« on: January 24, 2014, 07:30:55 PM »
Around the world turning left
The F2 looks quite promising, and I like the fact that you can use it with the 600.
I did not think about the convex shapes, so it would be hard no matter what, but at least you can get more pleasing results.
Again, thank you for your answers
Do you know if there are any options where there are two arms? A buying version of the DIY of Surapon. I was thinking today after posting here, that it would be great if one existed with a type of arm like the gorillapod; that are flexible in all directions, but still stiff enough to not move when taking a picture. Straight arms would be a good second.
Yes, My TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II is great for Macro Photos too, This Lens have Min. Focus Distant = 0.21 M or 0.69 FT. That great for the Macro of Flowers in this distant. But if you want more bigger Macro of the Insect, Canon Extension tube EF 12 II is recommend, BUT Canon Co. do not recommend EF 25 II Because the Lens - to-subject distant will be too close.
The Attached Photos are by TS-E 24 mm II( No Extension Tube), Hand Held Shooting.
Ps. Pic. TS-4 is 200% Enlarged and Crop
Yup. I am totally convinced that you don't ONLY get a better body and more custom functions for the huge extra amount of $ you have to fork out for a 1D body. Image sensor, RGB and AA filters, parameters and processing should be better and more controlled, resulting in an overall better rawfile on many levels. Also, I find the 1D images (1Ds3 and 1DX) to be a bit "clearer" and crispier from scratch than anything from the 5D3 or 5D2. Fine details are a tad better rendered. The difference isn't huge but it is there.
As for the underexposed part; I have an example where I tested the shadows of the 1DX vs 5D3. I underexposed the two equally and then lifted the shadows. The difference in IQ is quite remarkable. Almost like one of those Nikon vs Canon shadow noise examples out there. I'll see if I can find the test images. So yeah...the 1DX sure can take more beating in post because the files are better built. For sure...
Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.
Edit: I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.
I'd like some advice on which lens to get for my 7D.
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
I'm torn between these two because I don't know which one will suit my style more. I have been used to a 17-85mm f/4.0 kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8, both of which I'm selling. I'm concerned that the 24-105 is slower and will limit me with depth of field and low light shooting. And the 17-55 has less reach and may be less of a future investment as an EF-S. Here are a few details about my photography...
I think I'm quite lazy about the technical side of things, and like to keep gear as simple as possible. I don't mind small losses in quality or control for the sake of convenience (eg. staying with my 17-85mm lens for years before getting the 50mm). I like being zoomed in rather than zoomed out. Being wider than my 17mm shots has never seemed necessary to me. I like shooting in low light, and I like shooting with shallow depth of field. I think I will be sticking with my 7D for a while, and I will be getting the Canon EF 50mm - f/1.4 USM.
Any advice greatly appreciated!
I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.