October 25, 2014, 02:26:23 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 - risc32

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 34
331
Lenses / Re: 24-70 vs 24-70 II Outdoors Test! WHOOAAA!!!b
« on: September 16, 2012, 04:26:22 PM »
I can't fault your work, it's very nice. But, i don't know about your numbers. 10% brighter does not = 2 stops. 10% brighter is nothing. and iso 640to iso 400 is not 2 stops either. these numbers just don't make any sense but again, your photos are very good, so who cares about math anyway?

332
Lenses / Re: Zoom-walking, Walk-zooming
« on: September 14, 2012, 10:36:42 PM »
this let your feet do the zooming is just purist nonsense. I actually don't even like saying that because i consider myself a bit of a purist but make no mistake, zooming with your feet is not the same as zooming with your lens. I'm not saying one is better or worse(actually zooming with your feet is sometimes just not possible) they are just different. I wonder if anyone who would disagree has spent anytime with a wide angle lens. an inch either way, a degree up or down and change everything. I'd love to take a good stab at this for you, but i have to hit the hay. big day tomorrow. There are a number of guys here who won't have any problem breaking this all down. i'm sure they'll be along, if not i'll have a proper go at it.

333
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Kodak 620X ISO performance vs now?
« on: September 13, 2012, 07:34:49 PM »
i think you're both wrong. that image stinks. for 2000 it doesn't but today stuff is much much better. even a crappy camera phone beats that all to hell. that wasn't a 100% crop, that was it, and it didn't look that great. again, good for 2000. not even close to anything now. Big pixels = better iso is also just funny business. Certainly, everyone knows that's why the d800 sucks so bad. I don't think anything is being held back. not in the sense that they have something waiting in the wings for future. Sure, Nikon was holding back when canon was eating their lunch during the first many years of digital(until the D3). they liked losing market share.

334
1D X Sample Images / Re: Who is this idiot??
« on: September 09, 2012, 09:57:07 PM »
I'm just here to make sure it's not a photo of me doing something silly. Now that I see it is not me I'll exit, please carry on.

335
This is what i would have liked canon to have offered us with their mirrorless design. Honestly, i don't even remember anything about what they did offer or if it's since been released. Yeah, the spec sheet must have got me very excited. it must have been a "me too" product.

336
Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 09, 2012, 08:38:55 PM »
not that i'm discounting your searching, i have no idea why i didn't do it myself(sometimes i do forget the near limitless info i can get from my keyboard). Maybe i'm just being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but i'm not buying it. Or perhaps i am, nikon/canon a force behind that international prohibition? I mean, besides canon/nikon who are the big guns? They all happen to be from where? Or, where aren't they from(japan)?    now i'm getting all x-files...  makes sense to me, but then so does making your own yogurt in your slow cooker.

337
Lenses / Re: Upgrading a 300 f2.8
« on: September 09, 2012, 08:11:23 PM »
i do believe that the 300mm 2.8 IS V1 is also tripod sensing so leaving IS on is just fine. better than fine, it's good, as it'll reduce the chances of vibration from the mirror or whatever else. that''s the way mine works anyway. BTW- i'd agree with everyone here. I'm sure that the latest has better IQ but when you are talking about a Canon 300mm f2.8, there wasn't a whole lot of room for improvement at any cost. Weight reduction would be welcomed, but i can hack it. now if i shot a 400mm f2.8, the V2's weight reduction would be very important to me.

338
didn't that fuji 1x100 have this same problem, and a firmware tweak helped. Actually, the first thing i thought when i saw it was that someone had cranked the "velocity modulation scanning" . it's a hold over from when i did ISF calibrations on monitors. but it still makes me wonder if they are doing something like that in firmware with these images.

339
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Second Curtain Sync - Design Flaw?
« on: September 08, 2012, 08:23:44 PM »
i do off camera lighting all the time. I didn't know there was a workaround to not having the option of rear curtain synch, but honestly i've never needed it. how is it that you know in advance that you are going to be needing to fire two off camera flashes with rear curtain synch? i'm not trying to be a smart ass, i'm rather good at that says the wife, i've just honestly shot lots of weddings and other events and this has never been an issue. probably just shooting shooting something cool with movement that i haven't. also i think i use the same triggers that you are using, but i've gotten to the point where i really only use them for triggering the shutter, and i use the PITA Canon light based master/slave system. I know, it sucks, but i've gotten rather good at operating it quickly and it's nice to have such fine(1/3 stop) adjustments. i'm currently looking at another system...

340
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Problem black halos around stars in RAW files...hmm
« on: September 08, 2012, 02:25:35 PM »
I can't say but what about the fact that your points of light are ovals? I thought i'd see batwings but they all look like uniform ovals. seems weird to me, but i don't have much exp with astro work, and i usually don't do much pixel peeping. esp when it come to my astro stuff, as it's just a mess to begin with. I tend to throw standards out the window, and just hope i can get something interesting, leaving the technically awesome stuff for nasa. But there are some guys on here that are fairly heavy into this, hopefully your get some info from them. Did you use long exposure NR?

341
Lenses / Re: 400, 200 or...?
« on: September 07, 2012, 03:29:48 PM »
i vote for the 400mm2.8.

342
Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 07, 2012, 09:50:13 AM »
it's my understanding that Ziess worked with Canon for it's EOS mount lenses. That is Canon offerred support. Maybe Canon is unwilling to offer aid if Ziess starts rolling out AF lenses.  I don't believe the other 3rd party guys had this sort of deal with Canon. They just reverse engineer things until it works out. I don't really put them at the same level.

343
Lenses / Re: The First Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review
« on: September 07, 2012, 09:42:16 AM »
as for the v2 having a warmer image, couldn't that just be from AWB just grabbing a different value? I don't think he mentioned anything about locking that variable down. just saying. Also, in his tree/water/sun flare shot i see better performance from the v2, and he seems to see that the other way around.

344
Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 07, 2012, 08:22:26 AM »
Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF?  Always wondered.


I've never heard anything definitive about that either. I just assumed that Sony won't allow them to do it. MF fine, AF no.

345
Lenses / new ziess 55mm, redefining?
« on: September 06, 2012, 09:12:09 PM »
http://thedigitalpicture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Zeiss-News


"A must-see attraction is a high-performance, full-format SLR camera lens with manual focus. With a focal length of 55 mm and aperture of f/1.4, this lens is the first model of a new product family designed for demanding users. Thanks to a newly developed optical design, this lens is superior to conventional full-frame lenses, and it achieves with powerful full-frame, full-format cameras an image performance that until now has only been seen with medium-format systems."

real deal of fluff?  cost estimates? Am i reading the lens correctly? 82mm filter on a 55mm 1.4? 

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 34