February 27, 2015, 08:36:59 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 - joshmurrah

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 27, 2012, 09:55:53 AM »
I'm in the same boat as MangroveHunter, having just bought a 16-35 II. 

I'm going to enjoy what I have, and it also doubles as a standardish-zoom on my 7D for now. 

When I've moved to a two-5D setup (swapping the 7D for a 5D3), I'll probably swap to the 14-24 if it's not astronomically-priced.

Software & Accessories / Re: B+W "Kaesemann" CPL versus regular
« on: December 26, 2012, 04:53:35 PM »
I might have to do that.  I'm a fanatic about re-attaching the cap when it goes back into the bag, so that's a big plus.


My extra-attentive wife noticed I was browsing LensRental's Black Friday sale last month, and went behind me and scored a 16-35 II I was looking at!  I was surprised to say the least.

Software & Accessories / Re: B+W "Kaesemann" CPL versus regular
« on: December 26, 2012, 04:43:11 PM »
Interesting info!

I already bought a 82mm #010 MRC in the slim-line unfortunately...  I would have much prefered a threaded mount, but was concerned about vignetting.

I put the XS-Pro Kaesemann in my wishlist.  I'm all funded out for the time being after buying a 16-35 and 010 filter already tho!

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon 6D - Meike grip on ebay for under $40
« on: December 26, 2012, 11:55:02 AM »
FWIW I've bought several of these (my 7D and 5D2 are rocking them at the moment) from Amazon, under brand names such as "Neewer" and others... they've always been delivered as the Meike grips. 

The Grips are not quite as solid feeling (the doors feel a bit flimsy), but they have always been 100% functionally for me, at only 15-20% of the price.

I have never been an early adopter, I wait until places like Amazon's fullfilment stock them for easy returns "just in case", however I've had a great track record so far.

Software & Accessories / B+W "Kaesemann" CPL versus regular
« on: December 26, 2012, 10:38:29 AM »

I'm looking at a 82mm slim-line CPL for my 16-35II... I bought the Kaesemann last time (77mm size), but questioning paying the extra this time.

Is the moisture-proof foil worth it, what'd you guys go with?

edit: ok it's only $40 extra, not a huge deal.  I'd still like to see what experiences you guys have had.

They're both pretty heavy as far as tripods go... I use the 055 (the wilderness model with spike feet) because I'm 6'0" and prefer the height especially for night skies.  Would either of these fit into a carryon??  I wouldn't think so.  They're big beasts.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

1) Isn't true, almost all L lenses that are weather sealed do not need a filter to seal them, the 16-35 MkI and II and the 17-40 are the most notable exceptions.
3) Works great in theory, until you break the comparatively flimsy filter and rub nice shards of glass on your front element.

There are very good reasons for using filters, and equally valid reasons to not use them, it really is personal preference as lenses have been protected, and ruined, going either way.

I tend to use them in very harsh conditions (I am often in salty spray and sandy conditions) but the rest of the time leave them off as I always use hoods and doing so mitigates many of the reasons people give for using filters.

Good call on point 1, I confirmed your findings.  I guess it was strongly on my mind since I am looking into the 16-35 II, and the reviews point out the moving/breathing/vented front element.  The 70-200 2.8's don't need a filter to be weatherproof.

on #3, a sharp impact really isn't what I'm thinking of, I'm thinking more of small scrapes, dust, speck of mud, fingerprint you left/didn't see, etched onto the glass over time, you name it... I'd rather the filter take that versus the front element... easier to clean, and sacrificial if need-be.l

I do agree that it's small potatoes either way, we're really making a mountain out of a mole-hill, especially if you're already using the lens hood all of the time.

I don't have a 5D3, so can't really comment much, I have a 5D2 and use AEB.

I do have a copy of Photomatix Pro, but I find myself just using Photoshop CS6's built-in HDR instead... it works pretty well and keeps my workflow simpler. 

I usually start with the Saturated preset and tweak the sliders from there.

The alignment/ghosting options work pretty well, but not quite as good as Photomatix... I try to avoid needing to use those options though.

I answered yes.  I put a UV filter on every lens that will take it, and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is no exception.

1)  Most L lenses aren't fully weatherproof without it.
2)  It's easier to clean (flat glass, no ribs/ridges, you're not brushing the front element)
3)  The usual protection reasons... banging it against something, sand/dust, etc.

edited to add:  LOL at the cling wrap response!!

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.4 IS in 2013 [CR2]
« on: December 12, 2012, 03:04:38 PM »
f/1.4 AND IS?  That's kind of a mind-boggling combo.  One of these on a 5D3 would let you shoot a a portrait on a moonless night in Arizona!

I'm racking my brain thinking what this would be good for... if f/1.4 isn't fast enough, won't AF sensitivity be the problem?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 6D Rating by DXOMark
« on: December 12, 2012, 03:01:47 PM »
To be honest.. I really don't like and I Don't believe in this DXO mark website..
They have been paid by Nikon to update and posts all this fake numbers.. bunch of BS!

Many complains over the net:


I chuckled when I realized that you included a parody site in your URLs.  Like you, I don't really use DXOMark in my camera shopping / comparisons since their ratings are... odd... but it was still funny.

Lenses / Re: Canon lens setup for weddings
« on: December 04, 2012, 11:44:37 AM »

I'm tagging along here.

I'm in a similar situation, thinking about what makes up a decent wedding kit, and I have a 7D and 5D2, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 50/1.4+85/1.8 for when I have time to swap.

My thought would be that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II would be on the 5D2, and I'd need to swap to a 16-35 f/2.8L II on the 7D as a GP zoom, the 24-105 is just not fast enough or have that apeture effect, for the 7D.

I'd take a 16-35 II over a 17-55 EF-S, because the 16-35 doubles as a great UWA on the 5D2 should I need it.

Ideally, I'd be on a 2x FF setup with 24-70 II and 70-200 II but there's that hobby-grade budget that's stopping me.

Video & Movie / Re: timelapse. how they do this
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:49:38 AM »
I was just guessing that if you, for example, make consequential 30 sec long exprosures you will add a segment to the top and delete a segment from the tail of the trail and it won't be a smooth movement as seen here
Yup, that is why I think it is made of composites...

If you put a mouse pointer at the end of a trail, it seemed to me that the frame advance was about 1/5 th. the star trail length; hence my magic number of 5...

this, definitely.

It's something like this:  Take roughly 130, one second exposures.  Then it's a startrail of 1-30 for frame 1, frames 2-31 for frame 2, frames 3-32 for frame 3...repeated roughly 100 times for the 4 seconds of video.  Pretty cool effect but WOW tedious.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: AA Battery Charger and Batteries
« on: November 09, 2012, 05:20:05 PM »
Don't buy 15-minute or 1-hour chargers!

As somebody has already posted, you want to charge at ~500ma or thereabouts, no faster.
Actually, there are some fast chargers that are good.    Its the cheap ones that just pour on the current and badly overheat your battery that are a problem.  10 or 20 or a few more recharges before a battery dies is not uncommon with them.  Then users blame the batteries.
I'd recommend the MH-C801D charger, and it's a 1 hour charger.

I did some additional research, and the fastest rate recommended is 0.5-1C, which is just over a hour.  So a one-hour charger might be ok, but you're working at the limit.  I know for a fact 15-minute chargers kill batteries, been there done that.

I was definitely conservative in my 500ma recommendation, however, I'll give you the nod there.  That's an "optimal" number and not really a limit... I'm just careful to baby the batts, as it was a pretty large investment to replace all my household with eneloops!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9