August 27, 2014, 06:55:07 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 - tomscott

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37
31
Lenses / Re: Safari 300 2.8 Mkii or 200-400 1.4x
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:56:22 AM »
Weight would be a concern, 300mm MKII 2350g vs 200-400mm 3620g

Add the 860g 5DMKIII and the 1530g 1DX... then the rest of your lenses...

70-200mm 1490g etc etc

Have you thought how you will carry all the gear/mount it on safari?

I would be taking a 300 F4 or 400 5.6 or the 70-300mm or 100-400mm for good balance between IQ and weight.

But its a hard choice between the 300mm and the 200-400mm. If it were me and I could take all the weight I would take the 200-400mm but 5000g in one camera combo is going to be hard work to transport. But the 300 with tele converts is a good combo.

400 DO removes itself because its IQ is no better than a 100-400mm and is £3000 more.

32
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:57:51 PM »
As described in the looking for big whites thread...

The problem with Canon updating the 400mm F5.6 is that currently it pretty much equals sharpness of all the other big white primes and 200-400mm at 400mm F5.6, its much smaller, lighter and 1/10th the price of many. With high ISO capabilities of the new gen of cameras high ISO you can get away with F5.6 its also useful when you need a little more DOF on FF. If they made a new one with weather sealing and IS it would reduce sales of the bigger whites even more. But then again would probably cost 200% more.

Same reason I'm guessing there is no 400mm F4 IS non DO because it would be smaller and lighter than the F2.8 and probably considerably cheaper, again with high ISO is F2.8 needed especially with the weight trade off. Only other reason for the F2.8 is for use with tele converters, that you can have a 800mm F5.6 or a 640 F4.
 

33
Lenses / Re: What Lenses are missing from Canon's range
« on: July 16, 2014, 01:40:01 PM »
400 mm f/4 IS
400 mm f/5.6 IS

I would be seriously interested in either of these if they were to come to market.

Canon already produce the 400mm f4 DO IS lens and it is similarly built to L class. 400mm f5.6L with IS is my dream for travel light.
I miss a light-weight do-it-all zoom like the Nikon 28-300mm VR, it delivers very good IQ and sharpness. I have not tried the new tammy.

I also support the 12-24mm f4L and a low-CA 50mm f1.8-2 IS lens with similar built, IQ and sharpness to the excellent 35mm f2 IS.

Only problem is the 400 F4 DO performs similarly to the 100-400mm... so its not really a serious option for many especially seen as tho its £3,500 more

34
Landscape / Re: Mountains, Lakes and Rivers
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:00:01 AM »
Couple more from the same set

Haweswater Reservoir for United Utilities.

Haweswater moonscape, Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

This one is completely lit by the moon shot at 11-30pm, the night before the super moon last week.

Haweswater Reservoir Sunrise, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Sunrise

35
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:58:59 AM »
Here are a few images of Haweswater Resevoir in Cumbria I took as part of a commission of the British Company United Utilities

5DMKIII with 16-35mm F2.8 MKII, 70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII and Polariser and 10 stop ND

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Tower, Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Tower, Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater moonscape, Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

This one is completely lit by the moon shot at 11-30pm, the night before the super moon last week.

Haweswater Reservoir Sunrise, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Sunrise

36
Software & Accessories / Re: Neutral Density Filters
« on: July 15, 2014, 05:36:43 AM »
I have the Tiffen 82mm ND 10 stop filter and I would not recommend it.

Ridiculous colour cast, once the cast is corrected it has poor contrast, sharpness is good tho. If you shoot into the sun you get a huge purple blob central to the image with awful awful bright purple flair, if you shoot 45deg you get a huge purple blob, just rubbish, you have to shoot with the sun to your back to get a clean image which isn't always what you want.

Here is an example. Shots taken within minutes of each other.

with ND 30 second exposure

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Although here I quite like the effect. I had to do some fairly heavy editing to remove a large purple spot in the centre of the image, if you look carefully you can see where I have attempted to alter the WB with a targeted adjustment.

Without

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Bit more info here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/10-Stop-Neutral-Density-Filter.aspx

37
Lenses / Re: UV filter on the new 16-35 f/4?
« on: July 14, 2014, 11:16:03 AM »
I personally do not recommend the use of the B+W XS-Pro filter.
I shared my experience of a broken filter here : http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12130.0

Just my 2 cents...

+1 I just bought one for my 24-70 MK! and shot wide open it accentuates the CA to stupid amounts!!! Bokeh looks worse too. Couldn't believe it thought spending good money would be worth it but have to say pretty disappointed with it.

Never shot with filters because they do effect image quality regardless how good they are.

38
Landscape / Re: Mountains, Lakes and Rivers
« on: July 10, 2014, 11:03:53 AM »
Here are a few images of Haweswater Resevoir in Cumbria I took as part of a commission of the British Company United Utilities

5DMKIII with 16-35mm F2.8 MKII, 70-200mm F2.8 IS MKII and Polariser and 10 stop ND

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Derelict Barn, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Corpse Road, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Reservoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Tower, Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Haweswater Tower, Haweswater Resevoir, Cumbria by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

39
Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 10, 2014, 06:41:10 AM »
Sorry thought it did!

40
Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 10, 2014, 05:49:04 AM »
The 70-200mm L Non IS has a weather sealing gasket on it.

41
Lenses / Re: your experience of buying very old EF L lenses
« on: July 09, 2014, 07:50:31 PM »
I have the MKI 70-200mm F2.8 L and have just upgraded to the MKII IS version.

Mine is a 2005 model so 9 years old and as far as I know there is no update in lens design could be wrong.

In fact there is only a very small difference IQ wise to the MKI Non IS and the MKII IS. But the smaller minimum focus distance and IS are a huge huge benefit, and it is very slightly sharper. The Non IS is sharper than the MKI IS too.

http://youtu.be/E2Av9IPq_So

I would say go for it. Nothing like an F2.8 zoom the 70-200mm is a staple and one of the best lenses I ever bought. Use it all the time.

Just be careful, its hard work keeping that heavy 2.8 lens sharp at less than the rule of focal length to shutter speed. So at 200mm shoot no less than 1/200, It can be frustrating at times which is why the IS version is so good at 200 you can shoot at 1/30-1/50 with relative ease as long as the subject is stationary.

For the price difference it is a bargain.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The F4 is a great lens but unless you need a lighter slower lens I would have the 2.8, especially if you are shooting crop, as the F2.8 will give DOF equivalent of F4.5. On FF its a no brainer F2.8 gorgeous subject isolation at all focal lengths. You get great portrait lengths 85mm 135mm and 200mm all at F2.8 which rivals the primes at that aperture.

Enjoy! Remember L lenses regardless of age hold their value so if its not for you move it on and buy another :)

42
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 11:58:20 AM »
It may not have the f1.2 and f2 respectively. But the 70-200mm gives you the best of both worlds except at 2.8 you can get both the 85mm and 135mm shot in quick succession and F2.8 at a good distance gives great subject isolation.

IQ is pretty much indistinguishable at 2.8. Much easier to work with at events, and the minimum working distance of the MKII at 1.2 meters makes life easier compared to older models.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: July 08, 2014, 10:12:01 AM »
Thats an interesting comment Neuro didn't really think of it like that.

Isn't the noise reduction algorithm different in the 6D, slightly more NR in the standard config than the 5DMKIII giving images slightly less noise?

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better for high ISO, 6D or 5D Mk III?
« on: July 08, 2014, 05:15:19 AM »
The difference between the files are so minimal that I would call it a dead heat with the 6d just ever so slight advantage but would you notice in the real world.. don't think so.

The fact is you can get cracking results out of both cameras up to 6400ISO where i feel commercially you can push to. 12800 and 25600 can be used but only when needs must and you wouldn't get the shot otherwise.

Heres a few images shot at 12800 on the 5DMKIII and the 100mm L as a test to see what it could do!

BMW F30 3 Series interior, iDrive screen by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

BMW F30 3 Series interior, multifunction steering wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

BMW F30 3 Series interior, centre console climate control by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

BMW F30 3 Series interior, light console by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The main positive about the 6D is the centre point is rated to -3ev whereas the 5DMKIII is -2EV.

But at the same time if your shooting in low light with large aperture glass you will be centring your image to keep focus, focus recompose with anything under F4 on a full frame camera and missing focus is very easy to do.

On the 5DMKIII you have 5 -2ev points which makes creative composition easier.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 37