September 17, 2014, 11:42:24 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 156
451
It depends on what version of YN you have. You can do that with my RF-602's, but I believe the RF-603 lost some functionality on that area, I thought the RF-603II got it all back but I heard of some people who still couldn't do what I can with the 602's.

You can also do it with 600-EX-RT's and or the ST-E3-RT.


452
Photography Technique / Re: Panning
« on: June 15, 2014, 09:05:03 AM »
I recently started shooting last year and absolutely love shooting pans. Here are a few of my favorites from last weekends race in Hood River, Or.

Welcome to CR, yurophoto.

I really like some of those panning shots you did, well done. You seem to have really captured the speed and adrenalin.

Agreed, some very nice shots, particularly like the first one. Very well done and welcome to CR.

453
Lenses / Re: World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: June 15, 2014, 01:26:00 AM »
What if the extra was $399?

What if we could all come to your house and smoke what you are smoking? A regular 1.4 TC is $499, the benchmark the 200-400 set for a built in one is for a substantial premium over that, for instance the Nikon 200-400 f4 costs $6,599, the Canon version with built in TC costs $11,799.

So bearing in mind the current 100-400 costs $1,699, and all MkII's have added at least a $1,000 to MkI prices, now put in a TC and you could easily be looking at $3,500-$4,500. The Nikon 80-400 sells for $2,695 with no TC.

I strongly suspect the only thing people will have to moan about any MkII 100-400 will be the price, oh, and that is is still a push pull design, or that it isn't a push pull design anymore!

454
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 15, 2014, 12:20:59 AM »
Hi dilbert.
Please could you show us a picture of yours to show us how it should be done, or if you don't have one perhaps a detailed explanation of the technique and processing needed to achieve no blown highlights. Whilst you at doing that the rest of us can take our pictures wih blown highlights and at least have something to show!

Cheers Graham.

I can't believe how many of these images have blown highlights.

This is one of the first ever sunset pictures that I took with a DSLR. Unfortunately it gets converted to sRGB for the web ...

I can't believe you could be so crass.

It is not difficult to prevent blown highlights, just expose for them, but if you do that, then like your example image, the shadows are blocked up. ... You are not clever, and others are not stupid, you choose what to sacrifice, highlights or shadows, or use more advanced techniques as already mentioned.

Thank you for your kind remarks.

You are welcome. At least mine held some useful information, unlike your shadows.  :)

455
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: June 14, 2014, 11:43:46 PM »
Hi dilbert.
Please could you show us a picture of yours to show us how it should be done, or if you don't have one perhaps a detailed explanation of the technique and processing needed to achieve no blown highlights. Whilst you at doing that the rest of us can take our pictures wih blown highlights and at least have something to show!

Cheers Graham.

I can't believe how many of these images have blown highlights.

This is one of the first ever sunset pictures that I took with a DSLR. Unfortunately it gets converted to sRGB for the web ...

I can't believe you could be so crass.

It is not difficult to prevent blown highlights, just expose for them, but if you do that, then like your example image, the shadows are blocked up. Unless the sun is very low and or there is a lot of atmospheric pollution there is way more dynamic range in a sunset image that contains the sun than any camera can capture, including anything Sony might make. You are not clever, and others are not stupid, you choose what to sacrifice, highlights or shadows, or use more advanced techniques as already mentioned.

456
Lenses / Re: World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: June 14, 2014, 11:14:24 PM »
You are both wrong.  A new 100-400 with a built-in TC would be an excellent upgrade.  The present 100-400 works well with a TC and a newer model with a built-in one would work even better.  A built-in TC gives better results, is faster to implement, and does not require exposing inside the camera to as much dust.

Myself and many others would not mind paying the extra cost for such a feature.

How could I be wrong when I offered pros and cons for both sides of the suggestion?

As for not minding paying the extra, what if it was $3,999?

457
Another Sony implementation that would render their current lenses useless, when will they learn that people buy into a camera system and they want longevity in that system, sure new tech is nice, as are MkII lenses etc, but to render everything previously as unusable can only be done once every twenty or so years, not every other electronics season.

458
Lighting / Re: Small container for holding spigots/studs?
« on: June 14, 2014, 09:49:12 PM »
Office Depot and Office Max both have similar rectangular boxes. They have a huge range of sizes as well.

http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/452423/Really-Useful-Boxes-Plastic-Storage-Box/

I find rectangular stuff fits in bags much better than round stuff too.

459
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: June 14, 2014, 08:51:23 PM »
Because it does a lot of things very very well, it doesn't take a huge skill set to get really nice images out of, it is small, light, good value and multi functional.

It doesn't rely on super fast aperture, so it isn't a single use lens, that is, the only difference between a 35mm f1.4 L and a 35mm f2 IS is size and weight, one stop, lack of IS, and $800. It has a unique IS. It makes a superb portrait lens. It makes a really fun and easy to use macro lens with a decent working distance. It is a small and light moderate speed short tele. It fits in a bag easily and weighs next to nothing, compare it to a 135 f2 or a 180 Macro.

What is not to love?

460
Lenses / Re: World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: June 14, 2014, 07:47:45 PM »
The front element and hood don't appear as large as similar angle shots of the 200-400, the hood particularly looks smaller when compared to the camera body.

Trouble with thinking of a 100-400 MkII being a 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 with TC makes it an f6-f8 lens half the time. Not too sure that would make many happy, plus the additional cost of the built in TC would be prohibitive for the current 100-400 price point, even with a "Canon MkII surcharge".

It would give the much acclaimed and expensive Nikon 80-400 an interesting competitor though, and the 400 f5.6 is still there for people who want a "cheap" tele.

461
Lenses / Re: World Cup started - no sign of 100-400L Mk2
« on: June 14, 2014, 03:46:53 PM »
Don't know, or care, about 100-400 MkII's, but there are not many Nikon's in there.

462
Software & Accessories / Re: RRS or Markins?
« on: June 14, 2014, 12:18:15 PM »
Just a small plug for the Acratech GV2 head, which I use and love. The Ultimate is mentioned but I thought I'd point out the GV2 weighs the same (<1lb) and has the gimbaling feature. I think a full gimbal would be a little overkill, but this could fit the bill perfectly. It's a pleasure to use, I would put the build quality on par with RSS or at least, extremely close.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/599678-REG/Acratech_1152_GV2_Ballhead_Gimbal_Head.html

That's a good point--when I bought my Acratech, the GV2 didn't yet exist.  If I were looking at their products today that would be at the top of the list.

I have had the Acratech GP head since it came out. If I lost it I'd buy another tomorrow, it is, without doubt, the best general use head I have ever used. The functionality is unmatched in price and weight, for more specific uses there are better dedicated heads, for general use the GP is the best  know of. Buy once and forget, is my suggestion for support, you wouldn't go wrong with the Acratech GP.

463
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Troubles (not funny)
« on: June 13, 2014, 08:20:37 PM »
This thread is the best read! But somehow I find that I have to clean my monitor afterwards - one shouldn't laugh violently down into a hot cup of coffee just when sitting down in front of the screen. *waves fist and clears screen all at the same time*
Thanks!  We try to be funny around here sometimes, and I'm glad you enjoyed it.  Sorry to hear about your monitor, though ;)

Make sure to re calibrate your monitor after your accident.

See, now, if you'd just spent the extra $2,000 for an L-quality, weather-sealed monitor....

You are way off, way way off, try $40,000.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480a6996f

464
Lenses / Re: This thing's gotta go!
« on: June 13, 2014, 07:19:27 PM »
I have only sold one camera and I have regretted it ever since.  It was a Pentax Auto 110.  An interchangable lens SLR that used 110 cartridges 8).  Not very handy in the dark room :o.  I sold it and bought my AE-1.   :-[

I wished I had kept it, it would look good on the display shelf with my other old cameras.

You can relive that for around $20. <$100 gets you a nice boxed kit.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xpentax+110&_nkw=pentax+110&_sacat=0&_from=R40

Been thinking about it, but it is just not the same.  There is a difference between having *the* camera you used 30+ years ago and having a copy of the same model.

I learned my lesson.  I ain't sellin nutten.

I was kinda lucky, my first serious camera, a black Canon AE-1, that I got in 1978 is back with me after years away. I sold it to my brother many years ago, then a few years ago he gave it back to me, it sat in storage for years but I recently moved everything to where I am and I have it back in my hands. It needs the foam strips sorting out etc but I won't sell it again :-)

465
EOS Bodies / Re: A Few EOS 7D Mark II Specs [CR1]
« on: June 13, 2014, 07:50:11 AM »
Grips have always induced derision, however their practical benefits can't be ignored.

So we shall ignore them and concentrate on digital cameras with built in grips. There are two main reasons for built in grips, the first is battery power, ever compare a 1Dx battery to a 5D MkIII battery? There is nowhere to put the kind of battery a top end camera with framerate and data throughput that you all seem to want needs, well not if you want any kind of battery life. If it has the specs you want and doesn't have a built in grip look at a very mediocre battery life. The second reason, and it is a distant second, is weather sealing, now they could make a truthfully weathersealed grip, but they don't, ever read the article about the failed 5D MkIII's in Antarctica? They all failed because of the grip to body seal.

My guess is that the 7D MkII will not have a built in grip, the reason is money, grips are cash cows and almost everybody who buys a 7D MkII (apart from Tugela) will buy one, that makes a $2,200 camera actually earn over $2,500 for Canon. The other thing is grip options, whilst the MkII might have GPS built in I believe if it has WiFi it will be the crippled 6D type, that won't work for many so the fully capable WiFi grip, a dedicated WFT grip, becomes another, more modest seller.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 156