July 29, 2014, 01:51:12 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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 66
481
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8 -a big problem
« on: November 04, 2013, 05:09:21 AM »
Drumstikk
What body were you using when you compared AF speeds of the 4 and 2.8? Roger from Lensrental once explained that the II series big whites use a feedback loop for which you need the 5DIII or 1Dx to take advantage, I find the f/2.8 300mm II does focus much faster on the 5DIII than on the 7D. This is most noticeable when the 2xTC III is attached.

The reason I went for the f/2.8 was to use it with extenders for nature photography. The f/4 is a very fine lens when bare but it takes a hit with the 1.4xTC, whereas the 2.8 doesn't, and a big hit with the 2xTC, whereas the f/2.8 is still excellent. There will be some people for whom the f/4 with 1.4xTC is good enough, but even more would prefer the good old 400m f/5.6.

482
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 review at petapixel
« on: November 03, 2013, 07:13:58 PM »
They are much, much better at 600mm than you would have expected from the TDP iso tests.

483
Lenses / Re: 300 f/2.8 -a big problem
« on: November 03, 2013, 06:22:53 PM »

Seriously, does anyone think a 70-200 f/2.8 (another beauty, no doubt but at a much better price point) with a TC and some cropping can come close to the IQ of the effective 600 f/5.6 I was using?


No!! The 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III is my stock combination for birds. I don't even find it tiring for birds in flight. I like the 100-400 and still use it for travel, but it is not in  the same league as the 300mm plus the 1.4 and 2xTCs.

484
Neuro always knows what you are thinking. 

485
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 review at dxomark
« on: November 03, 2013, 11:45:52 AM »
You started a thread on the review of this lens at petapixel just two days ago. This is becoming a bit repetitive.

486
Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 focussing issues
« on: November 03, 2013, 11:10:02 AM »
What were your settings for focus etc? Without telling us, it is difficult to guess.

487
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 review at petapixel
« on: November 03, 2013, 05:40:10 AM »
Rude
You wrote in another thread where you were arguing with GMC: "I leave it as an exercise to the reader to search the web for information how much shorter the 70-200  F/2.8 L IS II gets at nearest focus distance. It's all there for anyone to read.".

During my searching for that information, I read a lot of articles about lens design, including some very illuminating ones about Nikon 80-400 zooms, showing how different designs give different changes in focal length on focussing. But, I could not find the information about the 70-200mm, perhaps because of my ineptitude. As the tone of your comment implies that you have that data, please put me out of my misery and post the right link.

488
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 review at petapixel
« on: November 02, 2013, 12:32:28 PM »
And, here are crops of the birds faces from the photos before, the Sigmas at the top and the Canon below. For amusement, I have added a 100% crop of a heron taken on a Powershot SX50, from about the same distance as the others, but the SX50 has a 1200mm FF equivalence (in practice a 215mm lens with a 5.6x cop sensor). The SX50 costs about the same as a Canon TC.

489
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 review at petapixel
« on: November 02, 2013, 10:22:28 AM »
Here is a similar size crop (100%) taken at random from my photos of herons using the 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTcc III for comparison.


490
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: sigma 120-300 review at petapixel
« on: November 01, 2013, 09:53:29 PM »
What a rambling waffly review, quite the opposite of TDP's tightly written prose, and nothing quantitative. 

491
Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 31, 2013, 07:27:31 AM »
Lose, not loose!

492
Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 31, 2013, 05:41:19 AM »
Another example: bad grammar, idiom and spelling spoiling a phish, received this morning.

Tax Return Notification
Dear taxpayer,
I am sending this e-mail to announce you: After the last annual calculation of your fiscal activity we have determined the you are eligible to receive a tax refund of : 247.29 GBP
 
In order for us to return the excess payment, you need to send a request to HM Revenue & Customs after which the fund will be credited to your specified bank account.
Please click "Get Started" below to claime your refund:

493
Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 30, 2013, 06:35:10 AM »
By the way, love this thread.  I thought it was serious for a moment until I realised that most of the people professing their knowledge of English were clearly wrong.  Not sure what the subversive intention is by giving people incorrect grammatical information, but very entertaining anyway.

IMHO, outside of a formal environment, getting upset at someone's spelling is pointless.  Firstly, as long as they get their message across, who cares how they do it.  Secondly, poor spelling and grammar is more likely a language, cultural or educational matter.  Telling someone to get the spelling in order isn't going to automatically make them better at it.  Instead, its just going to discourage them from being an active participant here. And I know that is nobody's intention or desire.  Maybe there are better ways to help people?  Perhaps find a polite way to point it out in a thread where you see a problem? At work I often come across people who aren't as good at communicating as they want to be.  FWIW, my current favourite solution is Toastmasters.

Correct spelling is there for many good reasons, including informal environments: searching the internet, for example, is that more difficult if words are spelled incorrectly; and selling or buying on eBay etc are more difficult if the seller or buyer spells incorrectly (I recall someone selling software for the commonly misspelled words so you could increase your chances of finding a bargain!).

I opened this thread not because of being upset but, as you wished it to be, as a polite way of instruction for the most commonly misspelled word. It is very interesting how it has developed a life of its own.

494
Canon refuses to send me the part, says the whole top cover will have to be placed, and I'll have to send the camera for it to be repaired under warranty.  They don't have the "mode dial cap" listed as a separate part.  I can get one on line for £19 and am tempted to buy one to save the hassle of posting the 5D. 

495
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:50:29 AM »
The second shot of the female kingfisher is very sharp. Congrats.

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 66