August 21, 2014, 06:43:23 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 - danski0224

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 35
61
I'm hoping Canon replaces their 180mm L Macro with a lighter (and-hopefully-not-more-expensive) 150mm f/2.8 IS Macro... and their 135mm f/2 with a 100mm f/1.4. That would make my year (of the lens).

In case you didn't know... Sigma makes one of those 150mm IS f2.8 macro lenses  :)

62
Pricewatch Deals / Re: TS-E 17mm f/4L Refurbished for $1,699.32
« on: May 03, 2014, 07:42:49 AM »
Maybe someone from Canon decided to "put some good stuff" on the refub site and at an additional discount to thwart the frequent comments/hints that the good stuff is always "out of stock".   :)

63
Interesting. How does the background change while the flower in these examples does not?





It is correct that the field of view changes, however the size of an object at the point of focus will be the same at 1:1.  It is objects in the background that change.  Brian over at The Digital Picture has an exellent example of this in his macro lens review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Macro-Lens.aspx

Scroll down and look at the photos of the purple flower.  They are taken at different focal lengths with the same magnification.  As you can see the size of the flower is the same, however the background is quite different due to the narrow field of view of the longer focal length lenses.

64
Pricewatch Deals / Re: TS-E 17mm f/4L Refurbished for $1,699.32
« on: May 02, 2014, 09:46:54 PM »
Nice. How often do these show up?

65
The main difference I have noticed is working distance. This is distance from camera to object and the available depth of field. Longer focal length sure seems to have less depth of field.

The field of view also changes, or it sure seems like it. An object at 1:1 with a 100mm lens fills less of the viewfinder than the same object at 1:1 with a 150mm or 180mm lens.

I prefer the 150mm focal length for macro, given a choice between 100, 150 and 180.


66
I have purchased Sony consumer electronic items in the past.

If you look up "hit or miss" in the dictionary, you may very well see a Sony logo.

With the exception of CRT televisions, product longevity has been an issue in my limited experience.

I haven't purchased a Sony item in many years- the last one for me was a Dell branded Trinitron monitor. Still works, but no longer used. Other consumer electronic items always seemed to fail soon after the warranty elapsed.

A Sony camera far exceeds the cost of any single item I have purchased with the Sony name, and truthfully, I'm not about to try one today- unless one is given to me.

The few people I know with either a Canon DSLR or a point and shoot of any brand barely use the features available. The person I know with the basic Canon still has the kit lens and no external flash, despite having used a couple of Canon lenses I own and an external flash *and* seeing a marked improvement in images. I suspect that describes plenty of camera kit owners.

People crying for "Canon to respond" must be such a small segment of a small market slice. I really can't envision these cries even registering on the Canon radar screen.

Professionals that make money with images must also use the Canon CPS system. Does Sony have an equivalent?

Even a million people tossing their "outdated Canon's" into the trash and buying a Sony replacement are a small percentage of Canon users. Where are the Sony lenses? Oh, that's right...

I'm not saying that the Sony system is bad, but the market scales are not even close to being in the same league.

I bet Canon has something in the skunkworks. The question is what will it cost.





http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras

Sony just release what appears to be an awesome camera, especially for the price. I am committed to Canon myself, but I think some people are starting to think about switching because these others like Sony are upping the quality of their products.

Canon doesn't have anything close to the 24mp,  79 AF points and 12 FPS...especially under $1500.

Curious to see what everyone else's thoughts are on this new Sony and where you think Canon falls within the competition.

68
Photography Technique / Re: How do I get the whole picture sharp?
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:57:29 AM »
This morning I took this photo with the 100mm L.
Iso 160 - f/13 - 0,5 sec.
Distance about 30 centimetres.
I used a tripod and cable release.
I didn't crop the photo and shot it in raw. Yes, the colour is about that green, that's why I like it.
How is it possible to get everything sharp with this lens even in the corners?


What did you focus on: the beads of water or the leaf?

I'd guess that your leaf is not perfectly flat.

The picture, as a picture, looks fine as it is. 

69
Photography Technique / Re: Another try getting everything in focus.
« on: April 30, 2014, 06:53:09 AM »
This morning I've tried this one. I focussed on the drop, but the top of the flower isn't sharp at all. What's wrong now.
Iso 500 - f/6.3 - 1/30


Still not enough depth of field.

If you are using a macro lens, depth of field is measured in millimeters and smaller. In order to work within the space allowed, you would need to keep the camera sensor plane parallel to the flower bud in your picture.

The distance from the base of the bud to the sensor would have to be the same as the distance from the tip of the bud to the sensor. Focus maybe halfway into the water drop, and you will see more "in focus" or "sharp". But, the sides of the bud that curve away would become "unsharp".

The only other alternatives are focus stacking or a tilt-shift lens.

If you focus stack, you will need a tripod and rail setup with a micometer style adjustment to move the camera and lens in and out so you do not touch the focusing adjustment on the lens (AF off). Changing the focusing with the lens would alter your field of view.

There are people here that could offer a much more in depth :) answer to your question, but that's how I understand it.

70
Photography Technique / Re: Levelling.
« on: April 26, 2014, 07:24:03 AM »
It's good as-is.

Find a level bench on level ground if that is what you are seeking.

:)

71
Figures. I just ordered one.

72
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 06:27:46 AM »
Okay, I know one is discontinued and the other is non-existent, but this is mostly for fun and a bit of learning.

Do the experts here think that the overall image quality of the 7DII will match or at least come close to the APS-H 1D IV? Why or why not?

Apparently, you have not used the 1DV.

73
Macro / Re: The same flower.
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:03:50 AM »
I really like to know what your favourite of the two is.
Thank you for your comments.

I am not drawn to either of them.

The yellow background doesn't work for me in the first image.

The partially closed flower shot from that perspective doesn't create any interest for me. I'd probably like or be interested in something other than straight on.

If the first image had the background of the second image, I would prefer that. That shade of yellow is too much, it looks fake to me.

$.02  :)

74
Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:14:39 PM »
It´s time for you to come and enlighten us!!!

I see what you did there...

:)

Do you have any DC powered LED lights you could photograph? Most of what I have for DC LED sources (flashlight, bike light, head lamp and undercabinet lighting) has some sort of frequency to it- video taken with my phone has a flickering effect. 

75
Lenses / Re: Bokeh onion rings
« on: April 14, 2014, 07:03:00 AM »
It must have something to do with the varying intensity of the AC light source.

Do you have any LED light sources? Those, in my experience, also have a frequency to them and may show the onion ring bokeh.

Incandescent AC bulbs on a dimmer may show a different pattern, same for dimmable LED bulbs.

Have you tried a CFL light source?

It is interesting, maybe the lens designers never thought to take out of focus pictures of certain types of light sources.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 35