March 06, 2015, 06:36:27 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 226
Hi Roo.
Very nice shots, love the mini tornado, the wall of fire looks spectacular!

Cheers, Graham.

Thanks Graham

Here's a few of the WW1 aircraft flying

Very nice series Roo.

The airplane in the fourth picture is odd.
Doesn't seem te be one that was used in the period that the nazis were in power. So don't get it why they put a swastika.

The Nazi swastika was quite different, it was at 45º and the 'legs' went the other way. As it is drawn on the earlier plane it is as the religious symbol in India and the Far East, it is important in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, and is sometimes actually drawn the other way around too. But I believe only the Nazi's drew it at 45º. In Europe and the USA it is very stigmatised and closely connected to Fascism and extreme right wing leaning people, whereas in India and the Far East it has no such connotations and is considered auspicious. It is a little disconcerting the first few times Westerners see it daubed randomly in holy places though.

Obviously it is a German plane and I am sure it progressed from the original auspicious symbol it represents as drawn into the Nazi version many of us are familiar with.

Photography Technique / Re: Does this photo work?
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:48:48 PM »
I prefer the original composition with the launch pad. It brings my eye back into the frame after looking at the blurry bird and then back to the launch pad. Without it, it doesn't do anything for me.


The bird is blurry, out of focus, and therefore doesn't work well as the subject. The launch pad might be subtle, but it's the star of the show.

Only if you look at it in the literal. Start to look at it in the abstract and the rock kills it. Defocus your eyes and they get pulled to the 'launch pad', take it out and you drown in the colours, your mind is free to swim in the abstract that is the blur and motion.

Take a look at some of Franz Lanting's work, for many years he was a preeminent wildlife shooter and I have a signed ltd edition of his book Eye To Eye (and yes it also comes with a signed Cibachrome!) he explored this kind of wildlife abstract many years ago.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:39:50 PM »
Jut to let you guys know--a full double rainbow requires a focal length not longer than 14mm to capture.

Surely that would depend on the time of day/season/height of the sun?

Don't have a lot of experience with portraiture, but it's something I trying to learn. I'd welcome any thoughts and comments.

Very nice!

It is the kind of situation where off camera lighting really would have lifted the image, just a cheap white umbrella and a speedlite over to your left and higher then drop the ambient exposure a touch, half a stop or so and you would have a really really nice picture.

Nice framing, nice pose and wardrobe too. keep it up!

You might not be buying any more of their stuff, it seems they don't care, meanwhile they have come out with world leading optics like the 11-24, the much more modest but very high performing 16-35, the 100-400 MkII, along with world class 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, accessories like the 600-EX-RT, and bodies like the 7D MkII, the 5DS and 5DSR. There are plenty of people that want those products despite your belief that Canon are so far behind.

I will be very interested to see how many D810 and 14-24 users swap over to the 5DSR and 11-24, they might not get as much DR, but they get tons more everything else! I am really looking forwards to a resolution test between the two systems to see how many of those pixels are delivering good detail from the matched lenses.

How about putting some funds to a new fab so you can build modern sensors?

They have proven there is no need at this point, that is why. Besides, what do you think they made the 120MP APS-C sensor on?

Half the time most of you decriers seem to confuse your 'need' with a business need, Canon rarely seem to do that, they are extremely conservative and cautious in their camera strategy, if you don't like that or have a need for features Canon don't sell buy something else.


If Sony would sell their sensor business, Canon might be interested, but for now, that's almost all
Sony has that's worth anything.

I know you know Mt Spokane, but Sony is an insurance company and that is how the group manages to keep all the diverse and costly arms going. Sensors make money now, but nowhere near as much as the financial division and the investment has been stratospheric.

Lenses / Re: Next L Lens From Canon Will be a Prime [CR2]
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:28:21 PM »
If they are attempting to replace the 50mm f/1.2, why not go all the way and introduce a new f/1.0 or f/0.95 (with optimal sharpness and focusing capabilities, of course)? It's time for Canon to introduce another revolution, not just an evolution. They've certainly proven that they can do this on the wide end (ie 11-24), but it would be great to see this innovation in the form of a new extreme-aperture lens.

The reason the 50mm f/1.2L is f/1.2 is because by making it f/1.2 Canon was able to significantly increase sharpness and focusing capabilities and reduces artifacts over the 50mm f/1.0.  50mm f/1.0 requires a massive amount of glass to move around and there is not much way to get around that as it is physics.  There is no free lunch with lenses where you can have the widest aperture, fastest focusing speed, best sharpness, and least artifacts - everything is a tradeoff.

Personally I would like to see an 85mm f/1.4L, basically redo the 85mm f/1.2L II with the improvements they made in the 50mm f/1.2.  It would be nice to have an 85L that focuses as fast as the 50L f/1.2.

The 50 f1.2 was not a replacement for the 50 f1.0, they were very different. Canon has a long history of both the 50/55 f1.2 and the 50 f0.95.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:56:33 AM »
Hi Jock, PBD.
Not trying to be contrary, but I have seen it worked that way more often than not here, also just to add some more to the discussion, the 1/ focal length calculation for hand held minimum shutter speed, given no IS to complicate things, and not withstanding some people saying we should be using 1/ twice focal length.
(for joe average, not some of you guys that hand hold better than a cheap tripod!)
300mm lens on full frame 1/300s. Correct?
300mm + 2x converter i.e. 600mm on FF 1/600s
As above 600mm on 1.6 crop? Equivalent FOV of 960mm are we ok to shoot at 1/600s or are we more likely to have camera shake?  :o

Edit Also the crop from the camera is a fixed physical fact, and surely exif really does mention the crop, not specifically in any lens calculation but it clearly lists camera make and model which determines crop!
Also many program's give us crop shooters the option to display lenses in crop or 35mm format, just saying.

Have a good day chaps.  :)

Cheers, Graham.

Not contrary at all, this is how useful discussions are had!

Ok, a lens has a focal length. A lens has an aperture. Both of those intrinsic values are independent of sensor size, indeed they are true even if the lens is not mounted to a camera, like binoculars or a spotting scope.

If we are going to start throwing 'equivalents' out there then one, why, and two, shouldn't we be all inclusive, why just arbitrarily pick focal length?

It is true that on a 1D MkIV a 300mm + 2xTC lens gives you the field of view of a 780mm lens on a ff camera, but it doesn't give you the subject magnification of a 780mm lens on a ff camera, nor the dof. It gives you the subject magnification of a 300mm + 2xTC on a FF camera. Few people ever point out the 300mm f2.8 + 2xTC on a 1.3 crop is equivalent to a 780mm f8, why not? Because it isn't relevant, who cares what the equivalent is unless you want to take the same shot from the same place with a different sized sensor. A 300mm f2.8 on a FF camera is exactly the same as a 300mm f2.8 on a crop camera, it is a 300mm f2.8.

Now you ask about shutter speed, and that is a good point. Why, if a 300mm lens is just a 300mm lens on ff or crop would I need to use a faster shutter speed on the crop camera? Because of enlargement, the CoC for a crop camera is smaller because the output size is taken as a constant, if the CoC is smaller then any movement will be enlarged more, hence the need to use a faster shutterspeed. To be sure, if you take two pictures of a scene one with a ff and 300mm and the other with a crop and 300mm and made two prints such that the subjects were the same size on paper in both prints the shutter speeds could be the same, but what we do in real life is make two prints the same size, this means the subjects are bigger in the crop image print so any movement is enlarged more. Nothing to do with focal length, it is all to do with post capture enlargement.

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M And EFM22mm Low Light and Portability?
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:07:08 AM »
It works in low light, but remember f/2 on this kind of camera is really f3.2-3.4.  Still better than most crop lenses and certainly better than the kit.  At night with street lights or indoors in a dim restaurant you'll find the camera is often at 6400 even wide open at f/2.  This is like 12,800 iso on full frame or so.  So it's nice for posting FB photos, but don't expect super spectacular.  I'll post some examples later. In the day time the lens is just fine. though even stopped down to f/8, tons of purple fringing. Watch high contrast scenes

Not true, it is an f2 as far as light gathering goes, it gives greater dof than a ff camera taken from the same spot with a different lens to achieve the same framing, but that is kinda moot. It is a true 22mm f2.0.

That is true, iso has a crop factor, for the 1.6 crop it is around 1.3 stops, so if you want the same noise levels you need to shoot your crop camera 1.3 stops lower iso to match a comparable tech. But the truth is  nobody shooting an EOS-M in low light is serously thinking of making big prints with it. If you would print a 21" x 14" print with a ff at 12,800 iso then you would have the same noise in a 14" x 8" print from the M.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:22:17 PM »
Hi privatebydesign.
Isn't it 780 due to 1.3 crop sensor in 1D4?

Cheers, Graham.

Hi Valvebounce,

No, not really. The lens focal length is the lens focal length, cropping it doesn't give you a longer focal length.

Imagine this, I take a picture with a FF camera of a bird sitting on a fence in landscape format, the bird takes up around 30% of the image but the framing is really nice and the light is great, it is a really nice environmental portrait of the bird. So back at home editing the days shots I decide that because I used a 5D MkIII I have more than enough pixels to crop the frame to portrait orientation, the bird is now the main point of the image and occupies over 60% of the frame.

Did I use a 600mm lens? Of course not, I just cropped, well that is all a smaller sensor is doing, it is not capturing as much, it isn't extending anything.

Lenses / Re: APS-C 60mm or 100mm macro lens?
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:12:50 PM »
The question is, can I set up one camera with radio remote release to photograph me using the stick or string technique? I may have to push the radio remote with my toe...

If you have some RT flash system gear then yes, easily. I have set up my 1Ds MkIII and 600EX so it triggers my EOS-M whenever I take a shot with the 1Ds MkIII, the flashes only sync to the main camera but the triggering works great, the M will AF and either auto expose or shoot at whatever manual settings were set in it.

The mode is called Linked Shot, and is good fun.

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 10:07:12 PM »
Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.

It is good on a crop body but there are better options for the format in that range like the sigma 18-35. It is sharper wide open at f/1.8 than the canon is at f/4. The sigma will work on ff but only on the long end so if you need the full range with both formats then get the canon. If you want the best iq on your crop body then get the sigma.

No it isn't unless you are only looking at the corners, the Canon is sharper in the center and it is a wash in the middle, and they are very close at f4 too which is a surprise as the Sigma should get noticeably better,

Of course the main difference is the Canon works very well on FF at every focal length, where it's true potential is realised

Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: March 02, 2015, 09:02:51 PM »
for the TSE 17mm I can get the proportions down pretty fast I dont mind the tripod at all, yes i saw the software correction but there is a draw back I also notice when I did some shots, if it was done with the TSE 17mm the big gaps will be corrected. Actually the software is mimicking the TSE Lens correction but being that wide angles dont shift like that there will be gaps. and Lee has a adapter filter for it, you guys could check it out, it's not cheep however but it's available on ebay. Ill see what goes when im done testing, if i do choose to get the TSE ill just keep what i got and get that instead. Thanks again for the replies.

The Fotodiox Wonderpana system is a much better filter solution for the 17TS-E than the Lee system.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: March 02, 2015, 09:16:09 AM »
Hi, in balearic island. Albufera de Mallorca

1d4 300 2.8 is 2xIII

Nice shot, particularly if the crop isn't too heavy as that is a fast pan.

But a 300mm + 2xTC is 600mm not 780mm.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 226