March 01, 2015, 11:50:35 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 - insanitybeard

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20
Lenses / Re: Sleeper Lenses?
« on: July 20, 2013, 06:22:11 AM »
The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.

Don't get me wrong, I own and like the 17-40, but I don't think owners of the 16-35 II would agree with you that the 17-40 is the better lens. Reviews I have seen suggest they perform similarly at the same apertures with the exception that the 16-35 is a bit better at the wide end around f4-5.6. My main reason for opting for the 17-40 was it's compact size and low weight, weather sealing, decent optical performance and (compared to most L lenses) reasonable price!

Lenses / Re: Sleeper Lenses?
« on: July 20, 2013, 04:32:18 AM »
Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: July 20, 2013, 04:20:32 AM »
IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more.

When I started shooting macro, I had to realize how many things in the natural world actually move a tiny bit, I never realized until I tried longer exposure times. Often the same applies to landscape, IS doesn't freeze leaves from jiggling or water from waving. In this case, neither shallow dof *or* IS will help, what's really required is a high iso high dr camera which Canon doesn't have yet.

But the IS will certainly have some benefits for a handheld video, or lowlight photography when you don't have/ can't use a tripod. Of course it can't help freeze subject movement, but equally, f2.8 isn't the best aperture for a typical landscape shot anyway, so it's always going to be a compromise. I'd rather have the IS available than not- of course, how implementing it affects pricing is another matter!

Lenses / Re: Lens mounts seals
« on: July 19, 2013, 12:43:32 PM »
My Canon lens brochure does NOT list the 100-400L as 'Dust and moisture resistant', so it is correct, it would not have the seal on the lens mount. I believe neuro has mentioned previously (if I recall correctly) that despite this, this lens does have seals on it's switches and zoom/focus rings.

(cue jokes about the 'dust pump'  ;) )

Lenses / Re: Sleeper Lenses?
« on: July 19, 2013, 10:15:20 AM »
The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens.

I agree with this, the EF-S 60 is probably my sharpest lens, and that's including the 70-200 f4 IS. Get the focus right and it's corner to corner sharp (macro obviously excepted-unless photographing a brick wall!), even at 100% on the 7D. Compact as well, and great value!

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: July 19, 2013, 08:50:14 AM »
I just bought a 17-40L. Whoops. Looks like ill be using it for along time.

Well, this is all conjecture anyway. Even IF Canon announces the lens this autumn it's a fairly safe bet to say you won't be able to get your hands on it for 12 months at least! Gives me longer to save up  ::)

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: July 19, 2013, 07:45:33 AM »
IS is so much better than f/2.8 for landscape stuff, f/2.8 isn't much DOF. f/4.5-5.6 and IS does soooo much more. It's a great thing when you don't have time or want to bother with tripods for each shot (with other people or maybe want to see everything and yet still get as solid photos as you can and don't have time to tripod up all shots).

Agreed on that, I think a 16-50 f4 with IS would be an ideal outdoor lens for hiking for example, especially if they can keep the size and weight similar to the 17-40. If it comes into being it will be on my list to replace the 17-40, assuming it's an improvement optically.

one reason can be that they have old tech and can't compete regarding a lot of parameters
which parameters, se DXO

You know I don't agree with your thinking as you expressed above about Canon being unable to compete. Anyone can see that Canon do compete, very successfully, whether you like it or not they are the market leaders.

i think you are just arguing for the sake of it. I'm not asking you to agree with me, quiet frankly I don't care if you do. Why don't you use what you want and respect my choice rather than continually being so negative.

Well expressed- again!

Pointless discussion.

In practice, if you want to achieve the same depth of field on a crop as FF, you need to open the aperture on the crop camera by 1.3 stops.

Now ... let the confusion of circulars begin

How is it a pointless discussion when the original question, explicitly was : 'How (and why) does sensor size change DOF?'

As per usual: "full of sound and fury..."  ;D No need to get your panties in a twist, but do you CR people actually take pictures too, or just blablabla your days away???  8) How about posting some (good!) shots to prove your point? Especially you Neuro, you are always acting like you are the most knowledgable photographer on CR, but we haven't seen much of your great volume of work now haven't we? How about accepting my challenge and go out somewhere, shoot a number of pictures to prove your theory (what ever that was) and impress us with your work instead of your words...?

Perhaps if you clicked on the flickr link at the bottom of Neuro's profile you would find the body of pictures you seek?

What a stupid comment to make. Perhaps you should check your facts before making such remarks.

No, but I will have a wee google.  Wasn't knocking Colin Prior at all (as I'm sure you know the context of my reply)

Not suggesting for a moment that you were- it was more of a response to GuyF's earlier comment about landscape photography being mostly about waiting for the light- which of course it is, but there is much more to it than just that.

I must try to get hold of a copy of that Faye Godwin book- it was mostly (if not entirely) black and white. Excellent stuff.

EDIT: Spelling error on my part- it's Fay Godwin.

Had a look at some old favourites today and found some new favourites in this thread, keep 'em coming.

I agree that landscape is a lot about the waiting for the light, what makes Colin Prior so worthy in my opinion is his fieldcraft and the sheer weight of the kit he takes up the hills with him.

Colins work never fails to inspire (along with Joe Cornish) although the impact has been dulled slightly by the copycats.

Anyway, LOVING, this thread.

It's more than just waiting for the light I.M.O, like you say his fieldcraft and planning, revisiting sites on multiple occasions if necessary to check the direction of lighting , which obviously changes at different times of the year, working out the optimum dates and times to photograph a location, and the endurance to travel and linger in some of locations in some of the conditions he does- snow, wind, bitter cold, ascending and descending mountains in snow and darkness, is dedication.

Some years ago when I was doing photography as a A level at college (a course I'm sorry to say I never completed- I loved the practical elements- going out to locations, taking pictures, developing and processing in the darkroom- but the critique of others work didn't hold the same interest and in the second year we got a new tutor, who was considerably less amenable than the previous one, so I dropped out), I came across a book by Faye Godwin- 'Our Forbidden Land' documenting the impact of humans and people like the MOD on the landscape. It was fantastic- have you ever come across it?

We already had the discussion about Colin Prior some time ago..... Being that I love Scotland's scenery and admire Colin Prior's dedication, he is certainly somebody I admire. I picked up 'High Light' some time ago and some of those images are just magical, as indeed is the place. As you also mentioned back then, Joe Cornish is another worthy of admiration, I didn't realise until I just looked that he was born in my hometown of Exeter! I bought his book on Scotland's Mountains a couple years back. Being that landscape is my main area of interest, I haven't looked much in other fields, although I've seen and been impressed by wildlife photographers such as Laurie Campbell, Chris Packham etc...

eye sink ewe wood bee moor write whiff thee ewes off spill chick :)

 ;D Oi was too bizzy suppin' moi bottle 'o cyder moi dear!

Unless you're English (a.k.a backwards  ;) ) like me, then you spell it 'straight';D

well use your imagination, I have dyslexia so even Swedish can be tuff to spell

F.Y.I, it was only myself that I was attempting to make fun of, just trying to inject a little humour humor and dare I say, light into the thread, which has become the regular DR etc etc 'discussion'.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 20