February 01, 2015, 04:08:06 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
31
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: Ultra long daytime exposures - 5D mkiii
« on: June 09, 2013, 12:18:44 AM »
5D3 + 16-35 II. Used the 10 stop from Haida (Thanks to Dustin for the heads up).


Twilight and Tranquility II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

32
Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...
« on: June 08, 2013, 09:04:05 AM »
I thought of replacing my current 70-200 2.8L (non IS) with the 70-200 2.8L IS II. On the fence if should go for it or instead keep the existing 70-200 f2.8L and add the 85 1.2L II to my armory.

So possible list

70-200 f2.8L IS II (to replace the original 70-200 f2.8L)
24-70 f2.8L II (to replace the orginal 24-70 f2.8L)
85 f1.2L II (add the prime to my kit/replace the 50 f1.8 II).

33
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
« on: June 07, 2013, 09:23:20 AM »
Few more from a recent trip.


Slice of Heaven II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr


One Last View by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr


Twilight and Tranquility II by Dhanad Islam, on Flickr

34
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 07, 2013, 02:54:57 AM »
isn't it really interesting how the 17-40 is exhibiting both 8 point and 14 point stars?

anyone know how that's possible?

EDIT: oh wait, the first image is the 24-105 based on exif



Lol, good catch. Thanks for the heads up. That photo was submitted to the 17-40L group by the user, should have double checked the exif. Thanks. >_<

Edit: I have removed the link to this photo. Thanks again.

35
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:20:37 AM »
However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person.
this. 

Yes, I like the sunstars with the 16-35L II.  But, can we see some examples of the not-as-nice ones from the 17-40?

17-40 sunstars examples
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nblain/8916365476/#in/pool-17-40ff/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28682226@N05/8970694376/#in/pool-17-40ff
http://www.flickr.com/photos/quichbill/8628416467/#in/pool-17-40ff

I kind of like this one though: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoops510/8946512922/#in/pool-17-40ff

36
Lenses / Re: Is the 16-35 L II worth its price?
« on: June 06, 2013, 03:41:40 AM »
I recently bought the Canon 16-35 II, and had the opportunity to run it through it's paces. My 16-35 II is sharp in the center when stopped down, and I wish the mid frame was as sharp or at least close to the center sharpness. But it's still pretty good stopped down. Corners did not bother me much, but that's just me. However, when you have lightsources in your frame, I felt the sun-stars produced by the 16-35 II looked better than the sun-stars produced by the 17-40 stopped down to f8 and  onward. This aesthetic choice may vary from person to person. I also felt that my copy of the lens performed better at 35mm than at 16mm. By better I mean, images felt much crisper at 35mm. Would I drop this lens for something else? Yes, only if a 16-35 MKIII with performance as good as the recent 24-70 MKII is ever made. But that's just wishful thinking. If sunstars aren't your thing and you have no use of f2.8, then go for 17-40. My 2 cents.

37
Lenses / Re: Lens got sprayed with mists from waterfall. TODO?
« on: June 01, 2013, 04:36:49 PM »
Thanks folks. I cant rest my mind for now. I will be giving it another thorough check to make sure its nice and clean.

38
Lenses / Lens got sprayed with mists from waterfall. TODO?
« on: May 31, 2013, 11:51:02 PM »
Was shooting the Bridalveil Fall in Yosemite, and it was windier than usual that day. I was using the 16-35 II, and I had a ND filter on. After the shoot, I realized the mist from the waterfall nearly soaked the interior of the hood. Like soaked it pretty well enough that there was a small pool of water inside the hood, and front of the filter glass. I have wiped the lens down, but do I need to take extra measures to make sure its dried well enough. I guess I am a bit paranoid.

39
Tried opening in Canon's ImageBrowser EX, and in there the preview thumbnails of the corrupted RAW files are just blank, and wont open when clicked on it. What intrigues me is that the file size appear to be normal. I managed to retrieve an embedded jpeg off only one of the corrupted file which can be viewed/opened like any normal file. However, the rest of the corrupted files can't be viewed or opened =(

40
Hey folks, I came across this site: http://www.cr2repair.com/

Anyone used this software before? Anyone had any success with this app before? Thanks for your input.

41
Ok will look into it. Also if it matters, when I was shooting it was taking something like 10-15secs for the camera to write a single image onto the SD card. Also, the SD card was a class 4 memory card.

42
Software & Accessories / Help! Fix or convert damaged RAW files =(
« on: May 28, 2013, 07:04:12 PM »
Anyone know of any apps that can fix/or atleast convert damaged raw (CR2 format) files? When importing into Lightroom I get a 'Files appear to be unsupported or damaged' prompt. I tried opening them in PS, but no success. I was using a 5D3 and at one point I borrowed a Transcend 32GB card from a friend of mine, as all of my cards ran out of space at the time. The files appear to be of normal size, but I cannot open them.

PS: One of the damaged file did import into Lightroom, and is viewable. Only 15% of the image did not record when it was saving into the card. The damaged part of the image ofcourse did not render).

Any advice is appreciated.

43
There goes one more flower.
5D3 100L. Crazy windy day, fortunately I had a flash to freeze them all.

Beautiful color!

44
Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?
« on: May 17, 2013, 01:05:02 AM »
I'm not really an AFMA expert, but the problem is as such.

lens is -15 and the body is +4 making the total adjustment 19 notches till AF is perfect.

Then you get a new body and the same lens.  The lens is still at -15, but the new body is at +9, so now you are at 24 notches till perfect. 

And if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me out there.

So it is really about the lens, because let's say your body is +15 and your lens is +13, then you only have 2 in total difference.  So when you sell it to someone without AFMA, their body is -10 and the lens is +13 for a total difference of 23... which could be a real problem. 

So my presumption is that you want to make sure that you are identifying whether it is a combination of body + lens which is getting the high number or whether it is the lens itself.

Thanks jdramirez. Yeah, that made sense.

45
Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?
« on: May 16, 2013, 07:09:43 PM »
I recently bought a used 16-3L II and it seemed soft at first. After a quick AFMA, Focal suggested +12/13 on both ends. It was tested under very good lighting conditions(+15EV) and on a stable tripod. That AFMA made it a lot better though. But do these extreme values imply something is seriously wrong with the lens and need to be checked/calibrated?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15