July 23, 2014, 12:15:14 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 - Northstar

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 93
16
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: July 13, 2014, 05:38:23 AM »
And one more :)

pretty little guy, but he needs to stop staying up late and drinking too much!   ::) ;D

17
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:01:21 PM »
Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.

I have to wonder if they're trying to protect the Big Whites. The 400f5.6 prime has arguably superior IQ to some of the old big whites, and upgrading something like that might look a little unbalanced.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they had all the version II supertelephoto lenses out before releasing a budget option that performs on a similar level.

i'm hoping they realize that the bottom line is that some people, whether it be pro or rich amateur, are going to go for the very best and spend their money for the "high end stuff" no matter what...even if it's only fractionally better than a new and improved 100-400.  (and/or they'll pay for the f4 or 2.8)   this is what I'm hoping for here....a awesome lens for a few grand, not $10,000

18
Trying to upload from my cell. Hope I'm doing this correctly.

i like the old box better...and quite frankly, (and i'm no troll) i like the gold nikon box even better 8)

ps...must be a baby in the house!  :)

19
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 05:17:23 PM »
Canon could sell a million of these if they don't hold back and just give us sports/wildlife people a great lens at a decent price.

1998 -2014, after 16 years you would think that this newer version would be much improved on what was already a decent lens.



20
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II [CR1]
« on: July 12, 2014, 04:32:48 PM »
if AF is quick and it's reasonably sharp through the whole focal range, then i'd pay $2200 in a heartbeat...




21
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 12, 2014, 02:44:12 PM »
My 8 year old son yesterday at the local zoo.

400mm, f4.0, ISO800, 1/1000.

nice memory...

c'mon menace, you didn't let him shoot with the 400mm?  lol ;D

22
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 12, 2014, 02:43:05 PM »
keep your eye on the......puck.


23
Taken with Magic Lantern Focus stacking, 5D MarkII and Sigma 150(non-IS). It is quick to do a stack, probably good for insects.

Beautiful!

24
Many years ago, I was given the advice that you insure yourself only against events that happen very rarely and are too expensive for you to cover. If you can afford to replace your gear, then don't insure it...

The OP mentions having $45,000 worth of gear – that's about what I have, and I'd find it difficult (if not impossible) to replace that amount in the short term.

But a good reminder is that you should consider carefully before filing a claim, at least for US policies covering personal (not business) use.  Those are generally linked to homeowners'/renters' policies, claims against them go into the same database (CLUE), and can affect rates and even eligibility for home/rental coverage. 

I view my policy as 'catastrophic' coverage.  If I drop my 135/2L to the pavement and it shatters, I'll buy a new one.  If my 1D X + 600/4L IS II fall off a cliff, or if my house is robbed and all my gear taken, I'll file a claim.

Agree...that's how I would handle it too.....generally.

25
I personally like the green skin tones (at least on the camera's LCD) of the D800. /sarcasm



More than the hue, the live view implementation of the D800 completely killed any interest I had in it, one of my primary interests in the D810 is to see what they did in that area.
Nikon D800 Live View MF Issue followup


the green is like a combination of "oscar the grouch" green and "swamp monster" green.....so yeah, pretty cool if you like those things.    ;D ::) ;)

26
I built a focus rail and shot about 20 frames but the result that came out processed with PS CS5 was incorrect.  PS chose all the OOF frames and thus what I got was a 100% blurry photo.

My question to the experts here, when you use a rail to select a focus plane, will the image in front of the selected plane be slightly larger because the camera/lens is closer and the image behind the selected plane be smaller, so as you change positions during the process, what would happen to the stacked end product photo?
Conversely, if the camera/lens is held stationary, and the focus is selected by adjusting the lens focusing mechanism, what will be the result?

My setup: 5D3 with remote flash mounted on hot shoe, 100 mm_f/2.8 with Kenko extension ring, and the camera is controlled with CamRanger all mounted with a screw operated rail.

Thanks for the advice.
-r

Personally, when focus stacking, I never change the frame i.e. camera never moves. Here is my very basic MO

1. Fix camera on tripod
2. Frame your subject - use live view.
3. Manually focus and shoot a bunch of images - each focusing on a different plane of your subject. Use remote etc.
4. Process in PS.

Hope this helps

Menace

i've never done focus stacking...so pardon my noobness:

step #3...so for example...i'm shooting a flower at a 45 degree angle....i aim the first shot at the furthest petal, the next shot at a petal slightly closer, and so on and so on and so on until i've shot 8-12 images.

is this the basic strategy?  (for step #3)

27
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: July 10, 2014, 02:14:30 PM »

IMG_4169 by ecka84, on Flickr


IMG_1941 by ecka84, on Flickr


IMG_1606 by ecka84, on Flickr

great shots!!   love the spider...unique shot!

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tips on shooting hockey?
« on: July 10, 2014, 02:05:13 PM »
glad you're having fun shooting hockey!!

as i said, your shots are very good...could easily be used for professional coverage!

if posting for online and small print use only, you could crop a couple a little bit more like this example i provided....it brings the viewer in closer to the action like being in the front row.

it's all subjective though...your composition looks great too!

original and then one that i cropped a bit more.

29
Unfocused...one word....wow!

30
Photography Technique / Re: 85 vs 135 for portraits
« on: July 09, 2014, 03:17:25 PM »
I would suggest the 70-200 2.8ii...it's such a wonderful and multipurpose lens.

Looking at shots from the 70-200 2.8ii compared to primes in it's focal range and there just isn't enough difference that warrants limiting yourself to just the 85, or 135, or 200.   The 85 1.2 is a great lens for portraits, but forget about it if you're trying to shoot anything that's moving, so if you're on a budget like you say, wouldn't you rather have more of a multipurpose lens that can do so much more than the 85 1.2 for about the same $?   

Think about your longer term goals/needs for photography in general.  For me, I realized after time that I hate switching lenses all the time and carrying them all with me.  So eventually i ended up with the 24-70 and 70-200 to cover 90% of my needs with excellent quality.   

good luck,
north


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 93