April 20, 2014, 06:37:16 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 - Vossie

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16
76
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Want to get a 50
« on: October 28, 2013, 02:26:02 PM »
Don't buy a lens because you can resell it later. Buy a lens because you want to use it now.
+1; indeed just buy what you want to use and what you can afford.

77
Lenses / Re: DIY carbon hood for 40mm stm lens
« on: October 28, 2013, 02:19:04 PM »
Looks nice indeed. Does it help? Do you get less flares etc?

How did you determine the right length (to get no vignetting)? Empirically or though a formula?

78
Macro / Re: Fuzzy thing
« on: October 27, 2013, 04:32:25 AM »
Wow! Stacking of hand held images (especially with a long macro) requires a very steady hand and a good technique.

How many images did you stack?

79
Lenses / Re: Is it still the time for the 16-35 ?
« on: October 27, 2013, 04:29:08 AM »
<quote from http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-ii/>

This lens is a staple for photojournalists and wedding photographers. The fast aperture, great optics, and versatility of a zoom help them create compelling images in the tightest of environments. In a completely arbitrary collection of data, someone took a look at the EXIF information of all the cameras and all the lenses used by Reuters photographers in their “Best photos of the year 2012″ the Canon 16-35mm was, by far, the most used lens in these images. You can draw your own conclusions from this though: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/02/the-most-popular-cameras-and-settings-for-reuters-best-photos-of-the-year-2012/

</quote>

So yes, it's still time for this lens.

80
Software & Accessories / Re: Portable Storage Backup?
« on: October 26, 2013, 02:21:05 PM »
I used to take an imagetank with me on multiple-day trips and then every evening transfer files onto the harddisk to be able to reuse the card (got my first one, a 40 Gb model, in 2003; at that time the price of a 1 Gb microdrive was a few 100 Euros). Today, I do not do that anymore as for the price of an imagatank you can buy a set of rapid cards with more capicity. In addition, notebooks have become much cheaper and lighter. It is thus less of a burdon than a decade ago to bring one along. So today, I no longer see the value of imagetanks.

I normally record to 1 card only, but if you are afraid for card errors and want to use it purely for backup, you might as well (depending on your camera) record to dual slots immediately. That gives direct protection (with an image tank you only have a duplicate after doing the backup) and is less of a burdon.

81
Lenses / Re: Focus issues with 600mm f4 is ii
« on: October 26, 2013, 12:40:07 PM »
What camera, what aperture, what shutter speed, which focus mode have you been using? Do you have problems with moving or still objects and are these distant or close?

The 600 f4 has a narrow DoF when used wide open, especially for close objects. Have you selected a specific focus point om the area that needs to be sharp?

82
EOS Bodies / Re: Wait for the Canon 5D Mark IV or get the Mark III?
« on: October 26, 2013, 04:46:53 AM »
Get the iii. You wil not regret.

83
Lenses / Re: Looking for a great filter for my 135mm f/2 prime, help??
« on: October 22, 2013, 02:48:28 PM »
I use a b+w UV mrc f-pro filter on my 135L. I did not see any advantage for the more expensive xs-pro as the slightly thicker f-pro does not give vignetting in this focal range. I do use the more expensive xs-pro's on my wide angle lenses.

From time to time I use a LEE 3 stop ND filter on it, to be able to use it wide open in bright light.

84
Lenses / Re: 24-70mm f/2.8 L mkII & 50mm f/1.4???
« on: October 22, 2013, 02:43:17 PM »
I have both lenses. The 24-70 is certainly sharper, but the 50 is 2 stops faster (and much lighter). I use the 50 for dimly lit indoor portraits and in cases I want only want to carry a light setup (in which case I may just as well take the 40 pancake). Opinions about the 50 are quite mixed if you browse the internet, but I do like the look. The lens is quite soft, so I typically stop it down to 1.8 or 2.0.

If you can get it for a good price, I suggest you go for it. I'm sure it will find its use in your kit.

85
Lenses / Re: 24-70mm lens. Which one?
« on: October 20, 2013, 02:26:55 PM »
The 24-70 2.8 ii is quite a bit more expensive than the 24-105, but since I got the 24-70, the 24-105 has not been used anymore. I kept it for the occasional video (IS) and for travel (more reach and lower weight), but the 24-70 is so much better that I rather crop a bit more than have the xtra reach.

Sigma just announced its own 24-105 f4; if you can wait a bit until reviews come out, it could be a nice alternative to Canon's 24-105.

86
Canon General / Re: Havasupai Falls
« on: October 08, 2013, 09:16:56 PM »
17-40+24-105+70-200 is a good option.

I've done many long hikes with a gripped 30D, 10-22, 17-85, 100-400 and 550EX including a 3-day hike along the Ol Doinyo Lengai vulcano in Tanzania en into the Grand Canyon from the North Rim.  If you have a good backpack the weight will not feel too heavy.

I normally do not like carrying a tripod; my Gitzo is quite heavy and bulky. I have gotten some good results with a bean bag (which can be filled with light weigth material). I put my backpack on the ground with the bean bag on top of it. That helps to stabilize your camera for long (waterfall) exposures. Indeed the idea of bringing some ND filters is a good one. When I use my Lee bigstopper, I always use the Canon TC-80N3 remote timer. It prevents motion blur and -more importantly- allows using longer that 30s shutterspeeds without having to touch the camera.

87
EOS Bodies / Re: Buy 1DX now or wait for an upgrade?
« on: October 01, 2013, 09:29:56 AM »
I would wait for the higher MP medium format Canon EOS. That will allow you to scan your books with much more detail than the mere 18 MP of the 1Dx.

I hope they will give the medium format EOS a decent fbs, otherwise it will take too much time to scan your books. (With a 12 fps 1Dx it will aready cost you half a minute to scan a 360 page book, provided that your buffer dos not run full).

88
If the video was released without the B&G's permission after the event (not by their contract) then in my book this guy is real piece of work.


There is an additional video on youtube:
something would happen - feat: ABC News Small | Large


The bride's brother posted the video. According to the couple (who spoke in the ABC coverage in the youtube link above) the photog had not gotten any restrictions other than not blocking the isle. They were very surprised about the priest's action. They did not blaim the photog is any way.

The photog was Kamrul Haman. I looked at his website (www.dhoomstudio.com) and am not particulaly impressed by his portfolio. In his blog (http://www.dhoomstudio.com/blog/) he has a posting about the incident incl some pic from happier moments of the day. He quote's the bride stating that it did not ruin the day.

89
Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 30, 2013, 03:53:14 PM »
..

Nice examples and well underbuilt explanation; I fully agree with your analysis.

90
Lenses / Re: prime focal length choices
« on: August 28, 2013, 08:51:55 AM »

Personally, I went with the 35L, 85L II, and 135L (the classic 'holy trinity' of fast primes).

I beg your pardon OP but could I add a question to everyone here (in reference to Mr. Neuro's statement, may be he will also jump to share his understanding/opinion here).

Why does not this "holy trinity" include the 50L? Alright, 85 is 50mm more than 35 and 135 is 50mm more than 85. So they are equally spaced. That may be one logic (not a very strong one though). But is there any other reason to exclude 50L? We could have an "unholy foursome" (ok that did not come out right)....

It is true that 35>85>135 has 50mm in between. But it may be a better "spacing" to look at the field of view ratios. 135mm film is 24*36mm; so a 2:3 aspect ratio. The ideal spacing would be to have your focal lengths a factor 1,5 apart. That way the vertical FoV is the same as the horizontal FoV of the next lens in your series. An ideal series would look like (starting at 24):

24>36>54>81>122>182>273       with a bit of rounding:
24>35>50>85>135>200>300



Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 16