March 01, 2015, 10:16:44 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 - romanr74

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Photography Technique / Re: How to frame a good bird/animal shot
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:58:39 AM »
Here is my wife's thought. The tree to the right has to go, once you do that it s just about balancing the negative space and your first version is very close to hers.

to me this is way too tight. isn't the bird heading for the tree where his nest is? then i think it is imperative that the tree is part of the crop. i don't think people want to look at a tightly cropped bird with not story, but maybe at a bird which is approaching his nest, but then you have to have the context in the picture. at least that's my opinion.

In many cases I agree, in this specific case the tree is out of focus due to the DOF and there is no obvious branch, nest, or point of interest that the bird is heading towards. It also touches on other key compositional tenets, light and shade, and colour. The tree is much brighter than anything else in the frame, your eye can't help but keep going back to the tree, which is not the focus of the image, same with the colour, the tree colour is much warmer than anything else in the frame so again your eye gets drawn to it.

Do this simple trick, defocus your eyes* such that the bird blends into the background and see what your brain takes as the point of focus. It will be the tree. The tree is not the subject so the tree is detracting from what is, therefore it has to go in this specific instance.


*I find nearly closing my eyelids is the best way of doing this though some people can actually defocus their eyes.

the we seem to be unable to make this a really interesting shot...

2
Photography Technique / Re: How to frame a good bird/animal shot
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:14:06 AM »
Here is my wife's thought. The tree to the right has to go, once you do that it s just about balancing the negative space and your first version is very close to hers.

to me this is way too tight. isn't the bird heading for the tree where his nest is? then i think it is imperative that the tree is part of the crop. i don't think people want to look at a tightly cropped bird with not story, but maybe at a bird which is approaching his nest, but then you have to have the context in the picture. at least that's my opinion.

3
Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: February 03, 2015, 02:20:36 AM »
I'd be intersted in seeing a wider-than-16mm CPL example (for my personal education) if someone has one to share...

4
Lenses / Re: EF 11-24 f/4L USM Specifications
« on: January 30, 2015, 10:20:12 AM »
i'm in love

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 08:19:01 AM »
i cannot work like that: when already i have to live with a lousy 50mp, then i need at least a 15fps burst rate with 409'600 iso. built in flash? swivel-screen? face-recognition? children birthday mode? white paint? hellooooooooooo!!!???

6
When I forst got into TS-E I utilized: http://www.oopoomoo.com/, they have many tutorials and there ebook on TS-E lenses is one of the best out there. I own the 24mm TS-E lens and it hardly ever leaves my camera.

I also found the oopoomoo guide very good and quite exhaustive on different use cases of a tilt-shift lens.

7
Lenses / Re: Advice - what to take to Europe
« on: January 23, 2015, 09:48:12 AM »
I'm living in this Europe place and there is no way I'd visit any city without bringing the 16-35mm (or in my case the TS-E 17mm) and the 24-70mm. I usually leave the 70-200mm at home for city trips.

8
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:13:22 PM »
I wanna see this baby....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come to papa :-) !

9
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:25:24 AM »
honestly, imo, if the IQ is matching the latest releases, this is a dream come true! I dont know how often i've really used f/2.8 with my 16-35 unless if it was for indoor architecture shots to shorten exposure time (where you would want to use a tripod anyway if you want to be serious about it). I am not stopping down action.

10
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 11:18:45 AM »
Before we burn the barns in indignation lets get a couple of things clear:
  • The Nikon 12-24 is a crop camera only coverage lens, a $1,099 crop camera only lens that doesn't do the "ultra wide" job half as well as the Canon 10-22 EF-s and that costs $599.
  • The Nikon 14-24 is a FF ultra wide that costs $1,999. And those that herald it's all conquering capabilities probably haven't actually used it, yes it is much better than the Canon 16-35 f2.8 in the corners etc, but the 17 TS-E is a much better corrected lens for resolution, distortion and CA.
  • The 17 TS-E has a coverage of 11mm if you do a horizontal stitch, the projection distortion from an 11mm to rectilinear on ff is pretty bad, virtually unusable most of the time.


Whilst I don't see 14mm as being a hard limit for ff rectilinear lenses, 11mm is beyond extreme, at these focal lengths a couple of mm makes a huge difference. The 16-35 f4 IS has confirmed Canon can make fine ultra wide zooms, but where is the market for an 11-24 f4 next to that 16-35 f4 IS? If it was f2.8 I'd probably buy it, but my most used lens is the 17 TS-E anyway so it would be a nice compliment to that, at f4 I can stitch the 17 to get 11 on the very rare occasions I need the fov. The 16-35 f4 IS appeals, but it has limited utility for me over the 17 TS-E.

I can see the market for an f2.8 ultra wide zoom to compliment the 16-35 f4 IS, and the kudos of going wider than the 14-24, I am sure Canon would like the title of widest ff rectilinear lens back too, but the Sigma 12-24 is an f4 so even a 12-24 f2.8 would give Canon the fastest widest ever (so far)........

I would expect a 11-24 f/4 to have much better image quality in the corners compared to a fully shifted TS-E 17. I love the TS-E 17 but when shifted IQ takes quite a hit in the corners...

11
I'm honestly sick and tried of comments like "were made of metal as they should be" or "should always be made of metal"...

12
Awesome...

13
Animal Kingdom / Re: Lizards
« on: June 09, 2014, 01:52:16 PM »
Calotes Versicolor, pictures taken at the Andaman sea...

14
16-35 f2.8II was the first lens I ever bought when I got into photography again after 15 years. I was very excited that I had bought (without reading any reviews) a great Canon lens. It was expensive. And then reality hit hard after I took my first few pictures. I could not believe how bad the corners were. Then I slowly realized it was a bad lens and got rid of it. Attached is the photo which I took. Hated the corner sharpness.

Now I have the Zeiss 15mm and 35mm. Canon 24-70 II. But I think this new lens is very tempting.

I love the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the creative possibilities it provides but full agree with the corner image quality comment and share the same frustration - see bottom left corner in the picture below. I like doing inside architectural work where I've recently tried to use the TS-E 17mm f/4 instead of the 16-35 f/2.8 II. For this I consider the new 16-35 f/4 with a 4-stop IS superior over the 16-35 f/2.8 II - even more so if the corner quality is as good as the MTF charts suggest.

15
Lenses / Re: New TS-E Lenses for Photokina [CR2]
« on: April 21, 2014, 02:36:56 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 4