September 01, 2014, 11:11:39 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 - TexPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 60
481
Canon General / Re: Taking DSLRs into olympic venues
« on: August 06, 2012, 11:24:55 PM »
Reading this I was thinking about the use of a tele-converter.  Would a security Guard know what it was? What it does? 

And then a few minutes later as I watched, and they scanned the crowd at a track event I spotted a guy with a Canon DSLR, and a 2X converter, (tan).  Attached to that appears to be a smaller off brand converter.  I think Kenko 2X, and then a 50mm f1.4.  That would give a less than stellar quality 200mm f5.6.  But it's not that big, does not look pro, and says 50mm right on it.

482
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon Fisheye EF 8-15mm f/4L USM
« on: August 05, 2012, 11:57:16 PM »

Untitled by TexPhoto, on Flickr


Untitled by TexPhoto, on Flickr

483
I think this comes down to do you want to impress your friends with your hand holding ability :D, or do you want to impress your friends with your tack sharp photos? :o

484
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this a good time to buy 1D X?
« on: August 04, 2012, 04:48:25 PM »
It is not a good time to buy. 

1. It's new, hard to find, priced at it retail, likely as high as it ever will be.  Let them work the bugs out, and let the price fall a little.

2. You don't need this camera at your stage.  i am not one of those people who think you need a manual film 35mm to start, because 40 years ago thats what they had.  But I am one of those people who knows the difference between a photographer, and a gear collector.  And when i read your post I think, gear collector.  Do you talk more about your gear, or your photographs? Think about it.

You don't need a 2nd body, but if you must, get yourself a 7D.  Shoot some sports, and other things that benefit from the high speed shutter, etc.


485
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 3rd Party ... Bodies??
« on: July 27, 2012, 01:26:23 AM »
Every time Sigma makes a Lens with a Canon mount, they pay Canon a fee. (and Nikon, Pentax, etc) Canon owns the EOS mount.  Both sides of it.  So Sigma can't make cameras that take Canon lenses unless Canon agrees to it, and so far, they don't.

Not that I'm against the idea, I love it.  The 4/3 concept, one mount all makers, is awesome, but failing...

486
Lenses / Re: Best lense for bird shots
« on: July 24, 2012, 09:51:02 PM »
If the 70-200 is your main lens, the one on your camera 50% or more of the time, trade up to the 2.8 IS II.  If not, keep the f4.

Both are tremendous lenses.  The weight of the f2.8 is 50lbs if it's in your camera bag and not being used.  In your hands at the football game, shooting the model, its feather light.

For the cost of the upgrade you could probably buy the 8-15 fisheye zoom, or some other exotic glass, so choose carefully.

487
I say 1 point 4, and encourage others to do so.  I think a related question is of you call f1.4 a big or a small aperture.  I call it big (The aperture inside is adjusted to make a BIG hole) f22 is small.  Some people say 1.4 is small because the number itself is small. ???  This drives me nuts.

488
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 14, 2012, 07:17:05 PM »
I really prefer to not use a head when I use my 400mm 2.8 IS MK I on a monopod.  The head is just a wobble point and a little more weight.  You twist the camera to vertical in the  tripod collar.

IS is awesome on this lens, and if you think you don't need it because you'll be on a tripod, you are wrong.  Lenses of this size and focal length wobble on the heaviest and most expensive tripod.  If your shooting in bright daylight at 4000 sec, no you don't need it, but I shoot night sports and trust me IS makes a big difference.

489
EOS Bodies / Re: Joystick issue 5d mk iii
« on: July 12, 2012, 08:33:50 AM »
Mine popped off, but I did not loose it. I was able to put it back, but the rubber weather seal is not in the right place, and of course it could pop off again.

490
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Nikon 500mm f/8 Reflex
« on: July 03, 2012, 07:05:24 PM »
With my 400mm f2.8 I use a ballhead and Wimberly sidekick.  I really like this setup because it so quickly converts from a full gimbal head to a ball head for shooting with shorter lenses.

491
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:08:34 PM »
CPS will fix it for a number of years after it goes out of production, though i don't know how many years that is.  And of course other shops will fix it long after that if they can find parts.

492
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:33:34 AM »
One thing that you may want to check into is the compatibility of the 400 f2.8 MkI and the 2x MkIII converter. Unless I am reading the 2x MkIII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/0300004658/01/extender-ef-2x-iii-en.pdf) wrong, it says "Using an Extender with this lens may result in incorrect autofocus." The 2x MkII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003490/01/extenderef2xii-en.pdf) contains no such warning.

eli72,

You are absolutely correct in the information you posted.  Thanks.

I have The Mark I IS lens and extender III (1.4X and 2X).  They work great together.

Note, there was a Mark I and Mark II version of this lens before the IS versions.  I assume your talking about the mark I IS lens because you said 5 years old...  Also, The "Mark I" is only called that because the mark II is called/labeled a Mark II.  The Mark I does not say Mark I on it. 

493
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 30, 2012, 09:54:33 PM »

IMG_3192 by TexPhoto, on Flickr


IMG_4038 by TexPhoto, on Flickr

494
Third Party Lenses (Sigma, Tamron, etc.) / Re: Nikon 500mm f/8 Reflex
« on: June 28, 2012, 10:21:17 PM »
Every now and then i am tempted to buy a 600mm Sigma f8. 

495
Thanks for your reply. As I mentioned previously, I am not looking to sell to the US, as I will be travelling to the UK for work, but most importantly from my research I discovered that they are much more expensive than in the US. I believe new they are around £ 3,600 or US$ 5,600 and nobody - or very few - have stock.

He's an idea: Buy 1 and.... take photos with it.

That's very clever, well done. Here's a sweet.

And thanks for your reply to me. 

$5000 in the U.S + 17.5% Vat = $5875, so at $5600, they are cheaper in the UK, unless you are evading taxes.  And that's what your asking here correct?  How to illegally avoid the taxes that will kill your profits?  You could hand carry two, and mail the boxes to yourself.  No VAT on empty boxes as far as I know.



Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 60