August 29, 2014, 08:10:09 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 - Krob78

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 86
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: June 28, 2013, 11:00:04 AM »
I do a lot of city shots at night, I can tell you that the 17-40 has the best flare control of any lens I've ever used. Both for controlling artifacts and veiling flare. If your looking for resolution mostly, I'd look at the Tokina 16-28. I tried the 16-35 II and found it wasn't as good in contra light as the 17-40 and not as sharp as the Tokina, but it was second best at both.
I'd look at the Tokina 16-28.
Mine just came in yesterday, virtually worthless at f/2.8 for anything sharp.  Also, focus motor is quite loud.  I can live with that but when focussing from wide to narrow or visa versa, there is almost a grinding sound!  Doesn't sound good at all, I can only picture little pieces of plastic or metal being ground down inside the lens body!  The terrible sharpness at f/2.8 and the grinding noise will win this Tokina a place in the return mail!  I will let them send me a new copy as I noticed the barrel distortion was really slight, even wide open at 16mm.  That part was pretty impressive. 

If the new copy fixes the sharpness issue at f/2.8 and the grinding sound coming from the AF, I'll keep it.  If not, I'll be sending it back and moving toward the Canon ef 16-35 f/2.8 II. 

Also, the Tokina lens is very heavy.  I have a lot of heavy lenses but this one seems very heavy for it's relatively small size... I'll have it mostly on a tripod so that won't matter to much to me...

The vignetting was fairly normal to heavy at f/2.8 but it was extremely minimal at f/4.0 and above.  Very pleased with that.  CA was the same, very well under control...  Hopefully, given the sharpness issue and the grinding, I just got an ill copy...

I can add the filter system to it and still be well under the cost of the EF 16-35mm II

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 28, 2013, 10:50:24 AM »
It's been a while since I've posted.  I photographed this egret yesterday at Dana Point, Ca.  5D iii, 100-400 F 4-5.6 @400 mm, ISO 640, F8 @ 1/8000.  Cropped, and that's about it.
Great image Steve!  Thought I was in the 1dx forum for a minute there...  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List
« on: June 28, 2013, 10:48:04 AM »
I suppose the only thing MORE worthless than DxOmark's sensor scores, are their lens scores.  Absolutely worthless.
How can you say that? DXO scores the 50f1.8 higher than the 600f4.0 so it MUST be a better lens........ (Huge sarcasm tag inserted here)

DxO measures the ability of a lens to deliver a quality image. To whit, the 50/1.8 can deliver a higher quality image for than the 600/4.0. Both lenses can be good lenses and deliver exceptional IQ but it is perfectly ok for one lens (even a cheaper lens) to be better than the other for a given purpose.

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it is bad or low quality, similarly, just because something is expensive doesn't make it high quality.
here, here!  +1

EOS Bodies / Re: Pick between two options for the Canon 7D II
« on: June 28, 2013, 10:44:10 AM »
I don't like those options at all.

ISO 6400 is not really usable on 5D3, so on 7D2? Not gonna happen... I guess this comes down to the definition of "usable". My shooting style is to avoid high ISOs especially when it's dark.

Then the slow burst rate combined with the higher mega pickles... What's the point? Well, if it's a macro only camera then yeah, I'd go with this options just to get more room for additional cropping.

Megapickles? ROFL. Best typo ever.

Why do you say 5d3 not usable at 6400...there's been some truly awesome example online at even 12800 (or am i thinking the 6d?)

I've had no issues with my 5d mkIII shooting very usable images at iso 6400 and highter...

I like mega pickles too...but as to the best typo, go check the 70d spec topic...feature number 3!

the OP edited the typo out, but it is preserved via insert quote  ;D

My 2cents for 7D II:

1. 1D X AF system
2. 10fps
3. Solid body, similiar to 5D III
3. wife etc
4. ISO same as rumor 70D or a bit better
5. Sensor technology same as 1D X  or 5D III - crop size with Dual DIGIC 5+ Image Processors
6. More poweful battery

Wow, that's quite a feature...   ;D
Will this "feature" be the same in all continents or they will be variations depending whether the model is sold, like Japan, EU or USA?    ;D  ;D  ;D

(Just like Kiss/Rebel/ etc...)
Could be the new feature make cause some folks to order their new cameras as "grey market"...  :D

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Spec List [CR3]
« on: June 28, 2013, 10:42:24 AM »
7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia

Wow really expensive, here in France we can buy a new one for 1100€...
I think he was saying the new 7D, meaning when they first came out...
New 7D had a price tag of 1699EUR in Slovenia
Note that he stated: "HAD" not has...   But I can't be sure... ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 8D?
« on: June 28, 2013, 10:37:37 AM »
What about Canon 8D?


if 8D is "kitted" with 18-55 lens, then it´s not the 7DII replacement.
8d would suggest a lesser camera than the 7d not a better replacement, according to the Canon numbering scheme... The better camera's have lower numbers in the XD line.  The water seems to get a bit blurry between the 7d and 6d as one is ff and the other is aps-c.  That's the one thing that's a bit difficult to comprehend... 

The xxd line is the opposite with the numbers going up ie: 20d, 30d, 40d, 50d, etc.  So the 7d sits interestingly somewhat by itself with regard to all that...

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:05:43 PM »

Wasp on flower by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

Right place right time. Was shooting this flower in my garden and the wasp landed on it, shot a few frames and off it flew. Bright sunlight, to freeze the action and enough depth of field 1/1600sec F9 meant ISO5000!!!!! Straight out of the camera look how useable that is! Its ridiculous. 5DMKIII with 100mm macro L
That's sweet Tom!

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:03:49 PM »
Thanks guys for the funny comments on the shot ;-)

It was shot with a MarkIII at ISO3200, 85mm, f/2 and quite a big crop.

I have a bunch of other shots from this series :

deeper par Eneade, sur Flickr

misty ride par Eneade, sur Flickr

luminous crosswalk par Eneade, sur Flickr

fly me to India par Eneade, sur Flickr

All the shots with the 5D Mark III + EF85 mm f/1.8 and up to ISO 8000.
Quite lovely and inspiring images Eneade!

Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: June 27, 2013, 09:01:19 PM »
YES! THIS! I'm noticing it on the 16-35. On close subjects it seems OK, but on landscape shots at infinity (or far away focus) I can't seem to get past the blurry/hazy extreme corners...I almost thought the lens was defective, actually, until I examined some of the shots I took at closer distance....weird.

Interestingly, and I admit my knowledge is limited on this, lens resolution/performance can vary with focusing/subject distance, and annoyingly this factor is rarely mentioned or tested by many lens testing sites. My 17-40 and EF-S 10-22 are both similar in this regard on the 7D, at close distances even to the edges of the frame the sharpness is pretty good, but for infinity subjects at the corner of the frame it's a different matter. Obviously, factors such as CA, field curvature and astigmatism have a part to play, and resolving fine detail on small and distant subjects is always going to be a bigger test of a lens than closer subjects.
It's always going to be better on an APS-C body like the 7D over a full frame body...

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 27, 2013, 08:55:10 PM »
The octopus tree in my yard is starting to bloom and attracting some birds and bees. I climbed up a step ladder to shoot a few common waxbills this afternoon. They are very skittish and move very fast. The shutter firing on my 7D is loud enough to often make them fly off until they start to accept it. They are often so fast, that take off at shutter sound makes them a blur. They are quite small and average about 3-4 inches in length. 7D, 100-400mmL @ 400mm, 1/640s, F/6.3, ISO 125 and 400.

From Wikipedia:
The Common Waxbill (Estrilda astrild), also known as the St Helena Waxbill, is a small passerine bird belonging to the estrildid finch family. It is native to sub-Saharan Africa but has been introduced to many other regions of the world and now has an estimated global extent of occurrence of 10,000,000 km². It is popular and easy to keep in captivity.There are about 17 subspecies distributed widely across much of Africa south of the Sahara. They are present in most parts of East, Central and Southern Africa.Birds have often escaped from captivity or been deliberately released. Breeding populations have become established in many places where the climate is sufficiently warm and where there is a sufficient supply of grass seeds. They are now found on many islands around Africa: Saint Helena, Ascension Island, the Cape Verde Islands, São Tomé and Príncipe, Mauritius, Réunion, Rodrigues, the Seychelles and Ile Amsterdam. They may possibly be native on some of these islands. In Europe the Common Waxbill has become widespread in Portugal and is spreading through Spain. There are small populations on Madeira and Gran Canaria and it has recently appeared on Tenerife and the Azores. In the Americas waxbills are found in Trinidad, several parts of Brazil and there are a few on Bermuda. In the Pacific there are populations on New Caledonia, Efate Island in Vanuatu, Tahiti and the Hawaiian Islands.
They are quite remarkable looking birds Serendipity!  Thanks for posting them, very nice!

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 27, 2013, 08:52:54 PM »

Looks like a spot of blood on his bill... I like that!  8)

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 27, 2013, 08:51:15 PM »
My contribution to the "birds with fish" thread.
Common Tern catching a fish, then hanging out on the beach waiting for me to leave so she cam feed her hungry chicks waiting in the dunes.  (Martha's Vineyard)

and since folks have been asking for exif data:

Exposure Program: Shutter priority
Exposure Time: 1/1600
FNumber: 6.3
Focal Length: 400
ISO Speed Ratings: 250
Lens Model: EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Canon 60D

Exposure Program: Shutter priority
Exposure Time: 1/1250
FNumber: 6.3
Focal Length: 400
ISO Speed Ratings: 250

Exposure Program: Shutter priority
Exposure Time: 1/1250
FNumber: 5.6
Focal Length: 125
ISO Speed Ratings: 250
Catching the "not often seen" chicks was a great addition to these images, Islander!

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 27, 2013, 08:49:15 PM »
And finally, while I was up the ladder this afternoon shooting the waxbills, my Brazilian Cardinal friend landed in the octopus tree a few feet from me begging for another bread handout (even though I had already given him a whole slice just 30 minutes earlier). So I got down and gave him more.
7D, 100-400mmL @ 310mm, F/6.3, ISO 100, 1/1000s and 1/2000 s.
Very nice!  Beautiful bird!

EOS Bodies / Re: Pick between two options for the Canon 7D II
« on: June 27, 2013, 08:46:51 PM »
After seeing the specs on the new 70D, there seems to be mounting hope that the 7D MkII is going to be an awesome upgrade from the first 7d version... I think it's so!

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 86