April 17, 2014, 10:00:19 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 - eml58

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82
1
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 16, 2014, 07:53:14 PM »
These are all nearly 100%crops with the 2xIII and 1dx.

Ummmm, Bornshooter, these are real "Birds".

From you ?? Real Birds ??


2
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 15, 2014, 08:34:48 PM »
I use the 300 Mk11 with the 2X Mk111.

I love it its a very useful combination, very usable.

Here is an image taken with it, in poor light and pouring rain. First shot is the whole image, second is a crop of the head.

Both images processed in LR with sharpening @ 25.

Love the "Spirit Bear" Image Skulker, have to do this sometime soon, planning on a trip to the US later this Year, hope I get the chance to Photograph these Guys.

Where did you manage to see this Chap ??, would be interested to know.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon 300mm f2.8is II with 2.0x teleconverter III
« on: April 15, 2014, 08:32:18 PM »
I might have to borrow one from Canon to see how I like it, but my wallet is rather afraid to do that!

Your comment puts you at the top of the slippery slope  ;)

I've enjoyed this thread, people helping people, enjoyable to see.

My own take on the 300f/2.8 II has been written on CR a few times, in my view it's the sharpest Lens Canon have made, at least of those I own and have owned. Brilliant with the 1.4x III and pretty good with the 2x III.

When I head out on Safari to Africa I invariably plan where I'm going to have either the 600f/4 II + 300f/2.8 II, or the 200-400f/4 & 300f/2.8 II, I'de love to take all 3 Lenses but when I'm travelling without my Sherpa (My Son), it's too much Cabin luggage, and Africa is not the place to be checking in Long Lenses in check in Bags.

I've never owned a 500, thinking about it I wonder why, I've owned both the 400f/2.8 I & 400f/2.8 II but not a 500, the 200-400f/4 is hands down the Lens of choice when I head out, but for Dawn/Sunset the 300f/2.8 II is in it's element, and completely hand holdable, the 200-400f/4 get's heavy quickly, as did the 400f/2.8 especially the Version I.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 15, 2014, 08:17:52 PM »
From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements.
However, even if that is the case, this is very very minor side effect for some major correction of optical aberration.
Anyway, now, looking forward to more gorgeous shots through the Otus, and hopefully a comparison with the Art- if you decide to buy it as well. :)
The Art is on preorder. Could not resist ;)

Same, must be a disease affecting Photographers.

That & the need to take Images of light sources    ::).

Still, that had a learning experience, Thanks so much jrista, all made complete sense once explained. 

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 13, 2014, 11:02:47 PM »
My wife looked at the schedule in complete Horror and asked just exactly what these places had for her, after some thought I added Japan, which seemed to make her Happy (Tokyo, Gucci, Hermes etc),
I know Tokyo, but I've never heard of the other two places. Sure they are in Japan?
;)

Unfortunately they are, when you come out of the Ground Floor Mandarin Oriental Tokyo turn right & they are the first two Shops you come to, I always try to turn left. 

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 13, 2014, 08:17:09 PM »
My wife has now ruled me out as a complete nut case, running around shooting out of focus images and posting them on the internet ...  ::)

That is really very funny, your wife, if she's anything like mine, does at times perhaps have a point.

I just finished putting together a Holiday schedule for the last 6 months of this Year, Greenland, Tibet, Namibia, Turkey, Morocco.

My wife looked at the schedule in complete Horror and asked just exactly what these places had for her, after some thought I added Japan, which seemed to make her Happy (Tokyo, Gucci, Hermes etc), I kept to myself the fact that I added Japan so I could Photograph the Snow Monkeys with no snow.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Pentax 645z
« on: April 13, 2014, 07:58:37 PM »
Sporgon makes an excellent point, I've been sitting on the fence for some time regards the Phase One IQ280, now we have the IQ250 CMOS Sensor, so things are moving along with MF, except the price of course.

The new Pentax perhaps begins to see this Price disadvantage begin to close to somewhere closer to an expensive dslr ff package at around 10k.

I like the fact that this Pentax has moved the fps forwards to around 3fps, as against the Phase One of +/- 1fps, I think it hurts Pentax though that they have crippled the system with no Leaf Shutter lens options, that's a major draw for the Phase One & Mamiya.

I note that Leica are putting forward another MF system, either an upgrade to the S2 or a new system, so there appear to be some positive moves this year in the MF arena, I really do hope Canon drops something similar into the mix.

But as Sporgon pointed out, there are options for MF files open to current dslr owners, in particular in the Landscape area. Doesn't quite work though with Portrait or still life, yet.

9
Just purchased this one, the Uinta Backpack from Gura Gear.

I have both the 32 & 26 Batalea Packs, best I've owned, The Unita is for those days where I want less gear & more hiking.

You can access your gear without taking off the pack through a pocket at the top rear, watch the video on the Gura site, may be what your looking for. USD$400 with both internal modules, the water carrier & Tripod carrier, I think it's an excellent pack, just like any of the Gura Gear equipment.

http://www.guragear.com/uinta/

10
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 07, 2014, 08:25:30 PM »
AWB would be the culprit Eldar, most people these days will leave white balance up to the Camera set to Auto, after all it can be fixed in Post.

I'm of the opinion that WB is best fixed in Camera, so I always set the white balance manually, just like you would for a jpg Image.

I normally leave it on AWB. As long as I shoot RAW it is easily adjustable in post. But in this case, where I thought I had set the same WB (temp and tint) on all images and everything looked exactly the same in LR and on print, I was surprised to see the difference that appeared when I posted them here.

What advantage do you actually get from setting WB manually in the camera? That is not apparent to me.


Hi Eldar, AWB works fine, most of the time, but if you want total control over colour caste in your Images, in Camera, you should look at Custom White Balance setting, or, shooting in Kelvin, I use all, including AWB, but will generally shoot either with a custom white balance or in Kelvin. Have a look at these three sites to get some idea.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2013/whitebalance_creating_adjusting.shtml

http://fstoppers.com/learn-to-shoot-proper-white-balance-using-kelvin-temps

http://www.graphics.com/article-old/photography-fundamentals-white-balance

The benefits for myself are mostly around getting the best colour in camera that I can rather than leave it to an adjustment in Post, I learnt form a couple of excellent Photographers that the more you can tweak "in camera" the less you need to worry about in Post, and I feel every adjustment in Post contributes to noise and other downsides.

Most people will continue to shoot AWB because they are convinced it can all be taken care of in Post, and in most cases they are right, it can. But I believe there are real benefits to setting WB Manually, in particular when your viewing in Live View, I want to see, actually really see, what the Colour will look like in the final Image without going to Post to effect a change (remember what your actually seeing in Live View is a rendered jpg, not a RAW image).

I'm by no means a "Technical Photographer" (without a doubt Nuero, jrista could explain this much better then I, and some others as well), I'm more your "Gun & Run" type, but I've seen in my own Images the benefits to be had from setting WB manually.

I mostly went to shooting Manual WB because of the different colour caste you will find when shooting in bright light to shade, i.e.. outside a temple to inside, open savannah in the Mara to trees & shade, AWB will also work, but it's the Camera making the decision, not you, so you get what the Camera thinks is the right Kelvin Temperature in each situation, Cameras can't read minds so they do the best they are programmed to do.

You on the other hand are much smarter than the Camera with much better eye sight as well.

11
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 07, 2014, 07:21:52 PM »
The lens was a 300mm f2.8

That, is an unbelievably good Image, certainly an award winner.

12
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 06, 2014, 07:32:53 PM »
Thanks guys, much appreciated.

One question though. All three pictures went through exactly the same process and adjustments (hardly any). But on my monitors, of which one is a self calibrating Eizo, the third image has totally different colors than the others. Does any of you have an explanation for that?

AWB would be the culprit Eldar, most people these days will leave white balance up to the Camera set to Auto, after all it can be fixed in Post.

I'm of the opinion that WB is best fixed in Camera, so I always set the white balance manually, just like you would for a jpg Image.

13
Photography Technique / Re: Help on what to bring to Krabi...
« on: April 05, 2014, 09:33:38 PM »
I was not being rude, or a having a bad day. 

Yes, you were. Bad Day or not hard to tell, but the "Poop" comment was rudeness in almost anyone's view, except your own.

I was attempting to add a little levity, apparently you did not get it. 

I think the Op got your point, you were being insulting, it was obvious, again to all but you.

There are posts just like "verysimplejason's" several times a week, people that have some gear, want some advice, members on CR can choose to assist by offering their advice, or ignore the posit and move on.

What's really not necessary are negative & disparaging comments in a Thread requesting advice & support.

Be a big boy, wipe your nose and ask for some valuable information that just might get you some great images. 

Comments in particular like this one, perhaps could be seen as "constructive" when giving advice to a 2 year old on personal hygiene, but just seems insulting in the context of this thread.


14
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 05, 2014, 09:12:28 PM »
Nice looking Birds Eldar, well shot.

Probably look good in a pot as well, with some stuffing.

15
<p>We’re not sure whether or not we’ll post the rest of the internal documents we have in our possession. If you think there’s value in us doing so, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20341.0">please sound off in our forum</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
[/html]


This is a little like the "friend" that has info about your wife's infidelity and is happy to tell you he has the info, but not sure he wants to actually tell you.

Get serious CR Guy, either you have the info, or you don't, you decide with advice from your legal counsel to share the info, or don't.

There's no question anyone that's ever owned a piece of Canon gear wouldn't want this info.

Basically it's called "piss or get off the pot", the whole basis of your starting a thread on this is demeaning, to you.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 82