December 20, 2014, 08:32:07 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 - eml58

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 103
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 06, 2013, 08:11:24 PM »
A barn owl.

Cropped to my taste, and cropped to 100% to show the detail in the full image.
I love barn owls cool shoots

Agreed, Lovely Image.

I still remember (and get Goose Bumps) when I think of a recent Nat Geo Image of a Barn Owl Flying out of a Window of an Old Barn towards the Photographer, amazing Image.

Both images with A7R and Zeiss ZE, 15mm f2.8. First image 30min after sunset, second image 25min before sunrise this morning.

Like the 2nd in particular, Lovely.

I have the Zeiss 15f/2.8 Canon mount, unfortunately not been able as yet to get the adaptor for my a7r, so at present just able to utilise with the Zeiss 35f/2.8.

I've not found the Battery Life to be excessively Bad, 300-450 Images seems to be about my best, so it means on a Busy shoot I need perhaps 1 spare charged Battery, recently in Svalbard due to the Cold conditions I was changing my 1Dx Battery about every 2 Hours.

I Like the Camera, see the possibilities, hamstrung by Sony due to quite poor Market implementation but just the same I think Sony have a reasonable winner here, all depends on wether Sony commit to the Lenses and support over the next couple of years. This is where the likes of Canon/Nikon leave Sony behind, support of the product.

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 06, 2013, 07:53:04 PM »
The 300-600 is a possibility, but I'de not hold my breath waiting, I could only imagine a quite small market, but when you consider the size of the 200-400, I wouldn't imagine the 300-600 being much bigger in size than the current 600, slightly heavier, as is the case of the 200-400 over the 400f/2.8 II. Price ?? I'de imagine a similar premium that we have on the 400f/2.8 to the 200-400f/4, So around 20% more expensive than the current 600f/4 II.

The 600f/4 (1.4x) I see as a definite, Nikon are offering their own Long Lenses now with a dedicated Converter as part of the package, albeit it's similar to what is currently being offered but tuned to the particular Lens, which I feel is a good idea.

Having the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) I immediately saw the possibilities for Canon with the built in 1.4x Converter especially if it was offered as a "Build to Order" option on the 400/500/600/800, that way they could keep the standard no converter Models as they currently do, and the current prices, but have the more expensive "Option" for those that see the benefit and can afford it of the Built in Converter & don't mind waiting 6 months for a Special Build Option.

If they offer it up I'm certainly offloading my current 600f/4 II & jumping into the 600 with the Built in Converter, great idea.

Need Gura Gear to make a slightly longer Battaflea 32L Bag then, currently the 600f/4 fits one side, just (but not with the 1.4x Attached), and the 200-400f/4 the other side.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: December 06, 2013, 07:41:30 PM »
I wonder what this would look like with your newly acquired A7R ...

Ha Ha !! Not a chance on a Cold Day in Hell, I doubt the EVF could keep up even with the Animal strolling, but once the actions over, and you want that Beautiful Panorama where the only thing moving are the leaves in the breeze ?? Maybe. I bought the a7r because I've never been Happy with the Canon M, and now v2 M is ...... the same as V1 really, so a7r for the Walk Around Camera in downtown Tokyo etc, plus I have a couple of Zeiss Lenses and I do Love the Zeiss Lenses. And so we convince ourselves.

Why is there a poll for the Nikon DF at the top?

Yes, Good question, I guess I've never noticed it until now.

And yes, they do have wolf in them. They need space. The flat was not good for it so he went off to a sheep farmer when he was 4.

Have you checked lately that the Sheep Farmer is still around ??

In Australia the German Shepard (The Dog I mean) was an illegal Animal from after the 1st World War until the 50's, It was felt that if the German Shepard's (with their Wolf Genes) got into the Dingo population in outback Australia we would have an interbred animal that was capable of devastating the Sheep population, at some point someone decided it was a fanciful idea and allowed the Dogs into Aus. We've had little luck in Aus with introduced species, Rabbits (the long eared variety), Rats, Cane Toads, Fox's, English People (As against the Good Scots & Irish types   ;) ), long line of disasters.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: December 06, 2013, 08:40:46 AM »
He looks a bit like the family dog, doesn't he? ;)

I suppose so, if your into keeping a Wolf as a Family Pet, Beautiful Animal & a Lovely Capture.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: December 05, 2013, 10:23:47 PM »
Ok, this isn't a Bird in Flight, I know the difference.

But this Female Cheetah is running down a Thompson's Gazelle at somewhere between 80kph & 100kph, I'm no BIF photographer in any way, I leave that up to People like Gary Samples who does an excellent job of it, but I don't think too many BIF are any more difficult to Photograph than this situation. And I don't for one moment say that this Image is an amazing Cheetah in Flight Image, but the 200-400f/4 does this amazingly well and in this Image you have the disadvantage of Tall Grass to get in the way of the Lenses ability to focus on the subject, not something you generally have to worry too much about with BIF.

To shoot this with the 100-400f/4-5.6, you would need the 1.4x converter attached and then your shooting an Animal running @ 100kph @ f/8, not an impossible task I admit but a lot more difficult than it seems, but the 200-400f/4 in this instance was on the 1Dx 560mm f/5.6 1/2000th ISO800 and just handled it supremely well, I don't think the 100-400 could have done it as well, but, I didn't have the 100-400 so it's conjecture, based on experience, mine.

Could the 100-400 have done it, I'm sure it could have, I'm just glad I had the 200-400 instead so I was more sure of getting The Shot.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: December 05, 2013, 09:26:13 PM »
I don´t know what it takes to convince you, but I have attached the color version of my avatar, shot with a 1DX at 560mm, f5.6, 1/200s and ISO400.

Really Eldar, I thought the B&W was lovely, this is Superb, pity you didn't use the 100-400, you could have saved yourself....$15k ??

I have to come up there some time for some of these Lynx & Wolf Image opportunities, really Lovely stuff.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: December 05, 2013, 09:23:37 PM »
Keep this up, we'll be at 10 Pages in no time I'm sure.

Lenses / Re: Photos from 200-400. Also any comments...
« on: December 05, 2013, 09:22:55 PM »
Frankly, I'm just not seeing excellent images from the 200-400mm: most images posted on the Internet taken with this lens could have been taken with a 100-400mm costing a tenth of the price and a fraction of the size/weight.  The latest generation of Canon 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses, in comparison, deliver images that sparkle.  If you need focal length versatility, go for a long prime and mid-range zoom.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong!

Hi Mikea, you wouldn't be AvTvM or Michael in another life would you ?? I mean, your 3rd Post on CR & you come onto a Thread specifically set up for people to discuss the merits & or handling of the 200-400, post their Images etc, and dump on the Images & the Lens in question, not bad for a 3rd time Poster.

But, if we treat your Post with a modicum of respect, yes, almost all the Images you find taken with the 200-400f/4 could be to some degree emulated using the 100-400f/4-5.6 with a 1.4x converter (200-400f/4 of course isn't able to emulate the 100-400 at less than 200, clearly), I disagree though that in right hands you are going to get anywhere near the same IQ from the 100-400 that you will get from the 200-400, and having owned (and given away) the 100-400 & currently own the 200-400, I, unlike yourself, speak from experience.

If your serious (and I doubt you are) about wanting to discern the IQ difference between the two, it's simple really, hire both & go out and take some Images side by side & see if your prepared to make the financial commitment of the 200-400 over the 100-400, it just seems to me to be a smarter method of determining the Pros & Cons of each Lens prior to the commitment, than reviewing Photos on the Internet.

Fortunately for Canon there aren't too many people out in the real World that share your opinion, currently the 200-400f/4 is basically a back order almost anywhere you can find the Lens, and that's at US$16k compared to the 100-400f/4 at what ?? US1.6k, I wonder why all those Wildlife & Sport photographers are prepared to pay the huge premium to own the 200-400 over the 100-400, Oh yes I know, they clearly have no idea about how best to select gear, more money than Brains, didn't listen to mikea.

I've seen very little on the web re the 200-400f/4 being the ideal Lens for BIF Imaging, I've seen a load on the Web about the 600f/4, 600f/4 + 1.4x, 800f/5.6 being the ideal BIF lenses. And my own experience supports this view, the 200-400 is an amazing Lens for Wildlife & I imagine Sports, but for BIF it can't compare to the 600f/4 + 1.4x, and I own & use that Combo as well, so again, I speak from experience.

Maybe instead of spending your time on the internet reviewing those Thousands if Bird Images you might take some time out & go take some Images yourself with the 100-400f/4 & the 200-400f/4 (Hire them for a few days) & Post them here so we can be convinced you have any idea of what your talking about, I mean this only in a respectful manner of course, I'de love you to be able to convince me, I'm really not interested in convincing you.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 05, 2013, 07:19:50 PM »
The point is, I bet for every person to whom you recommend against choosing Canon, there are several people recommending the opposite to their co-workers or friends or family.  For the most part, people tend to recommend what they use…and more people use Canon that the other brands.

And among all the possible scenarios we see here on CR, this is the one irrefutable piece of info, it's irrefutable not because some at CR say so (although we do, repeatedly), it's irrefutable because Canon, for 10 years ?? (Neuro, need help), have continuously been the largest seller of Cameras on the Planet, by a decent margin.

It could be because they make Garbage and have a supreme Marketing team that's able to sell Ice Makers to Eskimos, but....... I don't think so, it may just be that Canon make an excellent group of products (not saying in all areas the best, just excellent), have first class support, and are smart enough to paint their large Lenses....white.

Sony A7R Cons:
- Battery charger not included. The battery charges from either an AC or USB source, in camera. Separate charger is $79.

On top of crap battery life, you have to plug the camera in to charge the battery…Sony, WTF?!?

Yes, that threw me as well, I spent 10 Minutes ripping the Box apart thinking "no way", but seems Sony found a way.

The other thing that threw me initially was no software out of the Box to handle Files from the Camera, your on your own and that truly is "WTF".

If you shoot RAW your choices are to download some hopeless Sony thing called "SonyHomeWhatever" which only allows you to view your files, crop and make very minor adjustments, but doesn't allow you to save the file in any other format or method, completely useless (This was my experience, there may be software out there that I wasn't able to locate).

Initially LR didn't handle the Sony RAW file from the a7r either, but the new Adobe 5.3 Release fixes that.

I do like the Camera, I feel it has potential in my own case as a back up to the 1Dx, perhaps a replacement for the 5DMK III in some scenarios, But Sony have sort of crippled the release by it's poor management of support gear, Lenses in particular.

In fact I need to clarify my thought re the 1Dx, I don't see the a7r ever being a back up to the 1Dx, what I meant to say was I see the a7r as a reasonable system camera (with some Lenses) to do the things I currently want to do with the 5DMK III, in particular the form factor & the 36MP sensor hopes. My biggest current "don't like" would be the EVF, never used one before and not so keen at this point, time might rectify that, we'll see.

But I'm happier with the a7r than I ever was with the Leica M9, except the Leica Lenses of course, but with the a7r + Zeiss Glass you have best of both worlds, Beautiful Glass that Auto Focusses on a 36MP Sensor, worth giving a try I think & hopefully Canon some where down the track go one better now that Sony have to some degree shown it can be done.

Canon plz we are waiting omg omg omg omg omg omg

Hilarious, and unfortunately, too the point.

I think it may be a long wait for a similar piece of gear from Canon, Mirrorless does seem to be something Canon want to be in because everyone else is, but they concentrate on the FF DSLR market and possibly intend to remain that way for some time.

The news on new M disappointed me and I went and purchased the a7r, I like what I see so far, some things I'm not so happy with (The EVF takes some getting used to when you've never used one before), but I feel that way about my 1Dx & 5DMK III as well, but I do think Sony have a reasonable winner in the a7r, it's such a pity they decided to bring it to market with such abysmal support, in Singapore when I picked up the a7r they had just the Zoom Kit lens from Sony, or the Zeiss 35, which is a lovely Lens. I think if you stick to the Zeiss Lenses that will become available for the a7r over the next 12 months or so the Sony becomes a viable system, won't replace the 1Dx in any way, but might replace the 5DMK III.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 04, 2013, 07:11:31 PM »
And again I wonder how smart I was (and you) to sell that lens. I probabaly have to think of getting the 300mm f2.8L IS II ...

Hi Eldar, yes, the f/2.8 is an absolute must, I would not have sold my 400 if I hadn't already owned the 300, goes with me everywhere, 300f/2.8L II + 200-400f/4 + 1Dx, match made in heaven.

To give some idea of what the Original scene was I've attached a grab of the Original RAW out of the Camera, converted to jpg, Not wanting to start a DR war, but even for Canon Sensor Knockers I think this goes some way to showing what the Canon Sensor in the 1Dx can do when it comes to retrieving detail.

The other thing I forgot to do in the Original was use my Strobes, unfortunately they were attached to my 200-400 at the time and I opted to go with the f/2.8, decisions decisions.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 04, 2013, 07:00:39 PM »
I hate this forum lol as after my purchase of the 85 1.2 i am now considering the 300 2.8 2 and 2x extender to get me started on wildlife so thanks guys :P i tell myself its an investment as the lens if kept well will retain much of its value :)
And if you buy it in the US under the assumption that you will sell it in Norway (where everything is more expensive), you´ll make a profit and can thus view it as a lucrative business ;)

I've sold my V1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 Lenses to friends in South Africa (and my 400f/2.8 v2), could have made Money but I opted to sell at the same price I originally purchased them for, these Lenses are definitely better investments than any Car or Boat I've owned.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:13:01 AM »
Timbavati South Africa 2013

1Dx 400f/2.8 L II, Shot @ f/2.8 & 1/1000th ISO200

This was one of those Shots where I'de pretty well dicked it from the start, forgot to change the ISO, Forgot to change the Shutter Speed, came around a corner, Sun pretty well set behind the Trees, and saw this Guy resting inside the Trees, shot from the Hip as they say, 3 shots & he was up & away.

The 1Dx & 200-400f/4 was also on the seat, didn't look at it for this shot, this is where the f/2.8 is sooooo handy.

Saved in Post, almost.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 103