April 20, 2014, 08:22:46 PM

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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 57
406
Well. I've been an Apple fan since the Mac Plus, but I've drained pasta in better-looking hardware than that Leica.
Can you please post an image of your pasta drainer/colander that looks better than that Leica

Here are several hundred that look better:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=colander&client=firefox-a&hs=5pI&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pvBXUoj3NsrB0QXms4Aw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1705&bih=1222&dpr=1

407
Lenses / Re: 24-105 Resolution testing
« on: October 11, 2013, 03:41:24 AM »
Looks good for that ISO but try ISO 100, tripod, no IS. Better yet - natural light, speed faster than 1/100.

It's a shot of an LCD screen (at an angle as well). So, how would natural light be better?

408
Lenses / Re: Longer and faster, better?
« on: October 11, 2013, 03:29:45 AM »
The new 300 f2.8L IS II is a phenomenal lens. It also works well with the 2xIII extender. If it is a budget problem, I would look at the second hand market for the version I. It is not as good, but still great. In a forest/jungle environment the 300 should work fine and you'll get 600 f5.6 with the extender, when you need more reach.

+1, but try and get version II because it works so well with the 2xTC III

409
Lenses / Re: Ok, so I took my T3i/24-105 combo to Mexico
« on: October 10, 2013, 05:23:39 PM »
Although the 24-105 is a great lens on a crop camera, its not wide enough in many situations.  I prefer my 15-85 for general use.

+1

The 15mm is just so useful - the 15-85 is a much more useful range on crop than 24-105.

410
Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Vs EF 24-105mm f/4 L
« on: October 10, 2013, 05:17:28 PM »
The 15-85 + 7D is an excellent combination, which I sometimes use in preference to my 5DIII + 24-105. The 70-200mm is a superb complement  to the 15-85 with the 7D. I don't think the 24-105 is a good fit to the crop as it is not wide enough.

411
Lenses / Re: 24-105 Resolution testing
« on: October 10, 2013, 03:03:59 PM »
What a complete waste of time.

412
Software & Accessories / Re: My DIY "NO-POD"
« on: October 08, 2013, 04:28:13 AM »
You are using both your feet to stand on the chains.  Therefore, it is a bipod, not a no-pod.
and the thing itself doesn't have feet, so no-pod is correct. We are the bi-pod :) But who cares really, especially if it works?

Of course it has two feet, they are attached to flexible legs. The commercial version with a single chain is a monopod with a flexible leg. 

Neither will replace the 4 stops of IS on my modern lenses.

Thank you , Sir, Dear AlanF.  Yes, Sir It will Help me about 3 stops  of Shutter Speed, When I use EF 17-40 L with no IS.  The Photo below = F=8 , SS = 1/15 sec, ISO = 400, with this  my " No Pod" cheap Chain line, at Las-Vegas

3 stops is a factor of 8. Using the usual rule of thumb of minimal shutter speed = 1/focal length, a 17-40 should be OK for speeds of 1/17 - 1/40 sec with simple hand holding and no IS. 3 stops would increase this to 1/2 - 1/5 sec. The figure of 1/15 sec you quoted would be about 1 stop at 40mm or no stops at 17mm. 

413
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 07, 2013, 12:12:11 PM »
       
    • Bullets help :)

    Silver ones in some cases.

    414
    Software & Accessories / Re: My DIY "NO-POD"
    « on: October 07, 2013, 01:55:29 AM »
    You are using both your feet to stand on the chains.  Therefore, it is a bipod, not a no-pod.
    and the thing itself doesn't have feet, so no-pod is correct. We are the bi-pod :) But who cares really, especially if it works?

    Of course it has two feet, they are attached to flexible legs. The commercial version with a single chain is a monopod with a flexible leg. 

    Neither will replace the 4 stops of IS on my modern lenses. 

    415
    Software & Accessories / Re: My DIY "NO-POD"
    « on: October 07, 2013, 01:01:17 AM »
    You are using both your feet to stand on the chains.  Therefore, it is a bipod, not a no-pod.

    416
    I know you can't use an SX50 because of problems with your hands, but I and others get very sharp images and excellent IS with one at an effective fov of 1200mm, and that is a real bargain.  The good thing about your experiment is that it shows us the drawbacks of mirror lenses.  The Sigma does have a very bad reputation, and the Tamron has the best reviews.

    417
    Lenses / Re: EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories
    « on: October 01, 2013, 08:54:59 AM »
    Beside weight and price.

    Yes, "beside" :-p and add "bulk" since it's an internal zoom... all three factors being potential problems according to personal preferences and circumstances.

    So for pro use and if you have the $$$ and don't mind carrying/holding this thing, it's great, but for outdoor/travel seeing people carrying a 5d3+70-200/2.8 through nature or foreign places seems a bit awkward... consider the 70-300L in this case and a faster prime like the 135L for portrait. Also the 100L is a single-focus replacement for the 70-200L and also adds macro capability.

    Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.

    418
    Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 100-400mmL + TC Versus 600mm Mirror lens
    « on: October 01, 2013, 08:15:54 AM »
    Everyone has been stunned into silence at the sheer quality from the Sigma mirror lens, which has lived up to its reputation.

    419
    EOS Bodies / Re: 7DmkII F8 AF for wildlife?
    « on: October 01, 2013, 02:33:05 AM »

    I've used the Kenko with the EF 600mm f/4 L II, and its performance is stellar. Focus is pretty fast (although I believe the primary limiting factor here is actually the 7D, I hope a 5D III will be faster), and it is pretty accurate. Precision is good. CA definitely increases with the Kenko, and depending on the light and atmospherics, IQ can suffer to an undesirable degree.


    A TC costs only a few percent of the price of the 600/4 II. The Canon Mk III TC is specifically designed to dovetail with the II series lenses. Have you tried it?

    420
    Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
    « on: September 30, 2013, 02:20:23 PM »
    To help us judge the quality, please let us know whether they are 100% crops or whether you have resized the images etc. I can get some of the info from the exifs but it is better that you list details.

    Pages: 1 ... 26 27 [28] 29 30 ... 57