December 20, 2014, 12:32:08 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 - jhpeterson

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11
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!

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.

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.   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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! 

Lenses / Re: EF 300mm 2.8 IS - Anybody seen anything like this?
« on: April 08, 2013, 10:30:48 PM »
So I got similar results with IS on and off. Perhaps the IS "element" was stuck in an odd position from the last use of the lens.
That might just well be the case.  If the lens was dropped or subject to a great amount of vibration, the group that moves about to produce IS could be off-axis.

Lenses / Re: 24-105L or 70-200L f/2.8?
« on: April 08, 2013, 10:20:16 PM »
But if you want a jack-of-all-trades lens, the 24-105 is it.
Yes, jack of all trades, but likely master of none!
Not to pan the 24-105, as it's a very good lens and I have one. I also have the 70-200/2.8, the IS II version. It's an even better one!
It sounds to me the longer zoom is more in line with the OP's needs. If you look at car publications, you'll find the ads as well as editorial shots of exteriors are primarily taken with a telephoto lens.

Lenses / Re: EF 300mm 2.8 IS - Anybody seen anything like this?
« on: April 08, 2013, 08:57:10 PM »
This looks like it may a problem with the image stabilization. I've seen it happen a couple times, but only on the first-generation lower-priced lenses.
Perhaps the stops that control the travel of the IS have stripped. Since it looks sharpest close to the center, much like a lens that tilts, you seem to have one where the plane of focus is not parallel with the sensor.

Lenses / Re: 300mm F/2.8 non-IS... worth it?
« on: April 05, 2013, 10:39:40 PM »
Stewbyyy, I too would recommend the 1.4 x teleconverter, and in particular the Canon EF model in either version II or III. I probably use it with this lens at least as much as I do without and I see little if any difference in image quality.  While one loses a bit of contrast and probably resolution in the corners, this lens still delivers where it counts.
One word of caution is that the autofocusing slows down in low light. But, if you are shooting action, you probably will want to remove the converter anyway.

Lenses / Re: 300mm F/2.8 non-IS... worth it?
« on: April 05, 2013, 09:38:17 AM »
Over the past 20+ years I've had two 300mm f:2.8 non-IS lenses. In that time they've been the source of much if not most of my published, as well as personally favorite, work.  In fact, I'm convinced that, during the interval I was without one, the quality of my photography suffered. Between the sharpness (on par with the best of L primes), its shallow depth of field and pleasing bokeh, is that good a lens that it is almost certain to make a better photographer out of you. 
That said, there are reasons to be cautious about purchasing one. Almost all are 15 or more years old now, and some are as much as 25, making the availability of replacement parts an issue. I don't think FBW, by itself, is too much of a problem, but, rather, that Canon no longer supports this lens. You will need to find an independent source that's sufficiently skilled and resourceful to perform repairs, which, depending on where you live, will be anywhere from a moderate challenge to being totally out of the question. Case in point, a couple years ago, I needed to replace the rear mount. Pretty straightforward, right? Seeing that I couldn't get the part from Canon (and I'm a CPS member) so I could fix it myself, I took it to this area's best repair shop (I live less than an hour from Minneapolis-St. Paul). It turned out to take more than a couple weeks, as they had to order the part for a 300/2.8 IS, then, when it came in, machine it so it fit. Something to think about as you consider this lens.
What I hope to convey to you is that I highly recommend the 300mm f:2.8 non-IS. Few, if any, other lenses or cameras would give you as much "bang for the buck". But, be aware that, if it breaks, you may not be able to get it fixed. And, seeing how much you're almost certain to develop an attachment to this lens, THAT could be your greatest problem.

Canon General / Re: European travel?
« on: April 03, 2013, 05:43:35 PM »
One piece of gear that I would most recommend is a second body. Perhaps I see this as essential because I'm a professional who spends much of the year traveling on business, but I'm amazed how many visit a place they've never been without backup equipment. Should your camera fail, it would render all your lenses and accessories irrelevant, or at the least you would be forced to spend time seeking out a replacement when you could have been out touring the sights.

I was in Prague a year ago and one of my favorite places was Old Town Square, a gathering place for locals and visitors alike. There is much medieval architecture to train your camera on (be sure to see the Astronomical Clock, best is on the hour when costumed guides proclaim the time from the tower) and walking the stone streets is another must.
Since you'll be there in spring, I would recommend you enjoy at least one afternoon along the river, both for  the excellent views it should afford and the many places to enjoy a meal or drink.  If it's a nice day, a cruise on the Vlatava would be time well spent. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 11