November 28, 2014, 02:48:10 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 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 222
631
Thanks Alan,

@ f8 and smaller, Tammy shows better IQ in 600mm. This is good news for those want long zoom & shooting at slower shutter speed.

I'm no expert in BIF photography. Last time I tried, my shutter speed was in 1/2000ish.

F8 + 1/2000ish =  ??? IQ

I hear you brother!

The f/8 or narrower makes it a deal breaker for me. I typically shoot birds in a well wooded area. The foliage makes it difficult for me to keep ISOs under control with the f/5.6 aperture. It's all very well shooting in bright daylight but for the shooting I do, I'm yearning for f/4 or faster lenses ... f/8 just won't cut it even with the high ISO performance of the 5D3/6D

Owning a 600mm f/4 lens myself, I can tell you that you are often limited by too-thin DOF than you might expect. At 600mm, an f/4 aperture results in VERY THIN DOF. Quite often too thin. Unless you are photographing particularly large birds (which seems unlikely in a wooded area), even if you owned a 600mm f/4 lens you will find yourself somewhere between f/5.6 to f/8 often enough anyway. It does help having f/4 as an option, and when you really get down to the wire (near sunset in a wooded area) then you open up and deal with the DOF issues regardless.

But having an f/4 lens does not necessarily mean you are always shooting at f/4.

Ha ... I didn't think about that ... Thanks Jon!

I do my birding with the 100-400 right now and being limited to 400mm and f/5.6, I've not run into any serious DOF concerns - that will sure change with a supertele as you quite rightly point out above. The 100-400 isn't the sharpest of lenses and combined with super high ISOs, my pictures turn out too soft and lacking detail - I usually blame high ISOs for the lack of detail and noise and hence my cringing for a faster lens.

Aye, I always used the 100-400 at f/7.1 once I realized it was softish at f/5.6 and f/6.3. With a 7D, that really exacerbated issues with noise. Having the option of f/4 is certainly helpful for that. Keep in mind, you can get the 500/4 L II at a pretty significant discount to the 600mm f/4, and still have the option of using it at 700/5.6 and 1000/8 if you need to. It's a great middle-ground option when you can't afford the extra $2000+ for the 600mm.


I've used the 600 only a few times but that was for shooting shore birds in reasonable light so I could stop down happily without any concern over the ISO. 

I'd say the 600mm is the best lens on earth for shorebirds. At low perspectives (i.e. laying on the sand of a beach, lens on a ground-level pod of some kind) gets you the most exquisite background blur you'll ever see. The 500mm will do much the same, if you need the cost savings, but the 600mm can't be beat for shorebird work.

Jon, a large section of the buyers of the Tammy will end up using them on the APS-C cameras where diffraction sets in real early - sometimes as soon as f/6.3. If you were to stop down to f/11, how much do you think the images will suffer in sharpness?

This is the diffraction myth. Diffraction is diffraction, it is the same regardless of the sensor. The difference in pixel size simply means your imaging the lesser effects of diffraction sooner, but that does not make the effect worse. Diffraction is purely optical, so whether you are using a FF sensor, an APS-C sensor, or a small 4/3rds sensor with even tinier pixels, you should really NEVER worry about diffraction.

Read this:
http://jonrista.com/2013/03/24/the-diffraction-myth/

So, technically speaking, stopping down to f/11 is stopping down to f/11...the ultimate result on IQ in reach-limmited scenarios (same lens, different cameras, same subject distance) is roughly the same regardless of FF vs. APS-C (technically, APS-C would actually have the edge, barring blurring from other factors...i.e. the 7D has a stronger low pass filter than the 5D III, which mitigates some of the benefit of having smaller pixels, but not entirely.) Smaller pixels will always give you a cropping advantage, and the more you stop down, the returns offered by those smaller pixels simply diminish until they offer no benefit over larger pixels (but at no point would smaller pixel EVER be "worse" than larger pixels from the standpoint of diffraction...noise is another matter.)
That's a lot of very useful info Jon ... thanks for sharing.

632
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:42:13 AM »
Regardless if you like the look of the new G1x or not, you have to admit it's better looking that this eye sore!:
http://thenewcamera.com/sigma-dp2-quattro-price-and-press-release/
Since its long, maybe some ladies might like it ;) ;D ;) ;D

633
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:19:48 AM »
http://camerasize.com/compact/#375.360,257,ha,t
size of previous gen (nex 6 and g1x)
pricing is $800 with 16-50 3.5-5.6 lens
still packs apsc and faster af + faster burst.

OK. I agree with you. A6000 looks FAR more enticing for the same price, especially with in-built EVF and longer battery life.
Although I prefer Canon over any other camera manufacturer and having used the G1 X for a few months, I'd pick the A6000 over the the G1 X II any day.

634
Great Article. Thank you. I read it last week on Thursday and set  CF1 up with the multiple button zone af control. On Friday, I happened to be at a good place during a good time. I captured a sequence that included this shot thanks to your recommendations. I just received my 5D III through CLP last Tuesday.
That's a superbly timed shot ... AWESOME work FallsGuy ... but your online ID is not awesome, it sounds like "false guy"  ;D

635
I get not wanting to attach a Canon zoom, but it's perhaps worth pointing out that you retain a small form factor if you attach one of the smaller Canon primes (I've used the 40mm pancake and 85mm 1.8).  Of course, focusing may not be fast enough....
I agree! ... I have been using it with 40mm, 50mm & 85mm ... I find focusing with 'foucs peaking' to be a lot more accurate and faster. Sometime in the near future, I do plan on adding the EF 24 IS, 28 f/1.8 and 35mm IS lenses.

636
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:57:21 AM »
You are blowing it out of proportions. There has been no personal attack against Dustin, only the obvious accountability for what he does and how.
I think you missed a few comments from few members. By the way I am not taking it personally, too bad if you feel that way. What accountability? if CR is allowing him to post his link, what is it to the rest of us ... his post is being made to sound like it is some kind of crime. If one is so concerned about "accountability for what he does and how", should it not be taken to the CR admin, instead of making Dustin look bad?

637
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 12, 2014, 05:54:41 AM »
....

The backstage of a picture is interesting if it's a great picture. The picture in question, a broken tree without any context, is not. It could have been taken anywhere, anytime. The caption and the picture have no apparent connection. The picture could have any caption, the caption could relate to any picture.

The photo means nothing by itself and the elaborate text looks like a futile exercise meant to draw attention. Any random shutter actuation can be embellished with touching words, but it doesn't turn any of them into interesting images.
I absolutely agree with you that any random shutter can be embellished with touching words ... but one must consider the possibility that image can speak volumes to the photographer or for many who view that image. My point is not about people not liking the image, its perfectly fine for someone not to like (I know people who don't like Ansel Adams work). But what is not fine is, people casting aspirations on the photographer's integrity, honor and what not. Strangely, till now, no one provided constructive criticism on how that image or an alternative could have been presented to make his message come across more effectively. Comments, questioning Dustin's integrity have only generated ill will, instead of providing an opportunity to learn something. Personally, as mentioned earlier, that image speaks to me (and several others) because of the message associated with it ... it does not appeal to some, that is perfectly fine ... but lets not reduce a fellow CR member (whose work, most of us like and follow) with suggestions that his intentions may not be honorable. There are comments that suggest that Dustin did not receive any requests etc ... now how the hell does someone know what requests/comments Dustin has received? are they Psychics? or did they read every single request he has received from every single source, including for his 1400+ posts in CR? or did they hack into Dustin's inbox? What is not fine is when a few of the members behaving just like a cheap media house i.e. latch on to a popular guy and make him look like a dishonorable person ... that's just sick and a low life thing to do.
Peace.
Hi Rienz, I didn't question his person. I questioned his approach. If ones wants to promote one's work then be open about it. I've been doing business for about two decades and credibility and trust is everything.  If you want to sell something then you should say so. I think you agree.

Maybe we saw different things here but that shouldn't make us enemies.
Hi Arctic Photo, if you noticed I removed your name when I quoted Albi86 (above), coz I didn't want you to take it personally ... no hard feelings, we certainly not enemies ... we just happen to disagree ... who knows, if we meet in person we may get along famously. Don't take it personally. Have a nice day. Peace

638
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 12, 2014, 02:42:29 AM »
....

The backstage of a picture is interesting if it's a great picture. The picture in question, a broken tree without any context, is not. It could have been taken anywhere, anytime. The caption and the picture have no apparent connection. The picture could have any caption, the caption could relate to any picture.

The photo means nothing by itself and the elaborate text looks like a futile exercise meant to draw attention. Any random shutter actuation can be embellished with touching words, but it doesn't turn any of them into interesting images.
I absolutely agree with you that any random shutter can be embellished with touching words ... but one must consider the possibility that image can speak volumes to the photographer or for many who view that image. My point is not about people not liking the image, its perfectly fine for someone not to like (I know people who don't like Ansel Adams work). But what is not fine is, people casting aspirations on the photographer's integrity, honor and what not. Strangely, till now, no one provided constructive criticism on how that image or an alternative could have been presented to make his message come across more effectively. Comments, questioning Dustin's integrity have only generated ill will, instead of providing an opportunity to learn something. Personally, as mentioned earlier, that image speaks to me (and several others) because of the message associated with it ... it does not appeal to some, that is perfectly fine ... but lets not reduce a fellow CR member (whose work, most of us like and follow) with suggestions that his intentions may not be honorable. There are comments that suggest that Dustin did not receive any requests etc ... now how the hell does someone know what requests/comments Dustin has received? are they Psychics? or did they read every single request he has received from every single source, including for his 1400+ posts in CR? or did they hack into Dustin's inbox? What is not fine is when a few of the members behaving just like a cheap media house i.e. latch on to a popular guy and make him look like a dishonorable person ... that's just sick and a low life thing to do.
Peace.

639
these are same as above but at f/13 (1/80sec, ISO 125) and f/14 (1/80sec, ISO 200)

Thanks Rienzphotoz for sharing.

I'm going to take your advice on Sony e-mount 10-18mm. I'll keep you posted
Cool! ...let me know your feedback, when you get it ... I'll be getting it before 6th March (hopefully) ... if I get it before you, I'll give you my feedback.

640
@Rienz: I'm curious about the JPEG quality. You say these are strait out of camera JPEGs? When you move into the green backgrounds, the posterization and artifacting is really bad. Really quite bad, especially at the lower ISO settings. Any chance you could take a RAW and save it at maximum quality JPEG?
Hi Jon,
Unfortunately, I only shot them in JPG (as I had forgotten to change it back to RAW, after my recent timelapse session with the camera) ... also they are not straight out of the camera, I used LR 5.3 to add a bit of vibrance and saturation (with the brush tool), only to the flower ... as well as reduce the files sizes for posting here ... would the file size conversion cause the posterization and artifacting to the background? I'm not an accomplished photographer like you, so user error cannot be ruled out ... but I'll upload the full size JPGs (straight out of the camera) to dropbox or my Smugmug account and post the link, for your scrutiny ... but no harsh comments on user error please, I can't take it  ;D (just kidding, any comments on how I could improve the image, is always welcome).

641
Surely they mean mbit? 100mb/s would be 800mbit/s, which is pretty damn fast......  My own connection is only 60mbit/12mbit hehe.
I have a 1Gb/s network in my house; GB switches are quite cheap these days.

My guess is that the 100Mbps quote is a typo; it's more likely that their fiber-optic network is running at 10Gb/s.
+1

642
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X II Final Specifications
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:37:16 PM »
Does this mean there is definitely no dual-pixel AF in the GXII?
It looks like that ... otherwise they would have "leaked" that info first.

643
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:26:11 PM »
I agree, as little as positive comments also describing why it's good. I did not say it was bad.

So as I don't salute your work, then my opinion is worthless.
Artic Photo allow me to address 2 things you've raised in your above 2 posts:
1.
A positive comment without describing why it's good, still has a positive effect on the photographer, providing him/her with useful motivation/encouragement. But a negative comment without any constructive criticism other than it is bad (or it's no good or whatever), is totally worthless and useless for the photographer and the people reading it, as it provides no encouragement or useful information, other than spread ill will and hostility ... in such situations it is better to shut up and that does provide a powerful message ... trust me when I don't get any positive reaction to my photos, I get the message without anyone saying a word.
I am not saying that you said the photo is bad but I'm only trying to address your comment about positive comments should describe why it's good.

2. One does not have to salute anyone's work to provide constructive criticism, but it is absolutely worthless when the comments do not have an iota of constructive criticism about how the photographer can improve his/her image.

Maybe you don't mean it but your comments here are coming across as someone who does not like Dustin for whatever reason, because you have failed to provide any constructive criticism on how he can improve the image ... like I said, you probably don't meant to, but that's how it is coming across.


644
Photography Technique / Re: How (and Why) I Took the Shot #1: Overlook
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:06:17 PM »

BTW, this series is being requested by a certain very large company in the industry, and so I will write them despite opinions on a message board.
So opinions on a message board only matter when they are positive?
Opinions on a message board does NOT have to be positive, but they should at least provide constructive criticism ... it makes no sense when the post just rubbishes the photographer's work without providing any constructive criticism on how the image could have been improved.
I agree, as little as positive comments also describing why it's good. I did not say it was bad. Actually I didn't even look at it to start with. But now I have clicked his link to support his webstats and it was a picture of a broken tree, then a reference to god. Rienz, I know you a little through your posts here, you are a sensible man. I am not seeking anyone's support for my view though. I just questioned why he starts his post(s) with: on request from people on this forum I hereby give you my review, blog etc. when clearly it is self promotion. Better be honest about it. People here are very encouraging and I think it is important not to abuse that. If he's on a contract through a larger corporation, all the best, but if it is a business thing, then i think it should be disclosed in the first comment. About the picture, not bad but it didn't move me. Mostly because I'm a portrait person (although mediocre).
Hi Artic Photo, actually, I didn't intend the second part of my above post (which I've marked in red font for your ease of reference) for you ... I think I just got carried away with my previous post. I am flattered that you think I am a sensible man ... thank you for the kind words.
I am not sure why you feel Dustin is not being upfront/honest here ... he's got a message he wants to convey through his image/blog, so he posted a link here to that image/blog ... having said that, allow me ask you the following questions:

1. What is so dishonest about Dustin's post here?

2. How do you know that he did not get requests? Have you read every single response and/or requests to all his 1400+ posts? or are you privy to the inbox of Dustin's Private Messages?

3. If you read Dustin's original post it clearly states:  "I've been encouraged from multiple sources to start writing smaller pieces that tell the story of what was in my mind while shooting". But how did you interpret "multiple sources" as only CR members?

645
Reinz ... Not to sound like an ass but ... what are you trying to prove here?

I'm interested in the A7 + a kit/prime lens and have the special luxury of getting approx 20% discount on almost all Sony products so I'm wondering whether it is worth the plunge. Somehow I feel that a 55mmm prime + a A7 will be a great tool while on my travel.

I am however, NOT AT ALL interested in using one with an adapter. For me, the only point in the Sony is the smaller form factor that I can use while I'm traveling. For anything that requires a Canon lens, I'll happily use my DSLR.
Hi J.R, actually, I'm not trying to prove anything here ... I just got the FE ZEISS 24-70 f/4 lens, and I wanted to take it out for a spin, but as I mentioned earlier, the weather sucks big time today (I'll have to invite you to Qatar to see what the weather is like here), so the only interesting thing I could find was this sunflower (which as I mentioned is very unusual in this part of the world) ... anyway, so I decided why not shoot the flower at all apertures of this new lens, just to see/show how it looks ... nothing more and its not meant to be a test or anything.
Yeah, I saw the 20% discount thing ... pretty cool.
I did not go for the FE ZEISS 55 f/1.8 and got the Metabones adapter, because:
1. I'm not into prime lenses (but with the a7, I'm beginning to appreciate small prime lenses)
2. FE 55 f/1.8 is not small, in comparison to the f/4 zoom (55 f/1.8=70.5mm vs 24-70 f/4= 94.5mm)
3. Metabones adapter turns my a7 into a second/back-up FF camera body for my Canon lenses
4. The adapter also allows me to use EF 40mm & EF 50mm on a7 and still keep the small form factor ... I'm now thinking of getting the EF 28mm f/1.8 or 24 f/2.8 IS & 35 f/2 IS ... also considering the Voigtlander 15mm and/or 20mm, due to their very compact size ... if I do get them, I'll have the very slim Photodiox adapter permanently mounted on them.

Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 ... 222