November 22, 2014, 05:16:17 AM

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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 212
1546
Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 10:03:04 PM »

The places that have not been photographed like crazy are definitely the places you have to hike miles to get to. I did not see a single photographer when I hiked up to Nevada Falls or going to the top of upper Yosemite falls, but saw hundreds around the valley floor. After hiking 15 miles one day with all my camera equipment, snow gear, and water & food on my back, I dont blame most photographers for sticking on the valley floor.

That's only because it is winter and for the most part, those trails are usually considered "closed" at that time of year.

Quote
After hiking 15 miles one day with all my camera equipment, snow gear, and water & food on my back, I dont blame most photographers for sticking on the valley floor.

That was the day you hiked to the top of Yosemite Falls? Consider that you did this in cold weather and that people do the same amount of walking, carrying the same amount of gear, in summer.

At least for me, 15 miles would only be 5 hours of hiking during good weather in Yosemite.

Quote
I did notice that about 80% of photographers were walking around with a 70-200 F2.8 (canon/nikon/tamron/etc.). For the life of me, I could not figure this out! For my entire trip, I was constantly reaching for my 14mm uwa lens. If that was not on the camera, the 50mm was. I only put my 70-200mm on my camera 3 times over the course of the trip.

And when I look at your photos, what do I see? Uncorrected lens distortion.

Where does lens distortion come from?

UWA lenses that people don't know how to use.

Your photos are a great example of why lots of people don't use wide angle lenses in Yosemite Valley.

Best lens for the Yosemite Valley is arguably 24-70. It would be 24-105 except that the 24-105 is rubbish wider than 28mm.

I would happily argue that the best lens for Yosemite is a 24 or 17mm tilt shift lens, but everyone has their preference. The distortion is corrected for as best I could (using a lens profile), but that is definitely the downfall of the Samyang 14mm. I am sure I could have done a better job correcting the distortion, but I have not figured out how. If you have any advice feel free to share!

Buy yourself a copy of "DxO Optics 8".

1547
Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 07:51:11 AM »
And what ISO were you shooting with f/16 at 1/100? Somehow I doubt it was ISO 100, with a polariser and ETR.

To give an example, a photo I've taken from an almost cloud free day at Yosemite overlooking the Nevada Falls is 1/25 at f/8.0 for ISO 100 (zoom of 25mm). In the interest of seeking to maximise my chances of the photo being sharp I use a tripod even if it is borderline ok for handheld with IS.

No, I was a bit above ISO 100.  I wasn't using a polarizer.  If I had used one, then yes, I can see why you would want a tripod.  However, on a clear sunny day in fall, unless you are shooting extremely bright clouds, or again...water falls...I don't see a reason to use a polarizer or ND filter.  Some of those people I saw, were indeed shooting water...but I was referring to the ones that were just shooting landscape with a lot of bright sky, mountains, etc.

...
Many of the landscape shots didn't turn out all that well, compositionally (I've not spent much time going through them yet).

... and you wonder why everyone isn't using a UWA lens on their camera.

1548
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII and D400 Specs
« on: February 26, 2013, 06:54:27 AM »
There is an interesting letter over on DPReview http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3387936#forum-post-50901841 that purports to be from Nikon Europe that unequivocally states that the D7100 will not be Nikon's flagship APS-C format camera.

On paper, the D7100 is impressive. If Canon responds with something close in the 70D, it makes me wonder what they'll put in the 7DII.  I'm not sure the current rumored spec list for the 7DII would be sufficient to justify an $800 difference in cost.

On the other hand, I keep wondering if the 70D and 7DII will share the same sensors (Or for that matter, if the D7100 and D400 will as well). There is a part of me that thinks Canon may differentiate the two by offering slightly fewer megapixels but better low-light performance in the 7D, as they have done with the ID-X.

Hard to say. I just thought the letter was interesting and worth starting a thread for people to consider what it might mean for the 70D and 7DII.

I think it is very obvious from the specs of the D7000 and D7100 that neither are contenders for the D300/D300s line of cameras. Saying that they are makes about as much sense as calling the 70D the successor to the 7DII if the 70D comes out before the 7DII.

1549
Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 06:48:23 AM »
What did surprise me was the multitude of people shooting standard wide angle landscape shots in the daytime, on tripods.  I fail to see the logic of this.  If they're shooting macro, or wanting to participate in the "stream water as smoke" fad, with long exposures and ND filters, that's one thing.  Or if it is late afternoon light, then yes I can see needing a tripod.  But if they are not doing long exposure, there's no reason for a tripod in mid afternoon light, in my opinion.  It certainly limits the total number of shots you can take, to constantly move around a tripod and set it up, and aim the camera, etc.  I had rented a 1D4 with 24-105 IS.  I shot about 1400 pictures over a day and a half.  With the IS, I was able to close the lens down to f/16 or 18 at times, to try to minimize CA at the wide end, and still got sharp shots handheld even if the speed was less than 1/100.

And what ISO were you shooting with f/16 at 1/100? Somehow I doubt it was ISO 100, with a polariser and ETR.

To give an example, a photo I've taken from an almost cloud free day at Yosemite overlooking the Nevada Falls is 1/25 at f/8.0 for ISO 100 (zoom of 25mm). In the interest of seeking to maximise my chances of the photo being sharp I use a tripod even if it is borderline ok for handheld with IS.

1550
Landscape / Re: Yosemite in the wintertime
« on: February 26, 2013, 06:37:48 AM »
I did notice that about 80% of photographers were walking around with a 70-200 F2.8 (canon/nikon/tamron/etc.). For the life of me, I could not figure this out! For my entire trip, I was constantly reaching for my 14mm uwa lens. If that was not on the camera, the 50mm was. I only put my 70-200mm on my camera 3 times over the course of the trip.

And when I look at your photos, what do I see? Uncorrected lens distortion.

Where does lens distortion come from?

UWA lenses that people don't know how to use.

Your photos are a great example of why lots of people don't use wide angle lenses in Yosemite Valley.

Best lens for the Yosemite Valley is arguably 24-70. It would be 24-105 except that the 24-105 is rubbish wider than 28mm.

1551
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Flourite
« on: February 25, 2013, 08:48:03 AM »
This is the 2nd time that a f/2.8-4.0 wide angle zoom has been mentioned.

1552
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finnish wearing on my 5D Mark III
« on: February 25, 2013, 08:10:27 AM »
The black gaffer tape is definitely something to consider for the future. I'll be interested over time whether this grows as a problem or whether its just bad luck. I don't know how the camera is made but it looks like metal covered by clear plastic , coated then in black plastic. The black plastic layer seems very thin.

The 5D Mark III is a magnesium-alloy body.

That means to make it look black it needs to be painted.

If you rub any metal that has been painted for long enough against clothing, the paint will eventually wear away and show metal underneath.

1553
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finnish wearing on my 5D Mark III
« on: February 25, 2013, 06:05:57 AM »
Oh, if you want to stop this type of wear, buy some black gaffer tape and tape the bottom edge of the camera.

1554
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finnish wearing on my 5D Mark III
« on: February 25, 2013, 06:03:07 AM »
Hello There,

The finnish on my 5D Mark 3 is wearing away around the bottom left edge of the camera.

It looks like it's 5 years old..not 5 months old.

I have no idea what wore the finnish away.

Anyone else have this issue?

I've had this issue with every DSLR that I've owned.

On the plus side, at least we know you're not a "trophy" photography that just collects expensive cameras and pretends to take lots of photos.

It can be fixed by having Canon replace the back plate but that's not free.

1555
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How Do You Clean your sensor? And how often?
« on: February 24, 2013, 06:15:59 PM »
Either before or after every major expedition I use a rocket blower on my sensor, the back element of all my lenses and the lens caps that cover the back of the lens. Sometimes I also clean the sensor/lens rear element whilst on a shoot.

Once a year or so I send my camera in for a proper clean.

1556
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced
« on: February 23, 2013, 07:42:17 AM »
The D700 split into two different cameras: the D800 and D600.

Yeah i guess, but I'm betting most d700 shooters would have preferred a d700s: 7fps, 24mp, solid build.
What they got was either: pretty much the same camera [d600] with lesser build quality but good amount of mp.
Or a complete beast [d800] whilst great for certain users, it's a step backward in fps and too large file size for others.

For sports, event, wedding or wildlife photographers already using a d700, I wouldn't consider either of these a great upgrade. Maybe the d600 for a 'slightly' faster shooting speed and more mp but then you lose the tank like build that the d700 was known for.

I think all three of those cameras are likely able to withstand rougher treatment than most people will deliver. Then again, I've seen some treat the D700 like it was made of porcelain with it wrapped up in a plastic bag whilst they were outside shooting. Go figure. Search on youtube for the comparison between Nikon and Canon where someone tries to burn them with a blowtorch.

1557
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon EOS 7D or Nikon D7100
« on: February 22, 2013, 08:02:30 AM »
I am planning to upgrade my Canon 40D to a more advanced camera. 40D isn't bad at all but it doesn't come with video shooting features at all. I can save up to around $1K or a little bit more in a few months' time.
A friend of mine from Asia said that she could buy me a new 7D (grey market) for US$880 and bring it to me when she visits me some time early summer.

So long as she buys it herself and brings you the box and you give her cash, sure... otherwise, you better hope it never needs to go in for warranty repair.

Quote
Then it's the new Nikon D7100 coming with a lot of interesting features.
Which one should I pick ?

I know lens would be an important consideration. For the time being, I mainly borrow my dad's canon lens. If I switch to the other brand, I can use my brother's lenses.

Well. think of it this way.

If you go with the other brand then you'll get to compare using both brands for yourself. Then at some point in the future you can make an informed decision about which you like best.

1558
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced
« on: February 22, 2013, 07:58:13 AM »
I actually think Nikon made a mistake with this one, don't get me wrong the specs are really great and the price.... WOW! The camera is awesome but crop shooters at camp nikon are waiting for the d300s replacement. The d300s is similar to the 7D in specs [lower mp but more af points, 7fps, metal body]

Somehow I don't think that the D7100 is a replacement for the D300s. The D300s may not be on sale or in stock anywhere, but that's not necessarily an indication that the D7100 replaces it. After all, nearly every digital SLR is still in stock somewhere when its replacement arrives. I suspect that the D300s being next to impossible to find is more of an indication that the D400 has taken longer to arrive than they expected (or it could just be that they had reached the tail of the D300s sales and it was no longer worth them manufacturing more.)

Quote
Now imagine the 7Dmkii specs were the same as the nikon d7100? how pissed would you all be? losing fps, build quality. It's kinda like all the d700 owners when the d800 came out, way too many mps and a big fps drop.
From our point of view, these cameras are great but to some nikon users expecting incremental upgrades, they are a step backwards in some ways [build and fps]
They seemed to more geared towards getting new customers than the existing users, which is probably their strategy. [and it could be working on me, may end up with a d800]

The D700 split into two different cameras: the D800 and D600.

1559
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Transition from Nikon to Canon
« on: February 22, 2013, 07:50:03 AM »
Hello everyone.

I am switching to canon, Mainly because I want to buy a  CANON full frame after 2 years and most of my friends use canon. But for the time before that I want to USE a mid range canon and enrich my lens collection.I have sold my Nikon d90 which I had used for 2 years.

Decisions that are made because of "peer group pressure" are universally bad decisions. The pressure isn't always overt but that you cite "most of my friends" obviously means that you feel like you need to conform.

Switching to Canon won't deliver you better pictures but it will mean you need to spend a whole lot of money that you wouldn't otherwise need to spend. Canon has nothing that will deliver better pictures than the recently released Nikon D7100.

To use the quote that police often use, "If all of your friends jumped off the cliff, would you want to jump off it too?"

1560
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 7100 has been anounced
« on: February 21, 2013, 07:13:02 PM »
....Switching systems is a massive undertaking, both from a time and energy standpoint, and a financial resources one as well.  Fully switching brands must be a well thought out decision, and sometimes it simply isn't worth it - even when new product releases are inferior to the competition's.   

sure -- and the sales figures (that show the clear Canon advantage) may be in fact due to the high installed based.  the implication is that no one (with a lick of sense)  really compares body-to-body they compare system-to-system.  So Canon sells more bodies becasue their strategy is working.

I don't know that their current strategy is working but at a key point (lets say when the 20D/5D/5DII were introduced), they were able to capture a lot of photographers that were coming into digital photography or that were upgrading from point-and-shoot. Being on top of the market early let them establish a good installed base that will stick with the same vendor as time goes by because people can just buy a new body.

Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 212