October 24, 2014, 09:01:41 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 - bluenoser1993

Pages: 1 [2] 3
I was all set to upgrade my 2009 Mac Book to SSD and RAM, but for not much more ($500) I was able to buy 2012 Mac Air with the SSD, double the RAM as well as newer generation, better screen, and the seller through in an external 500 Mb external HDD.  It opened my eyes to the used market.  It may not be the speed demon I was dreaming about when I looked at the website, but the key is that it is no longer a dream!  Plus my son was the lucky recipient of a computer that wasn't great for Aperture/LR, but far better than he had.  If what you have is useful to someone else (or yourself in other applications), the upgrade money might be better spent elsewhere. 

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Best HDR Software?
« on: February 03, 2014, 12:13:48 PM »
So would it be a choice between LR 5 and the NIK suite, or are both required?  I use Aperture and I'm looking for HDR capability, as well as pano.  In addition to the HDR, is the sharpening and noise reduction that much different as compared to Aperture?  I like the object removal tool of LR, but want a capable HDR program that will do the work I need on the files from PtGui.  Trying to figure out what software I need/want I find I'm going in circles. :-[

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Best HDR Software?
« on: February 03, 2014, 09:29:29 AM »
I'm looking to buy PtGui for the pano aspect, but is it also a capable HDR program?  It is advertised as HDR stitching software, but video tutorials I've watched seem to use a work flow that is about blend plains in PtGui, then processing in other software.  Am I missing something before I make the purchase, or is it just a matter of preference and the one program can do the whole thing?

I just got FoCal Pro to run through my lenses on a 7D and the most disappointing part was when I ran out of lenses and tests to run, it is some great software.

The manual states that the QoF numbers are not comparable from lens to lens, but if the lenses are run through back to back with the same lighting, target print, etc, would you you be able to compare your own lenses?  Reason being, I'm looking for my best lens to do some panoramic stitching on an upcoming trip and want to get the best combination of image quality vs number of frames required.  My 35L scored just under 1900 @f5, 24-105 @ 24mm scored just under 1600 @f5, and 10-22 set to 18mm scored about 1430 @ f5.6 and 6.3. (the 10-22 was the biggest beneficiary of FoCal, needing -7 AFMA at both ends of the zoom)

I was leaning toward to 35L before the testing because of best distortion control, but on a 7D I may end up doing two rows of pictures to get enough sky/foreground.  If the numbers above mean anything, then two rows of landscape instead of a single row of portrait on the 35 might be the way to go, but capturing evening light over water the lighting will change quite rapidly near the equator and speed might be more important that ultimate image quality.

I haven't picked the pano software yet, but it looks like they are all pretty good at correcting distortion, but at image quality price I'm sure.  I'm hoping to get at least one large print worthy image of the family sailing vacation.  A location portrait with the family to be found in it somewhere, rather than the typical family shot over the fireplace.

Any advice welcome.


Lenses / Re: Any chance Canon will incorporate 1.4x into Great Whites?
« on: August 19, 2013, 11:58:41 AM »
I think there would have to be some permanent elements to adjust for added distance to the focal plane, then the swing in elements.   

Lenses / Re: Any chance Canon will incorporate 1.4x into Great Whites?
« on: August 18, 2013, 07:16:59 PM »
I agree with the idea of an add on converter that can be switch in and out of the path would be awesome.  Great for slower racing sports, extra reach down the course, and a flick of a lever to get a bit wider at the finish.

EOS-M / Re: How many people actually like the EOS-M?
« on: June 21, 2013, 05:10:57 PM »
My Wife loves hers.  She complained when she tried to use my 7D and commented that she would rather take pictures with her iPhone.  As soon as I heard that comment I knew I had the perfect Christmas present.  Bought it close to full price and don't regret it, as she has taken lots of shots of the kids that I would never have seen otherwise (I work away and would have missed the moments).  We both had our cameras while on vacation this winter and I have to say some of the pictures she got were nicer than what I did.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 13, 2013, 06:08:28 PM »
Thanks rs for the link.  I'm confused because I've been on that site and wasn't able to sellect the 60D for the 70-200 2.8 IS II for some reason.  Don't know if it was due to a bad connection that night or what, but was only able to find a few EF lenses that had the 60D option.

Any way, very informative and it makes me want the 5DIII even more now.  I've always been blown away by the sharpness of the 70-200 on the 7D and can't believe that it can be that much better!  I love it so much I'd say it slots in at number 6 - right behind my wife and 4 kids!  Some days it gets a little higher up the list :)

I really enjoy night time photography - long exposure and hand held - so that is the real motive of the body upgrade.  I also crave extreme clarity in the architectural details of the buildings I shoot in my travels with work.  I understand that the long range shots on the lake won't be great by many standards, using the gear I have, but I just wanted to be sure there was an economical (relative I know) sollution to use with FF body that wouldn't be a down grade to my current "long lens" arrangement.

Thanks to the great responses here, I am comfortable with my plan of going FF.  Now I just need a little more price drop and a good sale on top of that and I should be able to make my wife comfortable with the plan too!  Luckily the 7D is a fine body (except for ISO) and I know the 5DIII will last me many years, so I don't mind waiting a while for the price.

I've been reading this forum for quite a while, but never posted a question before.  Thanks so much to everyone that took the time.  All the responses were helpful.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 12, 2013, 01:59:08 PM »
7DII?  Does anyone really think that it would match the 5DIII IQ and iso, plus be faster?  If it did all that it would have to be priced higher.  While 3 fps setting on the 7D is not fast enough for me sometimes, 9 is more than it needs to be (for me).  So I think the speed of 5D will make me happy.  Now if the 7DII could focus at f8 like the 5D soon will, it might be more tempting, as I will never be able to spend the money on the super teles.  But the noise will have to be gone, as that is one thing I really do dislike on my 7D.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 11, 2013, 10:37:53 PM »
Agierke, to answer your question, the sport is sprint canoe and kayak.  It is a 1000m course, the main lake in the city that is used has a paved walking path/boardwalk down one side.  I sometimes use a sling bag and bicycle to move around the lake and catch candids during practice, but during racing events the kids are still at an age that requires some assistance to make sure they make it to their event, etc, so I'm more restricted to the club for shooting.  The kids generally are only in 250m and 500m events, the finish line is probably an additional 50 - 75 meters from the shore, and our club is located at the finish end of the lake.

I'm embarassed to attached these pictures, but the paddling group is my wife's Masters team practice.  It is at 200mm + 2x and is almost a 100% crop.  It's a terrible picture, I'm on the wrong side of the lake to use the last of the evening sun, but it was part of a sequence to show the group their progress in training.  I've put it here to demonstrate the kind of range I have to work at some times.

The kids at play is a far better use of the 70-200, and the back ground shows the race course that I'm shooting.  The side to the right is where the boardwalk is, but unfortunately you look into the sun most of the afternoon.  There is access to the other side, but moving locations is a little more difficult as there are some private propperties breaking up the shore. 

EDIT:  I didn't realize the EXIF data wouldn't be included, the second picture is at 80mm for reference.  I was at the edge of the water.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 11, 2013, 05:23:45 AM »
I have read plenty of comparisons, and agree that the 5DIII cropped with the same lens combination will net you the same or similar IQ as the 7D uncropped.  However, as I mentioned that when I use the 70-200 + 2X I often have to crop to get the close up image I'm looking for (zooming with feet isn't an option as the target is on a lake).  So I figure cropping the 5DIII is starting to reach the limits when needing to crop the crop, so to speak.  Hence the desire for an economical way to have similar focal length that may have reduced IQ ability, but collected on a better sensor so hopefully similar IQ on the final outcome.

I don't see myself keeping the 7D, as it's a hobby.  Additionaly I find I don't seek reasons to use the wide end of the 10-22 and normally use it between 13-15 and often up to 20.  So on 5D the 24 end of the 24-105 I have will keep me happy for a while.  So selling the 7D, 10-22, plus buying the 5D as a kit and re-selling the 24-105 as I have one already puts a real good dent in the purchase price.  I could even make the move at the end of summer and paddling season, hence wouldn't even need to buy the 300 f4 for another year.

Wicki, if you have the gear to compare the EOSM+70-200+2X vs 5DIII+300 f4+2x that would be awsome and iso 100 would be great as I know it will get lop sided when the iso goes up.  It is very nice of you to offer your time to a stranger!   

Lenses / 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:54:26 PM »
I currently use a 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2xIII with my 7D when the reach is required.  This is maybe 10% of the time I use that lens at most and is why I went that route.  When I do need the equivalent 640mm, it is for shooting my 4 children all involved in water sports (human powered, so focus speed not as much of an issue).  With that range I still need to crop some times, but as I'm a hobbiest the long range superteles are not justified, and stand out to my wife as obviously being very expensive.  Once the kids are at a more competitive level I may rent once in a while for fun. 

I would love to upgrade to a 5DIII this summer, but the 600mm focal length gets very expensive in FF, with the exception of the 300 f4 when I already have the 2xIII.  Virtually everyone on here seems to say once you go 5DIII or 1DX the 7D collects dust.  I could not justify keeping it and would sell it and the only EF-S lens, the 10-22.

Now lots of people love the 300 f4, but it gets bashed when discussing using it with 2x.  However, I think the bashing isn't completely justified, it is being compared to more expensive lenses.  When I compare the ISO 12233 against the Sigma 120-300 2.8 that is 3 times the price, the Sigma is only comparable in the center with or without converters, for example.

On the ISO 12233 charts the 24-105 can be compared between a 60D and FF, the lenses in question can not.  Obviously it is not as sharp on a 60D/7D sensor.

So the question is, even though the 70-200 combination will get the best image to the image circle, will capturing that image on the 7D sensor degrade it enough to be about equal to the 300 f4 combination image captured on the 5DIII sensor.  Equal image at almost equal focal distance, and hence still relatively equal cropping ability.

I'm hoping to benifit from the obvious upgrade for 90% of use without loosing quality at 600 mm with the suggested option.

WOW, that took way more words than I thought it would! 

Looking at the ISO 12233 charts I definately would not buy the Sigma at that price.  The Sigma with no converter still isn't as good as 70-200 2.8 II IS L with 2XIII converter attached.  I use the latter combination on a 7D and like it a lot.  I will admit that my primary use isn't at 400, and that was why I went the way I did, but when the reach is needed it meets my needs. 

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?
« on: January 30, 2013, 07:04:45 AM »
EF 70 - 200 2.8 IS II!!!!!  I read a review on this lens and knew it was the system I needed to go with.  Found a great deal on a used 7D with a 24 - 105 and picked up the 70 - 200 within a month.  Extremely happy, and after a year of getting familiar with DSLR I'm quite happy with my results.  Now I just need to wait a couple years for the 5D3 to become yesterday's news and make the change...

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 11:59:04 AM »
35L is under the tree, and I'm no less excited about it after the CR1 news about version II.  Especially with the sale price that has been on at B&H for the last while.

Pages: 1 [2] 3