August 01, 2014, 07:53:51 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 - bvukich

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 46
31
Landscape / Re: Stars...how to focus in pitch black...
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:33:52 AM »
i tried some star shots over the weekend with limited results, see two pictures. These were taken with 5DMKIII, 24-105, tripod and 30 sec exposure, 100iso. My questions is how to focus in pitch black :-\ :-\..there is probably a really simple answer about this but i struggled to get any infocus. any advice, suggestions would be great as i want to try again...and hopefully get  better pic's

The hyperfocal distance at 24mm f/4 is only 15.8 ft, so (greatly simplified) if you focus on anything farther than that, everything behind it will be in focus.  If you have foreground elements you want in focus, as long as they are farther away than that, just focus on them and the stars will be fine.

If you're only worried about the stars, then what I'll usually do is set the lens to infinity, and then back it off just a tiny bit.  Take a test shot, and check for sharpness at 100%.

32
Landscape / Re: Stars...how to focus in pitch black...
« on: September 27, 2013, 02:23:47 AM »
I don't know if 30 seconds is long enough to matter but at some point the (relative) movement of the stars will make them look soft focused or not.

Jim

The rule of thumb to get star pictures without trails is to divide 600 by the focal length, and use that in seconds for your shutter speed.  e.g. 600/24mm=25sec

33
Lighting / Re: Cheap manual flash to use for fill lighting...
« on: September 19, 2013, 11:51:31 AM »
I don't understand where the ND filter comes in.

He wants to shoot his 85/1.8 wide open.  To keep the shutter speed below xsync, in many situations, he'd need an ND filter to achieve this.

34
Site Information / Re: Banning ankorwatt
« on: September 04, 2013, 07:17:11 PM »
In the end, the people running the show/forum have (should have) right to decide what kind of platform they want to provide. If you don,t like it........

well thats really it.  Craig is running a business, not a social justice advocacy program. This means success is measured, among other things, by the revenue stream generated by such things as google adsense for example.  It means Craig sets the rules and operates the site in a way that meets his business/personal/whatever goals.  canonrumors.com has a marketable product -- exposure to an audience of photographers who buy stuff.  Advertizers pay money for exposure on the site because its their business to expose their products to an audience they believe is attractive.  Advertizers won't pay money for exposure on a site that doesn't have an attractive potential customer base.  If craig does not manage the forum in a way that provides that attractive audience for his advertizers,  he looses money.

based on the ads that I see, the way they are presented, and from what little I know of google adsense and the various resources out there that analize site traffic and estimate worth, I'd say Craig  you must have a attractive revenue stream that has taken you 6 years or so to develop.   good for you and hurray for capitalism. 

Managing the forum is simply carying out the interests of the site, a task which I imagine is not always peaches and cream.

Actually, it's simpler than that all around.  This site was never started as a revenue stream, and I believe self supporting (financially) is the only goal of that sort.  This site exists because of a personal interest of Craig's, and the desire to provide a community for people that share that interest.

And you're over-thinking the culling of undesirables to cultivate a desirable marketing base.  No profanity, no personal attacks (and obviously no spam).  That's really where it begins and ends.  Everyone that can play by those very simple rules is welcome and wanted.  All skill levels, all experience levels, etc.

35
P.S....  Subscribed... Ole!

36
Disclaimer: I know nothing about video...

Since your voice is the most important thing, I would get a mic on you.  It would save us from having to listen to the compressor on your refrigerator as well.

Great video though, I'm about 10 minutes in, and getting really hungry :D

37
Site Information / Re: Banning ankorwatt
« on: September 04, 2013, 01:36:03 AM »
I mostly read the updates on the latest cameras, lenses and firmware but I've often wondered if people find another person annoying then why respond to them in the first place? The back and forth attacks between ankorwatt and others seemed to go on forever, why not just ignore the other poster and move on? Clearly it is obvious that people are expecting reactions so they wait and wait until they receive a response thus thinking they are validated. It is all pretty immature, really.

I agree completely.  You feed a troll and it only becomes more persistent.  That is why I mentioned the behavior of other members; they also crossed the line, but I'm hoping by removing the prime instigator, that all the users that are normally good members of this community will return to "normal" and no further warnings or bans will need to be issued.

38
Site Information / Re: Banning ankorwatt
« on: September 04, 2013, 01:29:45 AM »
Trust me, it was his behavior alone (the worst of which has been removed and/or edited by mods as it happened) that got him banned.  He has been warned too many times to count, had temporary bans several times, and had his previous account permanently banned.  We gave him more chances than most users would get because we hoped he could tone it down and become a good member of this community.

Anything mentioning the behavior of others was purely editorializing by myself.

He is a professional photographer with many years of experience, and we paid undue respect to the knowledge that we hoped he could bring to this forum, but at the end of the day the endless bickering and fighting just wasn't worth it.  I know for a fact we've lost other forum members because of his bad behavior, and dozens of others complain constantly about him.  But that's not to say he was "voted off the island"...  The mods have had discussions going back to at least February about what to do with him, and this wasn't an easy decision to make.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D vs D7100 ISO Comparison at 100%
« on: September 03, 2013, 10:23:31 PM »
Mikael, you are hereby banned for life.  Don't make a new account, don't come back.  You will be noticed, and we're not going to give you another chance.

You are knowledgeable and and can bring a much needed voice of dissent at times, and because of that we regret doing this, but you bring out the worst in everyone here, and your behavior can no longer be tolerated.

EVERYONE ELSE....

Your behavior in this thread has been no better.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Act like adults, and have civil discussions.

40
Technical Support / Re: Using IR function in Yongnuo 622's
« on: September 03, 2013, 07:28:43 PM »
ok,  problem solved.  I  had the right settings within the camera menu,  but I did have a ai  servo on.   thanks for the help y'all.

Awesome, glad you got it sorted.

41
Lenses / Re: De-centered 17-40L - worth repairing?
« on: September 03, 2013, 10:32:15 AM »
Are you a CPS member?  It may not be that expensive to fix.

42
Technical Support / Re: Using IR function in Yongnuo 622's
« on: August 28, 2013, 10:14:11 AM »
Quick note, not sure if it applies in your case...

I assume you're talking about the focus assist beam, which turns off automatically if you're in servo AF.  Like I said... not sure if it applies in your case, just thought I'd throw that out there since many people don't know that.

43
Lenses / Re: New Lens Announcement Tonight [CR3]
« on: August 22, 2013, 12:53:25 AM »

And no, the existing lens isn't quite in the same league optically or even close in build to most L lenses, though it is optically among "the best of the rest". However, if the optics truly are improved (which was the point of my original post), it will make it hard for most casual or even fairly serious crop users to justify kicking up to the 70-300 L.

When I first got T2i kit with the 18-55, I also bought the 55-250mm 4-5.6 IS lens. It was my first dSLR. I found both lenses to be horrible. I was surprised that Canon would make such bad lenses. The 55-250 is really bad, even my son who is now using the T2i does not want to use it.

If this is really "the best of the rest", then what lenses are worst then the 55-250?

There must be something wrong with that particular 55-250, as not only I, but almost every other user of that lens gets very good results from it. The attached images are resized, but they were also sharp at full resolution (I don't have access to my main image library right now, otherwise I'd post crops...)

I have one I picked up for my kids to use, and it's great for what it is, and for the cost; but in a direct comparison to any of the L lenses, it doesn't hold up.

I like the images you posted, but with the possible exception of the lizard one, they're not very sharp (that being said, they are small, and it's tough to judge).  Which is to be expected of that lens unless stopped down to f8-11 or so.  Bokeh is also really nervous, and AF is slow and tends to hunt.  None of these things make it a bad lens though.  I own one, and it was worth EVERY penny.  But to compare it to the 70-300L or any of the 70-200s and try and say it's a better lens, is just not true.

44
Side note/question... Has anyone had any experience with the cine and non-cine versions of the same lens?  They're optically identical, but is there any build quality improvement on the cine version?

I'm looking at the 14/2.8 and the extra cost for the cine version would be worth it for a focus ring that isn't sloppy.

45
Like it's 16mm f/2 brother, this lens is unfortunately crop only.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 46