March 01, 2015, 04:11:06 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.

Messages - Rat

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 18
Software & Accessories / Re: Best Practices for using a Monopod
« on: February 13, 2013, 03:51:06 PM »
Pity they don't make bipods for photographers.
Much steadier than monopods - that's why rifle marksmen use them.
Yep twice the weight of a monopod but twice as steady - and one third lighter than a tripod.
A bipod with a good ball head would be ideal steady support for panning shots.
Great idea! I just bought a N-series Sirui tripod, from which one leg can be detached, to use as a separate monopod. One of the reasons I bought it, and obviously also the reason I'm reading this topic. But only now does it occur to me that this also means I now have a bipod :D

This might be wonderful for action shooting, can't wait to try it out. Thanks :)

Canon General / Re: Physical Ailments From Heavy Gear
« on: February 13, 2013, 01:19:41 AM »
So rather than going through a dozen or more shoulder/neck strap combinations that won't work anyway, all at significant expense, I've rejected that type of strap completely. Instead, I use a hand strap [currently a Canon, but with a Camdapter on the way] that gives good support to my right hand, yet allows easy use of my fingers.
I've used a handstrap with my gripped bodies since forever, but I don't find them as comfortable with 'bare' bodies, what with the leeway because of the battery compartment. That Camdapter looks pretty good - and with quick release plate compatibility too! Could you keep us up to date on how that suits you?

Video & Movie / Re: The Blizzard of 2013 Time Lapse
« on: February 10, 2013, 01:29:00 PM »
Note to self: only go out to shoot when snowfall is of consistent density and texture ::)

Video & Movie / Re: The Blizzard of 2013 Time Lapse
« on: February 10, 2013, 11:58:56 AM »
Just a quick question: did you use auto white balance or was the light really that inconsistent? If the first, you might want to stick with a fixed value next time, makes it easier on the eye ;)

Lighting / Re: How to use flash with av,tv
« on: February 10, 2013, 09:18:45 AM »
Check out - start your reading at Q7 in the FAQ. By the time you reach Flash Metering Principles, about three to five minutes later, you'll have some very useful info :)

Lenses / Re: I can't stop thinking about A MONSTER!
« on: February 07, 2013, 11:27:36 AM »
I bought a 2x extender with my 70-200/4IS. Come april, my 5D3 will be an f/8 camera and I can shoot up to 400mm. AF will be slow, but that's it as far as my tele-aspirations go. Why? Because I don't have a car, that's why. I'm 6' and I work out (a little), but the 3kgs of my gripped 5D3 with 2x+70-200 and a flash is already more than I'm really enjoying. I borrowed a 100-400 a while ago, that was pushing it. If you want to actually use a 500mm, you're probably better off renting it. I'd do that anyway if I were you, just walk around with it for a day and see how you feel. And ask yourself: am I going to rent this four, five times a year for the next ten years?

-1. Sorry. I'd love to encourage you - your gallery shows some very nice shots - but unless you are incredibly disciplined or in possession of a car, I think it's a waste of money. And don't invest everything in your pension either. People die prematurely, banks topple, so live a little - but remember there's far more economical ways to get your rocks off than a 500mm. How 'bout a visit to the Grand Canyon, or the piramids, or...  (edit) or a house, trumpetpower's idea's not bad either :)

Canon General / Re: What's your definition of "Pro"?
« on: February 07, 2013, 10:59:37 AM »
You're a hobbyist if you do something you like. You're a pro if you do what someone else likes.

Canon General / Re: Physical Ailments From Heavy Gear
« on: February 05, 2013, 05:36:42 AM »
A good physiotherapist might help. I'm getting treatment to my right shoulder that probably didn't even exist 20 years ago - back then, they only treated muscles and joints, now they start with the nervous system. And it really works wonders for me.

Don't try and find workarounds - you'll be easy on some muscles but twice as stressful on others. A BR or Sunsniper strap might help, as might running shoes, but you want to work on the way you handle your camera (regular workouts really do help), not just change it. That'll only change which body parts are hurting :)

At the moment, I'm carrying my 5D2, 70-200 f/2.8 II, 35L, 24L, Macbook Air, + filters and accessories inside a Thinktank shoulderbag.. It is pure torture for my shoulders, and I don't think it is good for my physical health.
I used slingshots on several longer trips and always regretted that. I now have a Kata (3N1-20, off the top of my head) that transforms from sling into fully fledged backpack - a balanced load is much, much, much easier to carry.

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 04, 2013, 12:33:48 PM »
Could someone explain why these specs indicate a need for 95mm filters? As far as I can tell, a 82mm thread would be enough...

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 11:23:21 AM »
I personally still don't see the usefulness of IS on a lens like that and I personally would always chose the non-IS version over the IS. It's really more an amateur gadget unless were talking much longer focal lengths.
I think it'd mostly be for videographers, but it helps in journalistic photography as well - you don't always have time to mind your balance and occasionally you might even want to make a running shot. Sometimes you just need to shoot and hope for the best, and IS will help you improve the odds in such cases.

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive
« on: February 03, 2013, 10:32:16 AM »
I kind of believe in free speech.
I think everybody here does that, but all freedoms can be abused. Read e.g. "The boy who cried wolf".

Lenses / Re: Resistance to Larger Filter Size, Kills Great Lenses?
« on: February 03, 2013, 10:25:06 AM »
I just got the business idea of dslr tuning
I like :D Also, facts or not, I like the word 'thickle' and most of all I like the info about 82mm filters fitting all my 77mm lenses. Thanks, Marsu42! Ordered a step-up-ring for starters, this would be great for filters I only want to buy once, such as a cpl. Not everyone has the purchasing power of a small country (I'm looking at you, neuro :P ) and budget constraints are important to me.

Mind you, if I could shell out the 3K+ for a 24-70/2.8IS, I would *not* skimp on the filters - a 95mm B+W MRC would be less than 200 bucks and that's not double the highest I've ever paid. However, a lens with a 95mm front element might get drop-in filters. I know there are even 105mm filters, but I don't know of any lens that would take 'em.

Site Information / Re: Moderators: You are Too Sensitive
« on: February 03, 2013, 09:00:30 AM »
if say 49% of the threads on this site were like that, would you be visiting the site?
This. I visited that thread several times to see if some redeeming information had shown up or if someone with more than half a brain had put some sense into the OP - being disappointed each time. Not a big surprise, since the whole thread was based on lies.

Thankfully, I missed the racist rant but in general: I visit this forum to become a better photographer - not to be subjected to the "the internet is a big free-for-all, get lost if you don't like me" movement. And that is not even considering that such behaviour is not just brutally offensive, but also inherently contradictory.

Anyhoo - moderators, thank you. I too had expected this to happen earlier, but it sure is the right course of action.

Software & Accessories / Re: Rain Covers
« on: January 28, 2013, 03:06:15 PM »
Op/tech covers are something like a tenner for a pair and the viewfinder hole is already cut out. Try 'em and see if you need more - I've had a pair for years and so far, the answer is 'no' ;)

Lenses / Re: Lens Help - 17-40 & 70-200 f/4 or 24-70 f/4
« on: January 28, 2013, 02:55:00 PM »
The 70-200 is way more than just "telephoto" on a FF camera. You'll want that any which way (I'm not a big 70-300 fan, YMMV). I'd take that as a starting point and see what else you can add. I wouldn't pay 1500 for the 24-70/4, if you can get the 24-105 (which is not much worse except for the heavy wide-angle distortion, although I rarely mind) for 600 bucks less. I love this lens and think it's a shame you missed that opportunity.

If you can't pay for a 70-200 and a 24-105, I'd go for option 2. You can always get a plastic fantastic for 89 bucks or whatever they charge and have an inbetween.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 18