October 22, 2014, 07:36:16 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 - emag

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22
181
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: yes or no..6d for video...
« on: March 05, 2013, 05:23:45 PM »
I believe there is an aftermarket in-the-camera-body filter available to improve video from the 6D.  If most of your work will be stills, this might be a viable and cost-effective option.

182
JD - To de-click, remove the mount on the rear of the lens.  Lift up the aperture ring and remove the tiny detent ball and spring and reassemble.  I'd recommend doing this over a container, once that detent ball is dropped it's gone forEVER; I disassemble lenses inside a large plastic container for just that reason.  I stuck it to a small piece of tape and left it inside the lens under the mount just in case I want to reinstall it.  I have a collection of old lenses sans detent ball from the days before I had the good sense to disassemble inside a container.

183
For those of us who do astrophotography, video has for some time been the preferred method for imaging the moon and planets.  The best frames from a video stream are extracted, stacked and processed.  A high resolution imager that can get to magnitude 8.5 would be a welcome addition, bringing a large number of interesting deep sky objects within reach of this technique.  Not too many years ago I was freezing my a$$ off taking 20+ minute film exposures through a scope and happy to get 2 or 3 good frames out of a roll of film.....and the quality sucked compared to what is attainable in 30 seconds with a Rebel series camera.  Although I can understand how underwhelmed many photographers might be, I hope this new Canon sensor is the beginning of deep sky videography.

184
I have the Pro-Optic flavor of this lens and find it fun to play with, both stills and time lapse.  I de-clicked it for video.  A fisheye is something I would not want to spend a lot of money on but I was happy with the price. 
I used it with a 40D to take a time lapse of my homemade motorized slider in action, which was carrying a 60D with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 attached.

I don't know the policy on linking to / embedding youtube videos here on CR, so change 'yertube' in the pseudo-links below to 'youtube' to make them work

Text from fisheye video, which is at

yertube.com/watch?v=KHzBE5y08DQ   

Home made slider running for about 7 hours.  Taken with Canon 40D and RokSamBow 8mm fisheye.  One 15 second exposure every minute.  On the slider is a 60D taking three 15 second exposures per minute.  Note my neighbor's TRULY ANNOYING security light, I'll have to ask her nicely to aim it in a different direction or shield it.  The timelapse made with this setup is at      yertube.com/watch?v=WBwNGcLGH1g

185
I cannot recommend the use of sponges, they are prone to capturing particulates and could scratch the sensor.  And no hair net!  Tsk tsk.  Better get Canon service to take care of that.

186
Lenses / Re: Keep or sell??
« on: February 28, 2013, 09:06:18 PM »
Get some extension tubes for it.

187
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 24, 2013, 09:52:54 PM »
Anyone with a similar shot using 6D?

188
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera body lens mount removal
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:08:40 PM »
Don't listen to these guys - take a chainsaw to that puppy and field strip it! 

Seriously though, if yer REALLY worried about the scratched mount, here's food for thought.  Is it just an appearance thing, like surface scratches?  Or is it gouged, as in you had grains of sand on there when you mounted a lens.  I suspect it's just appearance.  You could try polishing, but only if it's something that will keep you awake at night. Practice on the extension tube with a cotton swab (Q-tip) and a small dab of metal polish like Brasso.  Be careful, even if it works, when you do it to the camera you might use too much and it might drip into the camera body.  Plus the whole time you're doing this, dust is falling into the camera body.  My point is, cosmetic mount scratches are nothing to worry about.  Put that OCD on the shelf and take some photos.  And put your extension tube back together, it's fine.

189
If you listed your $2000 camera on Craigslist and tyoed in $20 in error. would you honor it?

Agree.....even if it was typed (or typoed) in instead of tyoed in :D.  Reputable companies like Adorama cancel the order before it processes, some (as mentioned by a previous poster) charge your card then credit you back....often at their leisure.     Chalk it up to "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't"

190
Technical Support / Re: Strange pattern in long exposure images
« on: February 19, 2013, 09:25:32 PM »
I've had a similar interference pattern occur when using a filter on my EF300/4 (non-IS), which has an almost flat front element.  Back when I was a young man with a full head of dark hair, we would look for interference fringes when checking optical flats and precision gauge blocks under a monochromatic light.  Neuro mentioned 'Newton's rings'....that's a phenomenon of similar cause, in the context we used it was an indicator that cemented lens elements were beginning to separate.  We'd re-cement them with Canadian Balsam, nowadays replaced for the most part with different adhesives.  This thread has conjured up memories of the smell of hot Canadian Balsam and hours of rebuilding Navy binoculars....a pleasant memory.  Thanks!

191
Lenses / Re: Reverse teleconverter
« on: February 19, 2013, 01:54:11 PM »
In the astrophotography world it's known as a focal reducer or less commonly a telecompressor.  Often it is optically figured to also reduce field curvature; hence, another name - field flattener/focal reducer or FF/FR.  I use an f/6.3, it reduces my scope's effective focal length from 2350 to 1480mm and from f/10 to f/6.3. 

As for camera lenses:  http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/focal-reducer-lens-adapter.html

192
It's not the body.  And the problems the body has aren't ones that the 40D will necessarily solve.........

Sound advice.  40D is a fine camera (I have one) but will not improve your keeper rate, technique will.  Getting a 40D now will consume capital for little benefit.  Keep saving those pennies in the meantime....you'll have something better by the holiday season or for next spring.  That said, a decent video camera would not hurt the bank too much and might be a nice addition to capture memories.

193
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: February 19, 2013, 09:20:36 AM »
No....integrated.....coffee....maker.  Arrrrggghhh!  When will Canon get on the ball?  I'm so disappointed.......

Sounds like a fine tool

194
EOS Bodies / Re: What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?
« on: February 15, 2013, 09:17:10 PM »

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

I've often used MRaw for time lapse.  I find it gives me PP flexibility without huge file sizes.  YMMV.

195
Site Information / Re: Anyone bought from DWI?
« on: February 15, 2013, 09:09:56 PM »
Doesn't pass the smell test

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 22