February 28, 2015, 12:22:39 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 - killswitch

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15
151
Lenses / Re: Need comparisons between Canon 135L vs 100L
« on: October 30, 2012, 02:17:52 AM »
I don't have the 100L but I do have the 135L and it is a must have lens IMO.  The 100L is a macro so I would not compare them I would just consider them for different purposes.  I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 II and while it is an excellent work horse lens, it is not the same as the 135L.  I use them for different purposes as well and I need them both.  The 135L is very light and easy to use as a walk around lens.

135L examples with minimal editing...





Darn! I dunno what to say but these are some of the best photos I have seen in recent times. Did you get these colors and contrast right off the bat? Please say yes! =O

152
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: October 25, 2012, 09:55:37 AM »
Here's a couple of shots from me, taken with the 60D and Tokina 11-16mm


As We Go Down by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr


Bindu by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

153
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Question about 5DIII's NR settings
« on: October 24, 2012, 10:50:22 PM »
Do you keep 5DIII's High ISO Speed Noise Reduction off or enabled. If enabled, then do you set it to standard, low or high? It says in the manual that at low ISO the noise in the shadows are reduced if NR is kept on. What are your thoughts on this? I dont like the smudged look when heavy NR is applied, and I was wondering what others have experienced with this feature turned on. Is it helpful for night time shots? Or do you feel keeping NR off, and handle it in LR.

Same question for the Long Exposure Noise Reduction.

Another question, out of topic though. How do you guys downsample? I end up downsampling within LR when uploading to sites like flickr. Do you feel the downsampling appears to be better in PS or is it just as same?

154
If you want one and can afford it, go for it.  Life is too short to wait.  When I bought my 65" plasma I got the best price I could at the time.  Sure 4 years later it was $2500 cheaper but I also used and enjoyed it for that time.  It's the same philosophy some people use when they want to retire.  They scrimp and save every penny until retirement, but it's too late.  Look how much you've missed in the meantime.  You also have to live until you get to that point.  ;)

+1

155
1D X Sample Images / Re: 1dx + 400mm 2.8 @Axalp Switzerland
« on: October 24, 2012, 11:42:22 AM »
OMG! What amazing shots you have here, and love how you did your post on them! =O

156
Received my copy of the 5DIII from Beach Camera's sale that took place a couple of weeks ago. Like RustytheGeek mentioned. Everything is perfectly fine. I did some tests, it works as it should. The serial number suggests they are fresh batch and do not have the light leak issue. Comes with Sales receipt, US warranty card. The shipment arrived on time. Everything was in right order except the flimsy packaging. All in all I am happy with the service! <3

157
EOS Bodies / Canon 5DIII for $3200 @ BnH
« on: October 22, 2012, 01:03:19 PM »
Dont know if this was reported before this, but damn, thats a nice drop in price! In such a short time!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sub=cpw&is=REG&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=847545

158
EOS Bodies / Re: PhotoPlus Announcements?
« on: October 22, 2012, 10:43:55 AM »
Oh please let there be a 14-24 L from Canon! It's been too long!  :'(

159
Lenses / How can I add filters on Tokina 16-28 f2.8 Lens?
« on: October 20, 2012, 12:12:22 AM »
I am looking to purchase the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 . Due to its bulbous front element there is no filter thread. Are there any adapter/method or some sort of holder out there that are used on such designs so that one can use filters. I am hoping to use ND filters and really need to figure out there are ways I can attach filters before I hit the buy button.

Thanks

160
FYI - I just received a 5DIII from Beach Camera that I purchased for $2899 (thanks to a CanonRumors Forum tip) at Beach Camera's eBay store.  I'm leaving town in a couple hours so no time to test or do anything except visually inspect and post this message.

The Good
-  No funny business, calls or shipment games.  Arrived via FedEx Ground Home Delivery.
-  Purchased Sat evening with BuyItNow.
-  Ship Notification with tracking info on Mon.
-  Arrived here today (Friday) requiring signature.
-  US Warranty Card in box with a matching serial number to the camera's bottom plate.

The Bad
Pathetic Packing!!  (Note attached picture.)  They shipped it in a box the exact size of the camera box.  No packing material or cushion whatsoever.  I have no idea how much shock/drop abuse the box received during shipment.  I can't believe a camera dealer would ship a $3000 camera with no packing to protect it.  Ridiculous!
-  It appears that the camera box was opened and contents removed and then repacked.  Not sure if it matters since everything is there and the camera appears clean but I'll find out more next week when I register the camera with Canon and test it.  Since the serial number matches the US Warranty, I assume it will be fine as long as the camera works correctly.

I've been a little worried about the purchase simply due to the price.  So far, nothing except the non-packing is a negative but I'm still waiting for the other (hidden) stinky shoe to drop.

What has everyone else's experience been with their bargain 5D3 purchases?

I will be getting mine this Monday, will definitely post how I fared. Do let us know if the camera functions as its supposed to. Also, I hope this batch do not have the light leak issue.

161
For the guys asking about the Tokina and the 5D mmiii - http://www.stockhammedia.com/2012/10/19/tokina-11-16mm-f2-8-with-5d-mkiii/

Thanks a lot Cgdillan. Those shots cleared out some confusion. 15mm and 16mm looks very much usable. So, I got myself a uwa prime now lol.

 no problem. yes very very usable. haha. yeah that's what it is for me =-) except I'd call it a dual focal length uwa prime.

The Tokina 15-16mm AT-X 116 Pro AF FX "DFL UWA" Prime lens for Canon EOS

+1 on that new lens name. Hahaha!  ;D

162
For the guys asking about the Tokina and the 5D mmiii - http://www.stockhammedia.com/2012/10/19/tokina-11-16mm-f2-8-with-5d-mkiii/

Thanks a lot Cgdillan. Those shots cleared out some confusion. 15mm and 16mm looks very much usable. So, I got myself a uwa prime now lol.

163
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS vs Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: October 19, 2012, 09:34:28 AM »
Awesome insights folks. I'm going through the feedback, and yeah looking at real life samples, both are amazing.

There is a good podcast by Martin Bailey #235 and #236 in March 2010 comparing these two lenses.  You may want to check out his website.

Thanks a lot jointdoc, That was a wonderful review by  Martin Bailey. I am going to save up, and get the MKII. No point cheaping out on glasses. I have a 24-70, and really dont dig it's sharpness although it gave me some nice images. Since it was used on a 60D and I wouldn't bump the iso hence used to shoot wide open which ultimately gave softer results. Now that I will be using it with the 5DIII, I am probably going to stop down to f3.5 or 4 and bump up the iso to compensate. Neuro and others helped me figure out I will need to AFMA the 24-70. If that doesn't help then I will have to figure out if I want to send it to Canon to get it calibrated to the 5DIII.

164
Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS vs Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: October 18, 2012, 09:12:52 PM »
The original f/2.8 IS is the least sharp of the f/2.8's, and also not as sharp as the f/4 IS.  The MkII is the sharpest of the 70-200's.  The difference between the MkI and MkII is real, but not huge.

But...you mention wildlife.  If you ever plan to put a 1.4x or 2x extender behind the 70-200, get the MkII - no question. The original takes a big IQ hit from a 1.4x and a very big hit from the 2x. The MkII with the 2x is almost as good as the 100-400's native 400mm.

Hmm. So, the 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) is sharper than the version 1 IS right? I was checking that 'lens resolution charts' from digital picture labsite and I was surprised that non-IS appears to be sharper than then the version 1 IS. I didnt want to believe it. Any idea if the f2.8 non-IS takes a big hit when extenders are used on them?

165
Lenses / Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS vs Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: October 18, 2012, 03:52:51 PM »
I know the version two is sharper, has better flare control, and better IS, etc. I am only concerned about the sharpness across the range. I can get a new/semi new version 1 for 1500usd and was wondering if version 2 (which is 2100usd) really makes that much of a difference in terms of sharpness? The lens will be paired with a 5DIII and will be used to shoot wildlife, portraits, events. No sports. Go for the version one or get version two?

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15