April 16, 2014, 10:46:00 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 - Albi86

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 55
61
Wombat, I feel like my initial impressions are exactly the same as yours. Like you, also for me it's the first time having such a long lens and trying focusing on crazy moving targets.

I had decent results with Zone AF but I'm looking forward to test the automatic 61pt selection.

62
Many people claim that cropped sensors are actually better than full frame and larger sensors for macro applications.
Here is an example:
http://www.43rumors.com/micro-four-thirds-and-macro-photography-by-eugene-kitsios/

Their argument is that for macro photography DoF is the limiting factor. They say that to get the same DoF, the larger the sensor, the smaller the aperture needs to be, which would offsett the light gathering capacity of larger sensors.

As an example, if we compare full frame vs. 4/3 sensors:
- full frame is roughly four times larger than 4/3 (measuring the surface), thus has virtually a two stop advantage in terms of light gathering capacity;
- anyhow, if with four thirds sensor we need to close the aperture to f/8, then on a full frame sensor we would need to close the aperture at f16 to get the same DoF, thus loosing two stop of light (offsetting completely the larger sensor advantage).
I am not sure if the second point is correct. The comparison shall be done considering different lenses on the two systems:
- if we use a 50mm macro on the 4/3 sensor, for correct comparison (to get the same angle of view), a 100mm lens should be used on the full frame (I know there would be slight differences in the final image due to the different aspect ratio).

I am skeptical about the above argument, anyhow I am unable to tell why it would be wrong.
What do you think, is really a crop sensor better than full frame for macro photography? Or is the full frame better? In the latter case, can you explain why?

Thanks!
Fausto


For tripod-based macro work, where you can work at ISO 100 and maybe set the lighting how you like, the advantages of a bigger sensor don't really show all that much. The higher pixel density can actually be the decisive advantage, since macro lenses are typically very sharp.


63
Software & Accessories / Re: Photobook Printing
« on: February 24, 2014, 02:39:05 PM »
I was wondering who of you has used any of the online services to print a photo book. What are your experiences?
How many of you use LR and blurb to print books? How many use LR but a different printing service, and how well does that work?
Also - getting back to an old topic - how reliable are these printing services when it comes to color, contrast, etc. If my screen is well-calibrated, does it all work out well? Or will there be big surprises...?

I would print books for private purposes only.

Thanks for any comments

Are you in Europe or US?

Switzerland - not sure if it should still be considered europe...

Shipping-wise, I guess so :D

So, I've tried Photobox, which is the big commercial one. Books are nice and  they have many customization options. I particularly like the flat one, which is great for double-page landscapes. Prices are crazy but they often have good deals going on. You can prepare the book online, save it, and buy it when they have a deal. Two notes: on bigger books they only have matte paper, so take it into consideration when you prepare your photos. Another important note is that, yes, they auto-correct your pictures. You have to contact the customer support and explicitly ask them to deactivate the option for your account.

The other big one that I'm interested in is Vistaprint. Even more binding options and glossy paper on big books. You can download their software to prepare the book offline. I will try it for sure, but I didn't yet.

64
Lenses / Re: Good lens for hiking
« on: February 24, 2014, 02:26:26 PM »
Canon 35 f/2 IS.

Small and lightweight enough (imho the most important feature for a long hike), versatile focal length, solid performance, IS for low light.

65
I'm curious.

Why do you think, did Sigma for only for a f/1.4 rather than down to the f/1.2 of the Canon L 50mm ?

Because it's going to be 815g with f/1.4 :)

The extra glass for top performance at f/1.2 would have been an overkill. I'm more surprised that Zeiss didn't go for f/1.2 considering they definitely had the budget.

66
Software & Accessories / Re: Photobook Printing
« on: February 24, 2014, 02:21:00 PM »
I was wondering who of you has used any of the online services to print a photo book. What are your experiences?
How many of you use LR and blurb to print books? How many use LR but a different printing service, and how well does that work?
Also - getting back to an old topic - how reliable are these printing services when it comes to color, contrast, etc. If my screen is well-calibrated, does it all work out well? Or will there be big surprises...?

I would print books for private purposes only.

Thanks for any comments

Are you in Europe or US?

67
Thanks to a tip from Roo, I picked up this lens on Friday.
First serious tests this evening and so far it's looking pretty good (IMO) - will take a bit of practice though, keeper rate is a bit low ;)

Phil.

Hi Phil, I really like your #2!

Have have you been finding the AF on flying birds?

68


One has to ask...why did this take so long and why does Can have 3 "normal" primes that will be surpassed by a 3rd party company, (to be fair, the Canon 50mm f/1.2 is good...but not GREAT...especially at that price point)..Why did Nikon just release another VERY mediocre normal lens and charge a ridiculous price based on its performance.   To me this is baffling. We are talking about a FF normal lens...this is the most vital focal length...and the two biggest manufacturers have treated it like the red-headed step child... I never understood that.

Why Canon and Nikon have pretty much skipped developing an EVF and contrast AF until most recent times? Why does the iPhone have a more sofisticated flash than a pro DSLR (when it has one at all)?

One of the good things about competition is that it disproves certain de facto situations that seem to derive from objective technical limits. As long as no one offers a really good 50mm, the offer of Canon and Nikon doesn't look bad. Then came the Otus, but at that price tag it was certainly in another league. This Sigma seems bound to show that yes, you can build a very good and affordable 50/1.4 if you want to.

It was the same with the 35mm: Canon and Nikon top offers were regarded as "as good as it gets"; it took the Sigma 35mm to show that actually there was plenty of room for improvement. The Tammy 150-600 has also pretty much shattered the dogma that a decent 600mm lens has to cost north of $10,000.

69
BTW, I used zone AF in my 5D3 with the central group.
AF was set to Case 3: focus on subject entering the focus area.
This is because I find it often difficult to keep a flying bird on the active AF area. However, I suspect that my movement trying to follow the bird caused some loss of sharpness. Shots at 1/2000s look better than those at 1/1000 but still not tack sharp in any point - i.e. it doesn't seem the focus is off.

Any suggestion? :)




70
Forgot to add: all are on a 5D3, ISO 1250, f/8, 1/2000s.

Thanks for posting these, Albi86, just one question: Were all of these shots with the Tammy at 600mm?

Yes :) 100% crops don't look too pretty, but I blame that on my (lack of) skill.

EDIT: to be fair, as you can see from the light in the picture, I was close to sunset. It's not easy for the lens/camera to focus in that situation, especially against high-contrast background like the canes.

71
Forgot to add: all are on a 5D3, ISO 1250, f/8, 1/2000s.

72
And a couple more...


73
Some BIF with the Tammy...

74
Portrait / Re: Wedding portraits of bride and groom
« on: February 23, 2014, 07:54:21 AM »
I like the quality and the light direction, but the light quality and the WB are a bit harsh imho for a wedding. How about some fill flash? However it might well be your stylistic choice to do it like that, of course.

I also agree that the framing of some of them is a bit unorthodox. The last shot seems a bit crooked too. Number 5 and 7 are the best imho in terms of concept/framing.


75
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #2: Persistance
« on: February 22, 2014, 10:06:09 AM »
I appreciated this one much better than the previous. The shot itself was more interesting and the technical explanation behind the composition was indeed nice. Thumbs up!

However...

I in no way am trying to be offensive or even self-promotional with this series; I want to help people. 


Fair enough.  I absolutely am trying to drive attention to my website to continue building my brand.  I have no problem acknowledging that.


Seriously?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 55