it is an ART FORM in knowing exactly how to get that look that will make a average photo appear very attractive and interesting. Share your thoughts please. And maybe I can post some shots on my flickr account for you guys to guide me on.

I have a Nikon Clear 77mm UV filter that I "found" at a closing Ritz store about 2 years ago for about $35.00 ($100 plus filter).

Even though it's Nikon (and I shoot Canon) it is still an awesome filter. But my main intrigue is using a ND filter for landscapes. What type (brand, specs) filters do you guys use? I know I need a great ND filter to get the most out of my landscapes. However, I have been putting off this expensive purchase for several years.

I see Heliopan and B & W have somewhat affordable ND filters on Ebay. Of course, they have $400.00 filters as well. What is an awesome ND filter for under $150.00. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

I have used the SRaw (10MP) on my 5d2. They look pretty good, but noise is hardly any different and you lose many MP. I am seriously contemplating the 5d3 for several reasons: FPS, AF, high ISO noise, and bigger Sraw files.

I know the low ISO "banding" crap gets beat perpetually to freaking death. But it is a tiny flaw in Canon's sensor design. I'll take their awesome colors and low light ISO with this "banding" anyday. That being said, do the SRaw files render the noise any differently than standard RAW(on the new 5d3 of course) ?

Lenses / How is the 24-105 vs. the old 28-135?
« on: April 18, 2012, 10:03:16 AM »
I kept the 28-135 from my 40d kit (such an odd pairing on that model) and occasionally use it on my 5d2.

The 28-135 is good in the center up to about 75mm or so, but has many flaws such as distortion and soft corners. I say the 28-135 is close to the 28-85 or 28-105. They are all near the same optically.

But I hear lots of mixed opinions on the 24-105. I know the older ones had some kind of defect that forced Canon to do a slight revision. Maybe it was flare or dust. Anyway, the market for the 24-105 is so flooded and there are some awesome deals out there on new ones from kits. Here are my current lenses: 28-135, 17-40, 35L, 50/1.8 mk 1, 70-300 IS.

I was shooting an old abandoned school building about 1.5 hours before sundown the other day. I do NOT have the lens hood for my 35L, as it was bought second hand. But I do have a nice polarizer, which I thought would help reduce sunlight. Keep in mind I was shooting away from the sun, with the only reflection coming off windows on the building. Lots of my shots (taken with 5d2) have stray light screwing up the exposure. Aggravating to say the least. I tried to bracket them, but could not get correct exposure.

Does the lens hood make THAT much of a difference? I also have the 28-135 and 17-40, neither lens hood with those either. What would you guys suggest? Are the hoods worth the money?

I am deciding to stay with Canon, after much thought (not too much actually). I use the 17-40L on my 5d2, which is pretty decent. I want to upgrade to a sharper lens, but don't look forward to losing: 1) Autofocus 2) zoom range or 3) ability to use filters. Maybe that's why, even at $699 on sale, I have not bought the Tokina 16-28.

The Zeiss glass (especially 21/2.8 Distagon) is supposedly a phenomenal lens. The 18mm is rated very highly, too. I know, I know, I can rent these and try them out. If I rented a wide angle, it would only be one i didn't already have or really plan to buy. Maybe I can rent the Zeiss 18mm since finding a 21mm used for under $1,300 seems impossible.

The Tokina is most in line to what I need, at least on paper. But with limited sample photos and reviews, the decision becomes much less clear. I believe it is probably very similar in IQ to the 17-40 I already own. I know the distortion control is very good on the tokina, but i need sharpness across the frame!! Please share your experiences, if any. Thanks

EOS Bodies / 5d2 (not mk 3) examples of low iso shadow noise
« on: March 12, 2012, 10:31:00 AM »
Can anyone show us examples of when your 5d2 has banding/shadow noise on low ISOs? And can you show and/or explain how/where you cleaned up the files to remove the banding at ISO 100, 200, or such?

It will give me an idea what can be done with files on the 5d3 to solve this issue. Some of you are amazing at post-processing. Also, I read an article where ISO 160 was better than 100. Here's the useful link:

I really want this lens! I have 28-135IS, 50/1.8, 35L, 17-40L, and 70-300 IS. I could sell 70-300 IS and use money I had put back for new body for 70-300L.

The new body would be nice, too, but I think the lens will better serve me. the only thing that gets me is that the 5dII I currently own will steadily lose value over next few months. That's just technology though, i guess.......

Oh, and I do a lot of street photos and landscapes. Give me your opinion, please! My 5dII is immaculate, with low shutter count. I don't think new 5d3 will improve too much in IQ

Pages: [1] 2