September 22, 2014, 04:35:35 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 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 97
436
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:41:36 AM »

In my opinion the Tamron 24-70 VC is better then the Canon version 1 and about 90% as good as version II at half the price. But if I had the money at that time, I would have still bought the Canon II again.
 

I just shot a baby birthday at an indoor restaurant in evening with 5D III and Canon 24-70 II and found some of the photo's had blur.  I had kept iso at 800 to get clean photo's with flash firing on camera (bounce), but on some of the longer focals >50 mm and group shots requiring narrower aperture, my hand shake got in the way.  Would the Tamron's VC solve this problem in practicality?  The more I shoot dim events, the more I wish my 24-70 II had IS  :-\

What was your shutter speed?  You probably should've doubled your ISO and shutter speed.   ISO 1600 is no problem for the 5d3.

437
Canon General / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S
« on: February 25, 2014, 10:49:50 AM »
To those who say "Canon is not innovative," can now boast of Nikon innovation with ISO 409600. I do not know what use it but the marketing arrange one.
That's what caught my eye, too, and as someone who uses ISO 102400 on my 5DIII all the time, I might have to sell all of my Canon gear to get the D4S.  I think it will really help with my upcoming series - Coal Mines by Matchlight.  If I accidentally run into some methane, this might be my last post ;)

lol

438
Will the screen still be green?   

This does nothing to the 1dx or Canon...it would piss me off if I was a Nikon guy and I had bought a D4 anytime in the past year. 

1DXii doesn't become available until late 2015.

also...it's a clear sign that the 1dX was the better camera...and Nikon had to do something to keep it's pros from switching, and to keep the first time buying a pro body "upgraders" from switching.

439
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 25, 2014, 06:46:03 AM »
Sold the 24-105 to buy the canon 24-70 2.8ii...never considered the Tamron.

I live by one rule when it comes to buying most anything that I intend to own for the long term...buy better quality/brand..  (It took me a good decade or so to learn this).
 
A year or two from now you won't even know where the $ is that you saved by going the cheaper route, and you'll wish you had just bought the canon to begin with.

I agree with mrsfoto...the 24-105 is a great lens if you don't need the extra stop of light...but it's IQ is less compared to the 24-70 2.8ii.

Hi,

I still have my 24-105, is it really that average? I keep reading reviews where people pay it out...?

I liked my 24-105 but I need the f2.8 for my use....and I find the 24-70ii a little sharper.  I do miss the 71-105 though..

440
Hello everyone !!  :)

I present you my new film !

You can see it there :

https://vimeo.com/87051314

It was shot with a Canon 6D with Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L  + 70-200mm f/2.8 L.
I wanted to show you and to have your feedbacks.

Thank you.

PLAY LOUD AND ENJOY !!!
And if you like it, please share it ;)

Florent.

I like it!   What's it for?  HS football promo stuff?

441
you can put a 100mp sensor in a phone and a 10,000x zoom but you're still going to get shitty images with a shitty lens with shitty auto focus with shitty 1 second delay with shitty shitty shitty S___


hey lewis...tell us how you really feel.   8) ;)

442
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: February 19, 2014, 05:51:07 AM »

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


Tex....Interesting pictures, but no story to go with them?

443
 

Quote
Thanks for sharing that.  It reinforces in my mind the unrealistic image sold to the public on theoretical transfer rates, when an upgrade from USB2 to USB3 yields a 5x practical speedup, instead of the theoretical 10x speedup.  That is 50% slower, which is nothing to sneeze at.


Yes...unrealistic, I agree.

Also, the same perception is being marketed by the card makers when you consider that most photographers are still probably using usb2.0, which means their 160mbs card is only transferring at 40 mbs!

444
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: February 18, 2014, 06:28:49 AM »
Shots from Florida and the like should be banned!  ;)  Here I sit snow-bound at -10 C and in spite of wandering outside today not a single bird of any description - well actually I did see a magpie far away. :(

Jack
Plus 1
I wandered through the local woods for 4 hours today, did not even hear a bird, nothing came to the feeders, too cold and windy.....

++1!
When I go down to Florida on vacation it's like a smorgasbord of birds and wildlife compared to up here in the cold north!

445
I need to buy some more compact flash cards and noticed that Sandisk have updated their range?
Is it worth me buying spending more on SanDisk Extreme PRO 160 mb/s or just stick with SanDisk Extreme 120 mb/s CompactFlash?

In addition to the burst rates folks have talked about, if anyone owns the 90Mbps, 120Mbps, and 160Mbps Extreme Pro CF cards from SanDisk and the Lexar USB3 CF/SD reader, I would be very interested in rough comparative download times to transfer data to a computer.  I have the Lexar reader, which I think is almost necessary if you want to put a large SD card in a Canon camera these days; the Lexar reader seems to perform pretty well on modern CF and SD cards, though I can no longer point to exact numbers because Rob Galbraith can no longer afford to maintain his CF/SD/XQD performance database.

Unlike others here, I do not have enough patience to wait for 200+Gb to download directly from the camera card by card, especially if some of the cards are SD cards.  :)

I suspect that the 90Mbps Extreme Pro cards are being phased out, and the current BHPhotoVideo sale on those is a clearance deal.  Just my hunch, but I think it noteworthy that Amazon has not come close to matching the price.

I just started using the lexar 1000x 150 mbs and that same card reader you mentioned....it's much faster than my 90mbs Sdisk cf card when using USB 3.0.   I don't have specific times to quote you but I would guess that compared to USB 2.0 and my 90mbs card, it's roughly triple the speed.   Also, when using my new mbook pro with SSD, it's even faster.

Edit....
I just found this after a google search....it shows transfer speeds using USB 2, 3, FireWire, and thunderbolt.   I didn't know USB 2 maxed out at 35mbs?  No wonder my new MacBook Pro SSD USB 3.0 loads so much faster than my USB 2.0 iMac.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2039427/how-fast-is-usb-3-0-really-.html

446
I am grateful for your post.

Will this card--

Transcend 400X - 64 GB Compact Flash Memory Card TS64GCF400

--the Transcend Blue...does it have sufficient speed for the 5DMk3 when shooting RAW?

I cannot figure out whether this card is UDMA 6 or 7...

the link here--

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/666610-REG/Transcend_TS64GCF400_Compact_Flash_400x_64GB.html

...is confusing to me.

90mbs read and 60mbs write.....it should work great.  There isn't much practical difference between udma 6 and 7 for most photography.

The only comment I would make is that 64gb is a pretty big card, do you need to take up to 1000 raw images at a time? 

If you do, then personally, I'd rather have two 32gb cards (for about the same price)over one 64gb card.   It's always good to have plenty of back up cards available, and 32 Gb is still quite large.  IMO.

447
Software & Accessories / Continuous burst speed on 5D3 with new Lexar 1000x
« on: February 17, 2014, 07:41:18 PM »
I recently bought two new Lexar 1000x 150 mb/s - 95 mb/s(write) cards.  I had(still have) two SD CF Extreme pro 95 mb/s. (45 mb/s) cards.  I wanted to see if there was much difference between the two when shooting action.

I did a simple high speed FPS test between two CF cards on a 5d3 to see how many shots could be taken before the high speed continuous shooting slowed down....shooting large RAW, one CF card in the camera.

Result...There was no difference between the two cards for 6fps burst shooting... I fired continuously until each started to slow/stutter....it happened at about 30 total shots for each.

I will note that when downloading to the computer, the Lexar was much faster.

Just an observation....hopefully this helps someone with their buying decision when looking to upgrade cards.

448
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 advice
« on: February 17, 2014, 04:03:21 AM »
I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?

True!

449
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8 advice
« on: February 17, 2014, 04:00:39 AM »
I've had a dozen different lenses over the years and the 70-200 2.8ii is my favorite.   It is a phenomenal lens.  It is an asset, not an expense. 

If you don't get the canon 70-200 2.8ii, the thought of owning it will always be lurking in the back of your mind, and if you continue to grow as a photographer you usually tend to eventually want more from your gear or better gear.

That said, if you truly can't afford the lens, then look at the canon 70-200 f4 IS version over the Tammy and sig.

450
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: February 16, 2014, 01:21:33 PM »
I've been using the new 24-70 2.8ii for shooting indoor sports like b-ball and it works great...fantastic AF speed and very sharp images.

iso4000
1/640th
f3.2
1Dx

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 97