December 19, 2014, 06:05:12 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 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 102
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 13, 2013, 11:46:25 AM »

Canon 1D mark III + EF 70-200 2.8L IS USM
148mm, f3.2, 1/2000, iso500

Love it!

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 13, 2013, 11:45:15 AM »
The FD version was 150-600/5.6.  So should this be.  300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough.  Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking.  Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.

I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark  II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.

Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.

It's unfortunate that third party manufacturers seem to sell more lenses with a big zoom range than high quality primes, or good zooms with a short zoom range. I guess we need more people birding. All it would take is a good 600f5.6 lens and most of the large supertelephoto lenses would become practically obsolete (or at least redundant), but it sounds like there will never be a big enough market for that without company pride on the line.

I dunno. Personally, I'd still buy the 600/4 over a 600/5.6 (or even a 300-600/5.6). I wouldn't want to sacrifice the extra stop of light, which is really the primary draw of a lens like the 600/4 (and often essential to get good IQ, especially in the kinds of circumstances you frequently find with bird photography). Same reason I would buy the 300/2.8 over a 300/4. The 300/4 is certainly cheaper, but the 300/2.8 cannot be beat for the balance of sharpness & AF speed vs. portability...not to mention it's versatility with teleconverters. It is the ideal wildlifers lens if you have a few thousand dollars to spend.

It seems to me that stopping down on big whites is actually fairly common (as seen above). I'm constantly surprised at the high apertures people actually use when shooting wildlife. Sometimes you even see relatively extreme apertures that, on paper at least, I would want to avoid due to diffraction.
I'm sure the option of using f4 comes in handy every once in a while, but in practice it looks like the wide apertures get used for TC compatibility more than anything. Options are nice but getting the lens at the focal length you want is still the best choice. The 600f4+TC is top dog for birding right now, but if/when a new 800f5.6 comes out I don't think many people will miss the extra stop of light.

The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.

The point of an f/4 lens isn't that you always shoot wide open (although in the evening, it isn't uncommon...I tend to be around f/8 aperture for shooting during daytime, and f/4-5.6 for shooting around sunset, for wildlife.) It's that you ALWAYS AF wide open (by design.) And yes, with an f/4 lens, when you slap on a 1.4x TC, you still AF at f/5.6, which is still better than AF at f/8, no question. me better understand this.  If I have two 1dx cameras(same settings) each with a 300 2.8 attached, but one set at 2.8 and one set at f5.6....are you saying that the one set at 2.8 will have faster more accurate AF capabilities?   

Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 13, 2013, 09:10:37 AM »
Dear Friends.
These are point and shoot of Fun Animal shots.

Funny shots Surapon!  Thanks!

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 13, 2013, 09:08:27 AM »
Great Crested Fly Catcher with Damsel Fly...
ISO 640

Lovely framing!

Technical Support / Re: Best Possible IQ
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:13:09 PM »

You always underestimate yourself when you are one of the best photographers I've seen. They picked you because of your great portfolio. Relax.

Just call the client and tell them you want to make sure you provide them with the files they need. Ask to talk to whomever is doing post-processing and find out how they envision accomplishing this. (They'll probably be so amazed that a photographer actually talked to them before the shoot that they'll love you forever.)

You can explain that you see several possible approaches and you want to talk about how he or she envisions the final product. Personally, I'm not comfortable with the ND filter approach because it's kind of a one shot, roll the dice sort of thing and the risk of getting "ghosts" is really strong. (See the first ever recorded picture of a human being: Niepce's Paris Street Scene, where the guy getting his shoes shined shows up because he was standing still while the rest of the people on the street were moving)

I've never tried the approach recommended by Martin Evening, but it seems to me that would be a lot safer provided the person doing the processing understands what they are doing.

Honestly, I'm a little worried about not knowing their expectations. It's very possible that the only post-processing they intend to do is converting and tweaking the images for CMYK. He/she may have a heart attack if you give them 50 or 60 files that need to be merged without talking to them first.

As far as cameras, any full frame will be more than adequate. Heck, you could probably shoot it on a 7D and be fine. Remember, the major limiting factor is going to be the output resolution, not the capture resolution.

very good advice here…very good.

yeah man, adorama is the worst.. I have experience the same thing.. Didnt get my 18 dollars refund.. support sux. by that experience no more adorama for me. sticking to bnh

don't insult our intelligence with this baloney…first time poster writing something like this.  either you're making a bad joke or you have no brain.

bottom line…both bh and adorama are solid companies and folks reading this post should feel comfortable and confident in ordering from either!

Technical Support / Re: Best Possible IQ
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:40:09 AM »
Thank you all for the valuable insights. I have learnt a lot. Still bit confused, but clarity is coming in.

Am attaching a photo of roughly where I will be. Not exactly here but similar situation.

My first thought was similar to a few others about a 10 stop filter.... But I see boats and water so that idea won't work.

I agree with some others that you don't need med format, just use FF and would become a more well rounded photographer by learning a new technique...stitching is only going to become more popular in the future with the ever increasing number of internet connected tablets and computers for viewing huge stitched photos.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: How Much the PRO make money ?
« on: December 11, 2013, 07:23:32 AM »
If you're paying $15k tax on such an income, you've seriously got to consider moving to another country.  No wonder there is so much interest in the TEA Party.  In Australia, with those figures, you'd pay no tax (depending on assumptions on depreciating camera gear).   Worst case scenario, $2k tax.

Agreed...on $50k of income, there's no way your paying $15k in taxes unless your tax person is clueless.

Also agree big time with Mt Spokane....salesmanship and very good work combined together would make a great photographer a lot of money.

Adorama split up my orders and shipped them separately for a rebate deal...The paperwork looked a little strange, but it worked and I got my rebate.

Same here.

Too late now, but I think you pulled the trigger too quickly on cancelling the order and refusing receipt, forcing them to incur added shipping costs and muddying the waters. If you really wanted the camera and printer and your card company refused the charge when there was plenty of credit on your account, then you probably could have gotten that straightened out. Since it was a package deal from Adorama, I don't think there would have been any problem getting the necessary paperwork to demonstrate it was all one purchase.

Spot on advice here.

They made an error, and then you compounded that error by overreacting and sending it back.

You should've just kept the items  and called them, it would've been an easy fix for them over the phone.

Adorama is a good company,  but they sometimes make mistakes like we all do....give them a break.  Now you come on here as a first time poster bitching to the masses about a mistake that could've been handled  with a simple phone call?   

Come back to cr when you have some pictures to share, advice to give, and/or some interesting thoughts to share.

Sports / Re: 17 Year old Sports Photographer
« on: December 10, 2013, 08:33:41 AM »
charles…as one sports photog (hobby) to another, well done.  nice shots!

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 10, 2013, 08:23:18 AM »
How do you like Snapseed?  I recently installed but have not had a chance to put it through its paces.  Do you have any workflows you can share?

1dx 24-70 2.8ii

Edited with snapsed on my iPad.


it's not perfect, but i like that it's very easy to use and convenient…and i like using my fingers versus a mouse or keyboard to make changes.   biggest drawbacks are that it doesn't have noise red. or brushes.

with the girls basketball shot….i did some of the normal stuff...cropped, exposure bump up, added contrast, added  some sat (looks too much to me now that I'm on my iMac), little bit of sharpening…and then i used the tilt shift function to help blur out the sides of the image a bit….and the center focus function to slightly brighten the center, and simultaneously darken the perimeter.  all of these changes are made with a slider on the bottom of the screen….push it right to increase and left to decr.

it has a selective adjust tool that let's me adjust brightness, saturation, and contrast selectively by touching the specific part of the image with my fingertip.  i used this feature a lot to brighten faces under helmets in sport photos…it works like a brush that way. 

just a few thoughts off the top of my head.  good luck!  (my normal editing tools are Aperture and Nik)

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:46:34 AM »
1dx 24-70 2.8ii

Edited with snapsed on my iPad.

both shots 5000 iso


1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:26:26 AM »
24-70 2.8ii at 50mm
ISO 5000

One of the top young point guards in the world driving to the basket but looking to pass....result, an easy layup for his teammate.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 10, 2013, 06:24:37 AM »
Well something different a bored dog on the streets of edinburgh :)

Ahh !! This I understand, Wildlife, Edinburgh Version.

Looks like a close Cousin to Eldar's Wolf.
These Siberian Huskys are great dogs. And when they have one blue and one brown eye, like this one, they look really cool.
A friend of mine is breeding them and the last time I was there he had 60(!) dogs. He lives on a Very limited budget, in the middle of nowhere, but he's the happiest man on the planet.

Eldar....a picture that tells a story...nice.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 10, 2013, 05:24:59 AM »
Definitely not as Pretty as Bornshooter's young lady, and I'de imagine not often found on the streets of Edinburgh.

And decidedly poor table Manners, I shot this after she had pulled her head out of the chest cavity of a Tsessebe Antelope.

1Dx 200-400f/4, Shot @ 560mm f/9.0 & 1/80th ISO400

That must have been pretty interesting to watch!   Awesome shots you've posted lately, keep them coming Edward!

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 102