July 31, 2014, 06:57:09 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 - jhpeterson

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
46
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8 -a big problem
« on: November 04, 2013, 09:13:42 AM »
I heartily agree with the majority of others who find the 300/2.8 to be a stellar piece of gear. The primary subject of my work is racing sailboats and this is THE "go to" lens for most all situations. I'll often pair it with a 1.4x when I need a bit more reach.
The most affordable option, of course, is picking up an early version, whether it's the original IS or the even older non-IS. I've had two of the latter over the last 20-plus years and they have served me very well. The sharpness is incredible; the "look", perhaps even better. Note, though, that Canon US won't service the non-IS. If something goes wrong, you may be out of luck.
Not only are these lenses exceptional by themselves, they're very good when matched with Canon's converters. Other than slower autofocusing, I've found little loss with the 1.4x, and used with the 2x, while not in the same league, is not so far behind.

As for stacking both the 1.4 and 2x, they're more than acceptable for those times when you must have the shot, though be forewarned that focus will be slow. So, you might need a captive subject. Attached a 100% crop of a lunar landscape I shot this way.

47
Lenses / Re: Canon Extender 1.4ii or iii?
« on: November 01, 2013, 01:11:33 PM »
I've had the ii versions of both the 1.4 and 2x converters for many years. While I generally use them only on longer lenses, especially my 300/2.8, I have also put them on the 70-200.
While I haven't tried it yet, I'm inclined to go along with the view of others here, in that the 1.4x iii is only a very slight improvement in terms of IQ over the ii.  The results I've had with the ii are excellent matched with my 300, and very good on the 70-200 (both the original and ii versions of the 2.8 IS, as well as the 4 model).
On the other hand, the 2x ii with the 300 was only fair to good, and absolutely terrible with the 70-200 (the earlier 2.8 IS, anyway). It became much better with version iii, though still not at the same level of the 1.4x. If you ever consider buying a 2x, it's money well spent getting the latest edition. 

48
Lenses / Re: technique advice for a 600mm II
« on: September 15, 2013, 09:39:56 PM »
While the IS function should produce noticeably sharper images when handheld at all but the highest shutter speeds, it should be disabled when using the lens on a tripod. A remote release should further minimize image movement.

49
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?
« on: August 23, 2013, 07:29:32 PM »
There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!
Hmmm, suddenly I feel ... half-serious since  I have only one of the two lenses...  ;D
I must be another of the half-serious ones, as I, too, only have the 70-200ii! But, I also have the 16-35ii, which I consider more useful than a 24-70 when I'm in a 2-lens situation. What falls between 35 and 70 seldom seems important to me. Then again, I've never considered myself "normal", at least photographically!

I do, though, have a 24-105, and, from what I read on here, mine must be one of the better copies. It's not as sharp as my 70-200 and certainly not as good as my 300/2.8, but I've never received complaints from clients. In fact, my tough critic (myself) is happy with its results almost all the time! And, for what I paid for it, I'm more than pleased. It's turned out to be much better than the earlier 24-70 I'd had.

50
Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 14, 2013, 08:59:41 AM »
I don't know what your shooting style is like, but I would find most useful the 16-35 and the 70-200.
I carried these two lenses around (each on FF bodies) this past year on a three-week trip to the Middle East, and found that I used them for probably better than 90% of my photos.
You might also want to pack the 1.4 teleconverter for those times when you want some extra reach. My favorite lens is a 300, it's so incredibly sharp and I love the look it gives, but it only came out of the bag on rare occcasions, on average once, maybe twice a day.

Well, I'm a little of a planer and I often try to take less photos.. but have them to be a little "better" then just shooting a lot of pictures to try and find a "goodie" among them later on :)
When I see something I like or I get an idea, then I take my time and shoot it. If I find a nice place but the light is bad, I can come back in a couple of hourse just to shoot that picture later on.

I'm thinking of creating a "storyboard" on my shoot to tell a kind of story with well planned (and unplanned) shots aswell :)

I don't have a 300mm - lens and I don't think I would bring it unless I know that I will have to use it some shots that I've planned. 70-200/2.8 with 1.4 would have to do the trick then :)

I hope I answered your question.
I think you've explained yourself quite well.
From what you've said, the two lenses I mentioned appear to be excellent choices. Not having a 300, you would want to carry that 1.4 as well, for those times you'd want some extra reach. It still produces excellent image quality on the 70-200.
A number of people have suggested bringing along the 24-105, but, if it's at the expense of the 70-200, I'd talk you out of it. It's too much of an overlap with the 16-35 for the sacrifice of longer lengths, as well as the use of the 1.4.  I took one with me on my trip, but used it even less than the 300. I didn't seem to miss the gap between 35 and 70, but perhaps that's because I seldom see things normally! Besides, you can always get those with your compact camera.

51
Lenses / Re: What lenses would you bring for this travel-trip?
« on: August 13, 2013, 04:19:39 PM »
I don't know what your shooting style is like, but I would find most useful the 16-35 and the 70-200.
I carried these two lenses around (each on FF bodies) this past year on a three-week trip to the Middle East, and found that I used them for probably better than 90% of my photos.
You might also want to pack the 1.4 teleconverter for those times when you want some extra reach. My favorite lens is a 300, it's so incredibly sharp and I love the look it gives, but it only came out of the bag on rare occcasions, on average once, maybe twice a day. 

52
Technical Support / Re: Can't transfer RAW files, only JPEGs
« on: August 06, 2013, 12:31:02 AM »
Thank you for your replies. Much as I suspected, most all of you agree the problem lies in Windows XP.
I solved the issue this time by just copying the files from the laptop to an external drive, then to the desktop. Next time, I'll probably copy to the external drive when I'm still on-site.
But, I think my days of using Windows XP are numbered. I recently downloaded a trial of Lightroom 5 on my laptop. I seem to like working with it, it does a few things better and I haven't (yet) run into serious problems. So, I likely purchase the upgrade when the trial expires. Of course, the latest version only works with Windows Vista, 7 and 8!

53
Technical Support / Can't transfer RAW files, only JPEGs
« on: August 03, 2013, 11:37:05 AM »
Yesterday I did a shoot where I took both RAW and JPEG files. It's something I rarely do, but I needed to almost immediately review the images with the client.
I used a 1DSMk3 and recorded both RAW (CR2) and JPEG images onto a CF card. Yes, I know I could have recorded them onto separate cards, but I work with CFs exclusively. (I had one bad experience where I bent an SD trying to change it out while on a moving boat.)
While on site, I had no problems when I downloaded the images on my laptop. I set up two folders, one for RAW, the other for the JPEGs.
After taking what would have been an appropriate number of photos (in this case just over 250 on an 8GB card) card), the card was full. While on location, I reviewed the images on the camera and it showed it had recorded both a RAW and JPEG of each image.
What I didn't notice until later, until after I discovered this issue, was that the file size displayed was only for the JPEG.
When I came home, I set out to load the files onto my desktop. Not having a card reader, I plugged the camera directly into the computer by means of a USB cord. When I went to copy, what showed up on the screen were two files for each of the images, only they both were JPEGs. I'm pretty certain I haven't lost the RAW files, but I'm not sure now what I need to do to get them onto my laptop.
While it's not a fatal problem, as I can copy everything from my laptop, I'd still like to know why this occurs and how I can prevent it in the future.

I'm wondering wondering this issue might be because the operating system on the desktop is Windows XP, as I've haven't had the problem when I used my Windows 7 laptop.

54
Yes, use a tripod for the steadiest shot. But, if it's a clear night, it will be a relatively short exposure!
A good start for the full moon is the normal daylight, "sunny sixteen", rule. After all, the same sun that lights the earth from about 93 million miles away is doing the same to our moon!

Since your longest focal length is only 200mm, you might want to combine images for a sequence of the moon as it moves across the sky. If you take an exposure every ten minutes, it will have moved about four or five diameters. Include some recognizable feature on the ground, make sure your tripod is locked in place and you should have a great souvenir of your night with the Supermoon.   

55
Canon General / Re: Newspaper Dumps Photographers, Wants Video
« on: June 06, 2013, 06:21:45 PM »
Finally, Peterson, I agree completely. Unfortunately, I think we have become an attention-deficit-disorder generation. That and technology that serves it are forming a great storm that's chewing up old delivery systems. Few people seem to be able to concentrate for more than 10 seconds on anything. There seems an almost monumental level of self-absorption and narcissism that makes people look for no more than a quick dose of whatever "news" confirms their view of society/world. Good pictures are no more appreciated than blurry cell phone shots or horrible utube videos. The expectations are driving the creation of product. If crap sells, why serve filet mignon?
Perhaps, I too, have attention deficit disorder. Or, I am just impatient. But, I'm far less likely to wait for a video to load, when I can see words and still images right in front of me.

56
Canon General / Re: Newspaper Dumps Photographers, Wants Video
« on: June 06, 2013, 12:44:39 PM »
As a photojournalist, I feel a need to weigh in. I posted the following on this very topic in a social media site yesterday:

"I'll admit to having a bias, but this seems such a tragic loss. Not only for photographers, but also for the publishing world in general, and, even more importantly, for an educated public. Too many stories these days are not given the treatment they deserve, and many others are missed entirely.
I still consider myself a photojournalist more than anything, and, despite the fact I've done this well for more than three decades, with each passing year it become more challenging to succeed in this field.
And, replacing the articles and photos with video? I may be a very visual person, but this doesn't fly with me. It's that I seldom have the patience to wait for one to load, then often wait some more to wade through a sponsor's ad, only to watch a six-minute clip when all I needed to see could have been told in sixty seconds. Not to mention having to pull out my headphones, so I can listen without disturbing those around me.
Am I the only one who finds that looking at words and pictures is actually a much more efficient use of time?"

While video has an important place in journalism (think insightful interviews or a story that needs to be told as a continuum), I find it used far too frequently as a poor substitute for good still photography.

57
Key questions - are you talking about the MkII versions of these lenses, and what camera (FF, APS-H or -C)?  Neither of the MkI versions are handholdable. For birds/wildlife, I'd get the 600 II (in fact, I did), for use on FF.  I also routinely use the 1.4xIII or 2xIII. 
While the Mk I versions of both these lenses are on the heavy side, I have found them to be hand holdable. Not easy, but with practice one can get some very usable images. In fact, I've used them on the water, shooting boats from another boat, the 400 sometimes with a 1.4 x.

Today the latest copy of Sailing magazine came in the mail. There, taking up all of page five, was a photo I'd taken with the 400mm, admittedly from land, but with the addition of a 2 x.

58
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 16, 2013, 01:29:41 AM »
I was traveling in the Middle East for almost three weeks at the end of last year. I got up very early on Christmas morning to hike up Mt. Sinai, hoping to catch sunrise. It was cold and threatening to rain when I set off and halfway up the mountain it started snowing. After nearly three hours, I'd made it almost to the top, then waited in one of the huts until first light.

Shot with a 1DX, 24-105/4 IS at ISO 6400. I took countless scenes like this, at dusk as well as dawn, in tunnels under the pyramids and in dark museums, palaces,churches and temples. I am most definitely impressed with the low light capabilities of this camera.

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Bogus Canon Rebate Prices at B&H
« on: April 14, 2013, 11:10:47 PM »
After I sell the 70-300 IS for $300 and the 24-105mm for $700 I will have my $1200 6D body :)
More like $1400 ($2199 + $199 - $300 - $700  = $1398), but still a great deal!

60
I've had both the EX 1.4 and 2x in the II models. As East Wind already posted, the 1.4 is excellent on the 300/2.8. On the other hand, I used the 2x on my original 70-200/2.8 IS and the results were totally useless. Last year, when I replaced my zoom with the version II, I also got the latest 2x extender. The AF is a little slow, but still very useble and the IQ is so much better! 

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10