Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: May 20, 2013, 05:47:08 PM »

have I said anything else?

yes all the time

2

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: May 20, 2013, 12:23:59 PM »

well  you are wrong about high iso, if you shall have the same results from 1dx and D4 and brightness in the images you have to expose the Canon more/richer/longer  than Nikon, so overall there is no difference in high iso between the two cameras if you look at the raw file regarding signal /noise. About DR and low iso, base iso the 1dx has no chance against D4 due the signal/noise, go out and try d4 and 1dx side by side at high iso and you know/ se  what Im is talking about "real life shooting as some people called it"

since you only seem to like stuff originally writen in Swedish you might like to look at this

"If we score the cameras would 1D X to get a little higher total than the D4. It can be anything that a D4 may, but is a bit faster, the autofocus is a little rapper and you get a little more detailed images. The difference is not great, but pretty easy to see and feel when running the cameras side by side."

http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fcldoc%2Fvi-har-provat-canon-ef-200.htm&act=url

The funny thing is its from a link you gave 

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Canon 5D Mark III

« on: May 20, 2013, 12:14:22 PM »

Welcome to CR, and congratulations on a great camera, hope you have as much fun with yours as I do with mine.

Congrats on the new toy!

Congratulations on your new camera. The 5D Mark III is the best DSRL today.

I love my MKIII as much as the next guy, but it's only the best DSLR today for people - like me - who can't afford a 1DX.

Don't be too sure. I am really lucky I have both and I think I probably use the 5D3 more. The 1Dx is fantastic and can do what the 5D3 can and more, except the number of pixels but either have plenty for me. BUT the 5D3 is a lot lighter and smaller that has its benefits. I bought the 5D3 after the 1Dx because I saw the improvement in IQ over the 7D and found I was never using the 7D that I had kept as a backup. The loss of the crop factor is completely offset by the better IQ and the improved focus accuracy, being FF etc etc all help. But its the IQ that gets me every time and there's not much wrong with the 5D3.

4

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 20, 2013, 09:07:26 AM »

This bear was staring int this stream looking for salmon, I liked the way the light was coming from the side and a bit behind him.

300mm f2.8 1/1000 sec iso1250

For those who would like to know, this is a composite of 2 exposures of the bear. Underexposed by 1.3 stops in camera then a further -1 stops in one image blended with a -3 stop image. The original is portrait orientation and height of the frame is almost full frame. I wanted a bit more river bed for it to "look into" so I added that from another image. (The stream bed shot has a spirit bear standing on the same log but this one has more impact.)

It was quiet an experience being this close to a wild bear, and this one had a bit of an attitude that made me a bit nervous.

edited for typo.

5

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 20, 2013, 08:00:16 AM »

They were approaching a waterhole. They were thirsty and walked very fast.

That's a really nice shot, you can feel the dust and the heat and imagine the impatience of the herd.

6

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 20, 2013, 07:49:11 AM »

I like it. The deeper contrast on the barbed wire definitely looks better.

(Note: Although I suspect you could have achieved the same thing (and with less noise) by exposing to the right, and correcting in post. Contrast of a RAW is really all about the default tone curve...fundamentally, digital sensors are nearly linear devices (there might be some slight attenuation due to the electronics). You never really lose anything with ETTR in a digital camera, and you'll always improve your SNR (and thus, reduce noise.) Think of a raw image more as a digital signal than as an image...it is very fluid and flexible in post.)

Glad you liked it, thanks.

I probably didn't make it clear, the original under exposure was not intentional. (were has the little embarrassed face gone when you need it) (I had not reset the camera from the shot before) I choose that shot over others almost identical with more exposure because I liked the "grain", "texture", "noise" or any name it's given. There was minimal noise reduction in PP just LR4 standard settings, if anything the bit of clarity, vibrancy and hint of sharpening all will have increased the noise. I liked the effect as I thought it added something to the image. I only mentioned it to explain why it looked like it did, not to say I couldn't get rid of the noise.

I'm happy with the expose to the right idea, though I seldom use it. Normally I'm thinking of the highlights and what I want to achieve with them and I expose as much as I can with them in mind.

Although I have a very technical background I think of my photograph as a way of producing images not photographs. I often find my most interesting shots, from my perspective, are not the most technically "correct" but ones that give a feel of the real world rather than a studio look.

7

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 19, 2013, 05:42:20 PM »

Nice picture !, if you got any more where those came from don't hesitate to put em here:)

Thanks glad you liked it.

I don't use this combination every day, but I was out with it again today. Just in the last few moments of daylight some red deer were in the sun and I took this shot hand held @ 1/320 sec. The head is a crop of the main shot to show just how good this combination can be.

8

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 18, 2013, 05:14:01 AM »

Yes the 300/2.8mk2  from  canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements

and much more importantly it works well when you use it to take real photographs. 

Had a good time with mine today.

Do you use it with the 2x converter at times?

Also im close to ordering the 500 lens foot to put on the 300 for comfort!, i hope that it will fit....
Since the 500 comes with both a small and big foot , and the small one looks identical to the 300 foot I am kinda anticipating it will!

Will provide a bit more comfort for handholding with my hands

I use the 2x TC MKIII and find it very good indeed, that's what I was using today.

here is a shot taken yesterday with mkII 300 f2.8 and mkIII 2x TC. i underexposed by 1 stop that i pulled back in PP. It was overcast and raining but i was looking for a gritty look to match the wire.

9

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 07:30:30 PM »

Yes the 300/2.8mk2  from  canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements

and much more importantly it works well when you use it to take real photographs. 

Had a good time with mine today.

Do you use it with the 2x converter at times?

Also im close to ordering the 500 lens foot to put on the 300 for comfort!, i hope that it will fit....
Since the 500 comes with both a small and big foot , and the small one looks identical to the 300 foot I am kinda anticipating it will!

Will provide a bit more comfort for handholding with my hands

I use the 2x TC MKIII and find it very good indeed, that's what I was using today.

10

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 06:45:46 PM »

Yes the 300/2.8mk2  from  canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements

and much more importantly it works well when you use it to take real photographs. 

Had a good time with mine today.

11

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 01:58:25 PM »

Luckily we have ankorwatt to correct Nikon's statements

Mmm, yes...such an extremely lucky happenstance...

And we are so lucky that he has time to correct us as well.

12

Lenses / Re: my new 24-105

« on: May 16, 2013, 02:01:16 AM »

i have just bought myself a new 24-105mm lens and was thinking of buying the Lens Extension Tube EF 12 II and was wondering how much difference this will make etc; how close i can expect to get before the picture goes blurry im sorry if this is a stupid question im new to photography

Extension tubes work just fine with that lens. I would recommend getting a set rather than just one so you have more choice. There are many cheap sets out there. As long as they work with AF they should be fine. But you will MF or live view focus much of the time anyway.

I seem to remember the max focus distance will be the focal length over the ET length.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III focus points off center

« on: May 15, 2013, 04:45:06 PM »

Thank you guys for explaining! I guess I can just cancel the scheduled repair then.

I've been away since my initial reply, work getting in the way again. 

As others have said the focus in live view is completely independent of "normal" focus, they are different systems.

One point that has not been mentioned is that when focusing using live view you can move the focus area! Also the size of the focus area changes! You can move the focus point with the joy stick and zoom in with the zoom button. Sometimes in live view if you can't focus at one zoom setting then you can with another.

Live view focus is normally more accurate and much slower. (Although the 5D3 has really good focus so there is not so much difference.)

Hope this helps.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III focus points off center

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:00:41 AM »

Interesting observation, how have you determined that the smaller focus points don't hit the target? Have you done some tests? I'd like to check my 5d3.

I know the focus points shown are never supposed to be actual focus area, but just an indication. I would expect them to be pretty close. Are you finding you can't focus on what you want to get spot on?

15

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 01:36:41 PM »

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

If there was a problem with fluorite cracking in lenses or being susceptible to heat that might be a valid point. There isn't, they aren't and it isn't.

We all know you are very anti Canon, but try to be a bit more "in the real world"  The reality of the situation is that both Nikon and Canon make superb systems and any decent photographer would be able to take good pictures with either.