February 28, 2015, 09:29:30 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 - GMCPhotographics

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 51
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:24:07 PM »
I'd really hoped for the 16-50/4 IS ...  :(

I will love to have a 16-50 f/4 IS too. But I don't think that's coming. It is probably a figment of someone's imagination. Sigh

While I can understand the desire on a 1.6x crop. I really can'y see any benefit of an IS unit on a full frame 16mm lens. If you need stability....then use a tripod. Should anyone really be hand holding less than 1/15th sec? If the shot is that important....put it on a pod, end of story.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 03:20:12 PM »
I just bought the 17-40 f4 L.
And I'm a lot satisfied with it.
Yes, sometimes my old 9-18 Zuiko for my panasonic L10 4/3 was a little sharper, in the corner.

But I don't understand why people need a wide angle with F2.8. You don't do portrait with a wide-angle that had "by nature" some distortion.

You use the wide angle at F8, 10 and more..  so why bother and pay for a "new" f2.8 that would be heavier and much costly...  New versions cost always a lot more with canon.

As someone said, with landscape lens, you want to take "nice landscape". And nice landscapes require to travel to good places or to hike. So you don't want a 10 kg equipment.

Group Shots or wide social shots, especially for wedding work

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF 16-35 f/4L, 17-40 f/4L and Others
« on: March 10, 2014, 11:22:11 AM »
The 17-40 definitely needs an upgrade. The Tamron 10-24 I had for apsC was sharper than my 17-40 on FF.

You are comparing two different lenses on two different formats. It's not a reasonable comparison.
Yes, there's room for an update. But it's not a critical update. The current 17-40L and 16-35IIL are both very strong and capable performers.

Lenses / Re: Help me justify the 17mm TS-E
« on: March 08, 2014, 07:39:13 PM »
The TS-e 17L is an expensive lens...and you are worrying about the cost of the adaptor?
Why spend money on the DIY adaptor when it inhibits the range of the tilt and shift...come on, why buy a TS-e 17L in the first place? Why not save even more money and get a 16-35IIL instead?
No need for sarcasm.  I built the DIY before there was a Wonderpana.  I rarely use it.  It works.  Give it a rest, guys.

One other point worth noting is that the benefits of an ND grad can be derived in software.  Before I had my adapter, I bracketed shots and used the ND grad feature in Adobe RAW to replicate the use of an ND grad.

I don't use ND grads either. I haven't used an ND grad for around 5 years and sold my entire Lee collection to fund a 16-35 II L. The reason I use  wondapana, is for the CPL and ND filter options. If I want to blend two exposures, often I want the sky or sea to be at a specific shutter speed and aperture setting. Often this can only be achieved with a set of ND filters, a tripod and a bit of careful metering.

Lenses / Re: Help me justify the 17mm TS-E
« on: March 06, 2014, 08:45:07 PM »
I already posted a link to the Fotodiox Wonderpana filter holder system that is designed for the 17 TS-E and allows unrestricted shift and at least 4 degrees of tilt at the same time with no vignetteing.

P.S. If you go to page 7 of your Fred Miranda link you will see my posts back to here.
The Wonderpana system looks great, but the cost is the issue for me.  The DIY is about $100.

The TS-e 17L is an expensive lens...and you are worrying about the cost of the adaptor?
Why spend money on the DIY adaptor when it inhibits the range of the tilt and shift...come on, why buy a TS-e 17L in the first place? Why not save even more money and get a 16-35IIL instead?

Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: March 05, 2014, 12:42:50 PM »
This image of a large snow flake is about life size, ie, what you are seeing here is about the actual size of the flake:

This is what I was intending to shoot:

Fox prints in the snow

One of my favorite castles:

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: March 04, 2014, 05:46:08 AM »

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) by Robin SS Lee, on Flickr

Stunner, absolute stunner.

The Images of the Hawk ?? trying to lift the fish out of the water on your flicker site, just as good.

Welcome to CR.

I also like this image, but it almost seems like the light illuminating the Falcon, is a cooler color temperature than the light that should have been on it, given the background.
I think that's just the color of the bird. Or are you suggesting the photographer brought his lighting equipment for the shot?

It's just my opinion, I don't really think anything was done.  There's no catch light in the eye so there's no evidence of a "better beamer".  It could have been processed that way in post, but I suppose it doesn't look quite that extreme.  I didn't mean to be overly critical.

It's a great shot, it's just a pity about the clipped wing.

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:41:33 AM »
No, don't confuse aperture with apparent aperture. The opening inside the lens, the actual gap in the aperture blades, can be much smaller, or bigger, than the apparent aperture.

Thanks, I didn't know the "apparent aperture" term - but I read about the aperture size being independent to the f-stop on zoom lenses. When is the actual aperture *larger* than the apparent aperture - uwa lenses? Or has the relation apparent-real aperture nothing to do with the focal length and just relates to the lens' general design?

The f stop value of a lens is defined by the focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the objective lens (front element). so a 300mm lens with a 100mm front element has an f stop value of f2.8. That's how it works.
But in recent years, lens designers have over sized the front element to reduce vignetting. But the theoretical f stop value should change. T stop values are more accurate and based on actual light transmission through the lens. Ever noticed that wide aperture primes tend to under expose by a 1/3 stop when shot wide open? Often it's the difference between the F stop value and T stop value. 

Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 25, 2014, 07:03:45 PM »
I  believe the difference in weight is not negligible as you seem to mean: 2.35 kg for the 300mm II + 225g for the 1.4X III = 2.575Kg versus the 1.94Kg for the 400mm DO a difference of 635g.

If you have tried both combinations (with the same camera body) and you still think so I give up. I haven't - I do have tried 5DMkIII with a 500 f/4 IS II though - but I believe that in this category every weight saving counts.

In fact the change from a Manfrotto 055Prob + 410 Gear Head = 3.7Kg versus a Gitzo Systematic 3541LS + Markins M20 head = 2.3 Kg has made quite the difference for me (OK it's 1.4Kg less but you see the point... when walking everything counts)

Lol...it's all relative and a personal choice at the end of the day. I regularly use a 400mm f2.8 L IS and chose a 3541LS for it's stability and not it's weight saving. I choose the f2.8 because it's one of the most stunning optics I've ever used, certainly one of Canon's finest ever. So for me, lugging that great lump about is worthwhile and I like the photographs I get from it. A 600g weight saving for me is quite minor but your mileage might vary. sure, I'd like a mkII and a serious weight reduction...maybe next year.

Canon General / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S
« on: February 25, 2014, 06:58:02 PM »
I'm going to say something about the D4, the AF system for tracking is superb, there, I said it. If you spend time learning the 1dx AF, it will perform better in complex situations, but both out of the box just tracking , the D4 works better by default, seriously good. Shot loads of bursts of cyclists dodging cars in traffic, and don't think I had one single shot oof, and I kept the button down. I was shooting the 85 1.8.

But, with erratic subjects and backlit and with things suddenly appears and pretty much any crazy movement the 1dx, with a little fiddling , the 1dx is sooo fast and accurate and just gets more keepers for me.

The AF system wasn't the issue with the D4...it was the constant lockups and other issues, which generally point out that it was rushed to market without the proper R&D that a top tier camera needs. It's a pity Nikon have sullied their brand with a lot of pros and there's a number of quite bitter guys out there who are very dissapointed and feel let down bu Nikon after such high hopes after the D700/D3.
While it's nice to see the D4s fix these vices...it's got a price hike and I really hope for Nikon that it's an improvement in reliability. As far as its specs....it looks to be worse on paper than a 1DX in almost every measurable metric, which is a pity.
While it's a nice camera for those already on a Nikon mount, i'm not so sure it'll attract new buyers and i'm pretty certain that there will be almost zero cross over from the Canon 1Dx.

Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 25, 2014, 07:36:00 AM »
If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.
+1 - I can vouch for that pairing and check out the-digital-picture's comparison at f/4:

Although the 400 Do is a bit lighter, it's not THAT much lighter than the new 300 mkII. I think the 300 mkII and converters is one of the best travel / long lenses currently available. It's a great combo and does so much very well.

Sigma is going to turn me into a prime-only photographer.

I've been so pleased with their 35mm that I'll surely get this 50mm.

The Canon 24-105 is sub-par in comparison to the Sigma 35 (and presumably this new 50) so I'll be using it rarely, especially since I rarely take it past 70mm where it starts getting really mushy.

So, then I get an 85mm -- either a new Sigma when it's made or a Canon L. And with the 135mmL I have, that's all I need.

Oh, and for wides, I've got my trusty 17-40. (And a Rokinon14mm for fun stuff.)

I say let's get a container full of the new 50s on a ship and deliver it to B&H ASAP. I'll be standing in line.

Just remember bud that being a prime only photographer doesn't make you a better photographer...being a better photographer makes you a better photographer and often that's gear independent. I personally like to go wide with a zoom and then primes over 35mm. Works for me.

EOS Bodies / Re: Anything to report from the Olympics?
« on: February 21, 2014, 04:38:44 PM »
Strange ... Curling is normally used as The example of boring winter sports. But apparently not amongst photographers  ::)
The first time I saw the Winter Olympics on television, I thought curling was a funny sport. :P But I was only seeing the men's teams. This year I discovered the girls' teams and was a fan of this sport. ::) It is a pity that in Brazil the temperature is between 20 and 35 degrees Celsius throughout the year. :-\ We will have no ice around here, much less the beautiful girls of the Russian team. :-*
In the London Olympic games....all the fuss was about the Brazillian outdoor volley ball team...I had a few mates with front row seats all though the qualifying, quarters, semis....they all looked more than a little star struck ;-D
It is a pity that Russian girls curling team go to the games with a lot of clothes. :-* Maybe we will see 7D mark ii olympics in 2016, here in Brazil. :P Yes, and girls volleyball too. ;)

Yep, once upon a time the Russian girls teams seemed to be only discus and shotput throwers....most fellas youed to comment on the size of their biceps...most looked like body builders....these days things have changed a lot!

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Coming in March? [CR1]
« on: February 21, 2014, 04:22:43 PM »
In the grand scheme of things I would rather the 7D-II to arrive perfect, rather than soon.

With that said, I've got travel plans this summer, I want the camera  :-)

A 7D-II will not particularly change the look and feel of your holiday photos. That can easily be served using any of Canon's current line up. You may want a 7DII for your holiday, but it's an emotional self imposed deadline and will only prompt further anxiety for your self. Enjoy your kit, shoot lots of lovely photos and upgrade when the mkII comes out. Buy it because you can, but please don't attach an emotional artificial deadline. It will only cause you self inflicted pain ;-D

In the mean time, there flies a pig with a unicorn on it's back...or was that a 100-400 and 35IIL?

Lenses / Re: Why no 400mm f/4L IS exists?
« on: February 21, 2014, 10:01:59 AM »
If you want a 400mm f4 LIS...then consider the new 300mm f2.8 LIS mkII and a 1.4x TC
It's an astonishing combo.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 51