July 30, 2014, 11:10:38 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 94
496
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 20, 2013, 10:35:24 PM »
Shot this Guy in the Serengeti, he was probably the only Cheetah I've found that was really easy to Focus on, still, just in case, I shot him/Her @ 1/800th, you never know with Cheetahs.

1Dx 200-400f/4, 400mm f/4.5 1/800th ISO 400

497
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 20, 2013, 09:44:34 PM »
Timbavati South Africa 2013.

1Dx 400f/2.8 L II, Shot @ f/2.8 & 1/400th ISO1000

498
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 20, 2013, 07:14:01 PM »

question...is the bald eagle viewed in a similar way in other countries around the world?

thoughts/opinions anybody?

north

I imagine it's the case, we have a slightly larger Bird called the Wedge Tailed Eagle in Australia that just isn't any where as well known as the Bald Eagle, that I imagine being due to the Bald Eagle being the "emblem" of the USA, but also because the Bald Eagle is certainly a Beautiful looking Eagle with that White head etc, the "Wedgie" is a lovely Bird also, but does loose out in the "Pretty Bird" stakes.

From my own perspective I've rarely seen a Bald Eagle while travelling in the Lower 49, seen absolutely loads while travelling in Alaska.

499
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:56:58 PM »
Tanzania March 2013.

1Dx 400f/2.8 L II + 1.4x, Shot @ 560mm f/4 1/1000th ISO800
Awesome as usual Edward :) Today i got my new 85 1.2 :)
Congratulations. Your life will be fullfilled from this day forward! I love mine :)
Can't wait to put it to use Eldar :) it's one sexy piece of glass ;)

Hi Bornshooter, the 85f/1.2 L II was made for you, with your style of Imaging I expect we will see some amazing stuff.

Used on the 1Dx I've found the auto focus works well, not a speed King, but well, used on the 5DMK II, not so good, quite slow.

But it's sharp, sharp, sharp.

500
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 20, 2013, 06:26:16 AM »
Tanzania March 2013.

1Dx 400f/2.8 L II + 1.4x, Shot @ 560mm f/4 1/1000th ISO800

501
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: November 20, 2013, 05:01:07 AM »
Edward,

Wow! Whether above or below water, your photos are always amazing. 8)

Thanks Serendipidy, appreciated.

502
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: November 19, 2013, 11:29:29 PM »
We'll be together even when the sun sets...

Very nice, Petronas Towers in the background, well done.

503
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: November 19, 2013, 11:28:02 PM »
As always, great image Edward!

Thanks Eldar, it's always a difficult decision for me, Safari ?? or Dive Trip ??

Still, not a bad quandary to have.

504
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: November 19, 2013, 11:03:43 PM »
Komodo National Park, Near Rinja Indonesia

5DMK II 100f/2.8L IS f/22

505
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: November 19, 2013, 10:56:12 PM »
Raja Ampat Papua Indonesia 2011

5DMK II 100f/2.8 L IS, f/22

506
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: November 19, 2013, 09:35:21 PM »
Mombo Main Camp, Botswana Okavango Delta 2012

1D MKIV & 400f/2.8 L II, Shot @ f/2.8 & 1/640th ISO200

507
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: November 19, 2013, 08:59:47 PM »
Botswana Okavango Delta 2012

5DMK III & 300f/2.8 L II, Shot @ f/2.8 & 1/500th ISO125

508
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 19, 2013, 07:22:21 PM »
Honest question.  I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration?  How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce?  What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

Because they all respectively currently have 50mm lenses that already cost a lot more than $400 that don't really compete with the Otus.

Agree, I have & use the Canon 50 f/1.2 L, very good Lens, My copy though I've settled on after 3 attempts. I like very much the way this lens renders the background, I very seldom use it on auto focus as I'm mostly using it at f/1.2 or f/2, focussing is critical at this shallow depth of field. I expect the Otus 55 to be quite a bit better in any and all areas, except auto focus, and in a couple of weeks I'll know.

I'm somewhat surprised at those that criticise the Otus 55/f1.4 based on price alone, I don't really see the sense in it, either you appreciate there is a difference and want the Zeiss Lens for the little extra IQ it will deliver, and are prepared to pay the 2x price over the Canon 50f/1.2L, or your not, to criticise Zeiss for producing an amazing lens because it's "too expensive" is a little like criticising a Petrus Pomerol 1986 over any 2 litre cask wine, you need to first be able to appreciate that there is a difference, if you can't, your going to head for the cask wine, so just enjoy it.

509
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: November 18, 2013, 10:20:06 PM »
Honest question.  I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration?  How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce?  What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

You perhaps need to compare Apples with Apples, sort of.

Canon/Nikon/Sony Lenses are comparable, some within the group are slightly better than others, all made for the mass market, with a few exceptions, Large Whites (and Nikons similar range), 50f/1.2 etc.

Zeiss lenses you might need to compare with Leica, not made for the mass market more for the Pro/serious amateur that will appreciate that 10% extra all round, IQ etc etc, and the engineered for a life time Lens.

In the Otus 55f/1.4 Category you should be perhaps trying to compare it to the Leica Summilux 50f/1.4, both are manual focus, both are engineered to last 50 years, both are USD$4K Lenses.

A couple years back I tried the Leica M9 system, the Summilux 50f/1.4 Aspherical I waited a little over a year on back order to finally get a copy, Leica sell, mostly on Back Order, every Lens they make, Zeiss have a similar problem (joking), Canon/Nikon/Sony would just love top have the same issue.

I feel this is one area where you do probably get what you pay for, I hope so, I have the Otus 55f/1.4 on order.

510
Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: November 18, 2013, 07:24:03 PM »
Has anyone used this lens in lower lighting conditions? There's a few shots in this thread that look like they were taken around dusk and turned out pretty well, but I'm curious about a bit more input.  I'm looking into getting my first "big white" and am mostly interested in this lens vs the 400 2.8.

I have had both Lenses on Safari, used both in low light/Dusk/Dawn shooting, the question is a good one and it's probably the biggest decision maker between these two lenses other than Sharpness. I've sold my 400f/2.8 L II since buying the 200-400f/4 but only after doing two Safari Trips with both Lenses to compare, and bringing along my 300f/2.8 L II as well.

I sold the 400f/2.8 II as I feel the versatility of the 200-400f/4 works for me in my own style of imaging to the point where the 400 was no longer necessary, but, this decision becomes easier when you have the 300f/2.8 II sitting waiting for those extreme low light situations.

The 400f/2.8 II is always going to be the better low light Lens, caveat here being what your shooting the lens on, I use the 1Dx and I find the combo unbeatable, the 5DMK III I also shoot with and it is not as good as the 1Dx in low light. The 400f/2.8 obviously has a full stop more light to play with over the 200-400f/4.

The 200-400f/4 though is no slouch in the low light department, what I have found is I simply operate the 200-400f/4 at 1600 or 2500 ISO where I would have operated the 400f/2.8 II at say 800 or 1250 ISO, any graining I take care of in Post. This is where the lighting conditions require higher ISO, otherwise during normal light conditions I would operate either lens at a Base 400, rarely do I shoot lower than ISO400.

Image quality comparisons I've found they two Lenses, same Length, same ISO same f/stop, are pretty evenly matched, again, I feel the Primes will always out the Zooms, but the 200-400f/4 compared to the 200f/2 (@f4) the 300f/2.8 II (@f4) the 400f/2.8 II (@f/4) the 600 f/4 (@f/5.6) and the 200-400 f/4 @ f/4 200/300/400 & 600 similar set up, you are going to find you need to go to zoom in quite a bit to begin to see the benefits IQ wise of the Primes over the Zoom, the 200-400f/4 is the best I have seen when comparing zoom to prime.

My feel is if you concentrate your imaging on low light you may want to go for the Primes, if your low light is say 10% of your Imaging, as is my own case, the Zooms versatility and first class IQ makes the 200-400 a better all round tool.

But that is an opinion knowing that I always have the 300f/2.8 II sitting ready for those low light extremes.

The attached were both shot @ ISO2500.

The Bush Baby with the 400f/2.8 II @ f/2.8

The Female Lion wight he 200-400f/4 @ f/5.6 560mm.

Not a true test of apples with apples, but both Lenses, on the 1Dx, work well in low light.

Both Images were shot with the 600EX-RT for fill flash.

Both Images shot well after sun down full dark, Both Images were shot with Spot light to gain focus, without the spot light neither shot could be achieved as no light/no focus.

This is one area where the f/2.8 will always out the f/4, a point where it's just too dark for the f/4 to achieve focus and the f/2.8 possibly still can.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 94