April 17, 2014, 08:20:33 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 - Rienzphotoz

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 217
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 10, 2014, 12:04:04 PM »
I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

I now blame you for making me read that crap :o ;D :o ;D :o ;D ... seriously that guy really sounds like a "poo-poo hole"

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Alpha a6000
« on: April 10, 2014, 11:49:40 AM »
all up after using both this and the EOS-M with 11-22 I prefer the EOS-M as a complete package (I know this is heresy and i will most likely burn in internet hell for saying it :P )
;D ;D ;D ... I'm pretty sure that someone out there is making sure to keep the hell fire ready for you ;D

All up my summary of the a6000 is that it does not live up to the internet hype. it doesn't come close unless you are looking at a few fairly unrelated metrics ie low iso shadow noise, AF spread, FPS. Higher iso performance and IQ is lacking
It is probably better at capturing action than the 600D and definately better than the EOS-M. the wide AF spread is good but not any different to the EOS-M which also has a wide AF point spread. For me the biggest problems are the rapid mid to high iso IQ loss and the crap colour rendering out of camera vs canon.
I was very keen on getting this camera, but your summary of the camera has me a little concerned ... when you get some time, could you post some images?

Thanks

18
"minimum focus distance of 0.39m" at 300mm is impressive... this makes for a nice compromise lens for travel photography, when one does not want to carry 2 or 3 lenses and still be able to get some (close to) macro photos ... depending on the price, I'd be interested in getting one for the 70D.

19
Lenses / Re: Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.
« on: April 09, 2014, 02:42:19 PM »
I ended up ordering a new 135L today. I'm quite excited. I imagine I will be getting the 50mm Art later this year.
Congratulations ... may it serve you well.

20
More first time posters, cribbing and crying about nothing .... all we've got so far is "show me the advisories or we deserve to know because we spent so and so amount of dollars, blah blah blah posts" without providing any design flaws that are widely complained about ... I smell a dead rat and a stinking fish.

21
So yes I am relatively new, low posts, I may be a program in the system attempting to sway the conversation!

To quote, "If you think there’s value in us doing so, please sound off in our forum." and I applaud anyone who can get new posters to come out of the woodwork and join in on a conversation!

My story in a nutshell: 5D Mk III err 20, 1 and 20 and misbehaves (lens communication error) with several lenses at 1.4 years old and with less than 50k actuations. In for non-warranty repair and the verdict is it needs a new shutter assembly and mirror box. While in there they also replace the focusing sensor and charged me 1/3 original quote. I am CSP, I do not change my lenses between every shot at the beach or while in a dust storm in a desert.

No proof but very curious and disappointing as to how a new-ish camera can die so quickly.
Sorry to hear about your 5D MK III, that sucks to have a relatively new and expensive camera die like that ... we need more people like you who can come up with what happened to their gear, that will provide the required info for CR to check if it tallies with the info they've got.

22
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 05, 2014, 10:51:00 PM »
That is awesome ... and if it is below $1000, that's even more awesome. With the way Sigma is delivering some great lenses, I wouldn't be surprised if they release a new DSLR or mirrorless, (within the next year or two), that that can take advantage of the resolving power of thise new ART lenses.

23
Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X

I do not find an issue with that.
I find it highly suspicious.
Maybe it is, may be it is not.
I am not a first time poster and at the same time asked for more material. The reason is I have a 24-70 2.8 ii which did not belong to any of the problem' categories were referred in this forum (clicking, bubbles, front element coming in contact with the filter and coating issue). So I though I was lucky.

But i stumbled upon 3 Errors 01 (Communication between lens and camera). Since the lens was new and the camera didn't have issues with any other lens it was a 24-70 2.8 II lens problem. It didn't happen again but I will always be afraid that it might happen so in important shootings I will have to carry a backup lens of similar characteristics. Now I learn that my lens will possibly have issues with a problematic spring (if seems it is made before aug 2013).

So yes I do want to know about Canon issues.
Tron, I am well aware that you are not first time poster, I did learn a little math in school ;D ... but seriously, I always find it suspicious when many first time posters show up only to complain, without providing any specifics about the problems they've faced with their Canon gear and how Canon handled it ... which to me is highly suspicious. The 2 threads that have started so far on this topic directly or indirectly state that Canon has design flaws and they charge the customers to fix those issues ... this suggests that Canon is desperate for measly amounts, which I find very hard to believe. Seriously, how many lenses go back to Canon for repairs? how much do they charge the customer for it? ... OK forget that, lets take a count on how many CR members sent back their lenses and/or cameras for repairs that were design flaws and got charged for it? I have NEVER had any Canon lens or Camera go for repair (except for when I dropped a lens). If anyone has got proof, let them come out with it and provide specifics. There are so many long time members here and I'd like to know how many of them have complaints about Canon charging them for fixing design flaws.
Yes, I too would like to know if there are any issues but it must be backed with proof ... but so far I do not see these first time posters coming up with any specifics and/or proof ... all we've got so far are mere speculations and claims from them.

24
Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X

I do not find an issue with that.
I find it highly suspicious.

25
Is this the earth shattering Canon screwing the customer leak? ... just curious, how many EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II lenses did Canon sell? and how many of those had this noise issue? and how many times did Canon charge $450 for each of those noise issue cases? and how many millions did Canon make by charging the $450 for those lenses?

26
Strange that we suddenly have quite a few first time posters asking the documents to be published or claiming that they've had problems with their gear. :-\ :-X

27
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: April 04, 2014, 03:27:38 PM »
Hi Reinz. When it comes to astrophotography, the mount is pretty much the most important thing. Most astrophotographers who have even moderately diverse goals (i.e. just galaxies and nebula) are going to need to use multiple telescopes with different focal lengths, or at least one telescope with barlows and focal reduces, to get a field of view wide enough or narrow enough to frame their subjects properly. A good mount can last you for many, many years, where as telescopes (or, for that matter, camera lenses) usually come and go until you hit the real high end (i.e. 20" RCOS or PlaneWave telescopes).

For $1000, you can get yourself an entry-level mount. Something like the Orion Sirius, which is the little sibling of the Orion Atlas. The Sirius has a capacity of 30lb, which for visual is generally fine, but that pretty much equates to 15lb for astrography (the Sirius doesn't have the most sturdy tripod, so you REALLY have to stick to the 50% capacity limit for imaging work). That is practically nothing in terms of capacity, but if you just stick to your DSLR and lenses, it'll at least get you started.

The Orion Atlas is a much more capable mount, it's capacity is 40lb, however imagers have been putting on 60-70% of the capacity and getting excellent results. Visual observers have put over 50lb on this mount when using sturdier tripods or full blown piers. The Orion Atlas is $1499, however it's fairly frequently on sale for $1399, and at times has been as low as $1200. Given how important the mount is, especially if you think you might want to move up from your lenses to a real telescope at some point in the future (and entry cost for telescopes can actually be pretty low...for example, the Astro-Tech AT6RC, a 6" Ritchey-Chretien telescope, is only $399 and it's designed specifically as an astrograph.) If you can muster it, I highly recommend getting the Orion Atlas mount, even though it's more than your $1000 budget. It will give you LOTS of room to grow in the future if you find that you like astrophotography (it could even be "the" mount you use for the next ten or twenty years....many people used the predecessor to the Atlas/EQ6 class mounts for about that long.)

From your existing equipment, the 5DIII hands down. Don't use a Nikon for astrophotography...their nickname in our community is "Star Eaters", since they clip to the black point, rather than using a bias offset (one of the many ways Nikon "cheats" their way towards cleaner shadows :P.) Canon's use of a bias offset is the reason there is a lot of banding in their shadows, which isn't good for regular photography. However since in astrophotography we use bias frames to remove the bias from the signal, Canon DSLRs are actually a lot better...they preserve more stars and deep nebula detail. So definitely use the 5D III.

You have a good range of lenses as well for "wide field" work. The 40/2.8 @ f/4 and 50/1.4 @ f/3.5 are both excellent for "whole constellation" images (for example, you could image the entirety of the core Orion constellation, as well as most of his club and kill: http://bit.ly/1lF7hSp) The 100mm Macro @ f/4 is a great lens for imaging entire small constellations, or for imaging parts of larger constellations (for example, it would neatly encompass the core of Orion, but not his club or kill: http://bit.ly/1jIciah) The 70-200 at 200mm @ f/4 is great for narrower regions, small constellations (for example, 200mm would encompass Orion's Belt and Sword, and the small reflection nebula M78: http://bit.ly/1mOwpGH) The 100-400 at 400mm @ f/8, while a bit slower and probably requiring more equipment (such as a guider, which itself would probably require a number of additional accessories to properly mount next to your camera), is good for imaging nebula themselves (for example, it would encompass just Orion's sword, which includes Orion Nebula (M42/M43) and Running Man Nebula: http://bit.ly/1ltmAeo; or it would encompass just Orion's Belt, which includes Horse Head and Flame Nebulas, IC434, and a number of small reflection nebula: http://bit.ly/1dSzPFJ).

If you go with just the mount, you will be able to attach your DSLR and a lens. The 100-400mm is probably not quite going to work, as you would need pretty steady tracking to image at f/8...that's pretty slow. Were talking 1" (" means arcsecond, ' means arcminute, 60 arc minutes per degree) tracking, which is not easy to achieve. So your probably going to be stuck at 200mm and less until you decide to upgrade. Thing is, that is really the best place to start anyway, as at those focal lengths, tracking error is really forgiving, so you should be able to track for several minutes, maybe as much as five minutes, without appreciable star elongation or trailing, allowing deep exposures of wide regions of the sky (which, during the two times of year when the milky way is up, are PACKED with IMMENSE swaths of nebula).

Unguided imaging is basically the domain if the wide and ultra wide field. If you want to see the kinds of images you can get at those scales, you should check out AstroBin. Plenty of good examples there (better than anything I've done as of yet.)

If you get an Orion Sirius mount, which is $1000, then that will suffice for DSLR with 200mm and less. You'll need to get a better mount than that if you want to do more. There are a lot of small APO refractors on the market, ranging in price from around $500 to as high as $10,000 or more, however most of the smaller, lighter ones that would work on a Sirius fall into the same general focal range that you already have with your Canon lenses (200mm to ~800mm). The logical upgrade for you would be to eventually move to a Cassegrain type OTA (Optical Telescope Assembly). Cassegrains include your standard SCT (Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope), the Celestron EdgeHD (an Aplantic SCT, designed specifically to support a wide and flat field, right into the corners, for imaging), and the Ritchey-Chretien cassegrains (primarily those from Astro-Tech.) Meade also makes some Aplantic SCTs like Celestrons, however they tend to be more expensive, despite not really offering anything more, and there is one special benefit to the Celestron EdgeHD OTAs: They support Hyperstar, a special conversion mod that allows you to do ultra wide field imaging (~200-400mm) at f/2 (REALLY FAST...you could get really deeply exposed images in a couple minutes at that aperture.)

Generally speaking, the best upgrade from DSLR+Camera Lens imaging is to move to something like the Celestron EdgeHD 8" SCT, or the Astro-Tech AT8RC 8" Ritchey-Chretein. Both are reasonably priced, although Astro-Tech's prices are really hard to beat for the quality, optical design, and overall capabilities for imaging. For either of these, you would really want at leas the Orion Atlas (or the equivalent from Celestron, the CGEM or CGEM DX, however the Atlas is really the better option due to the rich community, EQMOD, and the option for installing belt mods to improve tracking and guiding accuracy down the road.)

My recommendation is pick up the Orion Atlas EQ-G, and use your 5D III and 50mm, 100mm, and 70-200mm lenses. You should be able to just bolt your camera to the included Vixen dovetail that comes with the mount, and not bother with purchasing any additional accessories initially. You will need to learn how to polar align the mount (the Atlas comes with a built-in polar finder scope, which once properly centered (the most annoying thing you will ever do, but thankfully you only have to do it once! :P), is highly accurate and easy), and you will need to either learn how to use the hand controller to "Align GOTOs", or purchase a $40 EQDIR cable, use EQMOD, and completely computerize your process (HIGHLY recommended, you can buy BackyardEOS ($50) to greatly simplify your imaging sequences, and gain a lot of powerful features, such as highly precise live view focusing on your laptop or a windows 8 tablet, to get the best results.)

WOW, that's a lot of information ... I've copy pasted it on to my smartphone and will have to go over it at least a few times to get my heard around it ... I think it looks like I'll have to raise my budget to around $2000 ... thanks for the awesome info.

28
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Curved Sensor Tech by Sony
« on: April 04, 2014, 02:45:27 PM »
Curved sensors are well proven and effective, been in use at least a few million years.

So have the lenses designed for those curved sensors.  In the case of a curved camera sensor, current lenses would not work (thus the suggestion of a new 35/1.8 lens for the curved sensor).  Given the general performance of Sony lenses, I'm not encouraged by their ability to deliver an ILC based on a curved sensor.
+1 ... Sony has a lot to prove when it comes to producing lenses. Lets see what they come up with.

29
It is naive to think that big corporations make big money by being totally honest ... I don't think these documents should be released, its a dangerous game and I don't think CR has the money or the power to fight a big corporation like Canon ... but be my guest and prove me wrong.

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 04, 2014, 02:28:20 AM »
If you're not shooting in RAW, why are you even taking the picture?
;D ;D ... that's a good one ... unfortunately, I've actually heard a guy say that.

Heh, it was probably me :)
;D ;D ;D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 217