Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Zeiss Lenses for Astrophotography [Long]

« on: May 17, 2013, 06:36:49 PM »

Thanks for the info NoiseJammer.

Note that critical focus was not achieved when the lenses were turned to the hard stop corresponding to focus at infinity. It is reasonably close but the spot size from stars was bloated by about 50%.

Interesting point. I've noticed on my Zeiss 15mm that the hard stop doesn't seem to match with what the focus indicator says in the view finder. I'll try the focus on the stars, when the weather clears (live view + loupe).

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What equipment to bring to get the stars

« on: May 17, 2013, 06:27:39 PM »

Hands down, the single toughest issue I have is dew on the lens, it has ruined more sequences than anything else.

Yep, I've had the 5D3 drenched from overnight sessions. Thankfully, its weather sealed
I've not tried one of these, but to reduce the issue of dew at night, this can work...
http://www.kendrickastro.com/astro/dew_cameracozy.html

3

Canon General / Re: Desired fantasy gear

« on: May 15, 2013, 10:01:59 AM »

1)  Easy, interchangeable focus screens for the 5D3
2)  Depth-of-field mode, like on the EOS3
3)  Eye control focus, like the EOS3

4

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 11, 2013, 06:51:09 PM »

Regarding fluorite v's ED, this link, while it is in the realm of telescopes, has an interesting post (third one down) about the pros and cons of both materials:
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Board/refractors/Number/4135855/page/172/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/2

5

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: May 10, 2013, 06:11:42 PM »

I’ve rented the Zeiss 15 and 21’s but I never had good skies while I was renting them so I couldn’t test them.  Anyone test these bad boys out yet?  Curious if the coma is well-controlled or not.

I've rented the 21mm and own the 15mm. Wide open @f2.8 both are extremely good for lack of coma, the 21mm was probably slightly better.

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 06, 2013, 10:46:17 PM »

A couple of thoughts.

1. With the subscription only model, what incentive does that give Adobe to innovate and come up with NEW features and bug fixes? I mean, the main reason people updated was new features. If they have you the short and curlies renting the software, what incentive do they have then to come out with regular and meaningful updates on a regular basis?

Good point.

7

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 06, 2013, 08:24:50 PM »

what a bunch of ***??!!! <insert any desired expletive

oh well looks like i wont be changing from CS6 in a hurry
I absolutely loathe subscription software

but what real alternatives are there? seriously when push comes to shove the competition
just are not as good as adobe its pretty bad for to punish loyal customers like this
I hope it backfires and hurts them.

I have assumed with a name like "wicked wombat" you may be an Aussie, well, for the privilege of being in that far flung Country of Australia, you get to be charged 40% more than your American Cousins, Aussie current cost of CC is around $1200 bucks US equivalent. Adobe & Apple (among others), have a similar Model of charging by Country, AUD is up, so they take advantage of that, plus the fact that they simply can charge more and people continue to Pay.

While I don't have too much of an issue with downloading the software, rather than shrink wrap (its the same code), I do have an issue when companies charge me more for being in the land of Oz. A few months ago, I went to buy Lightroom. From the Adobe "Australian" site, it was around $220. At B&H, the shrink wrap (and hence the license key) was around $125. So, I bought the shrink wrapped version, along with a few other goodies from B&H
Upgrading my CS5.5 will be a different saga, as I can only get the upgrade from the Australian site, which will sting me around double (or a considerable mark up) of that from the US. At the end of the day, it's the same code.

8

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« on: May 02, 2013, 09:14:08 AM »

http://danielo.zenfolio.com/

Nice. These little ones are hard to track

9

Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners

« on: April 29, 2013, 06:36:38 PM »

I noticed these in a local store the other day. Not sure how good they are:
[

they are identical to the older 7600 models, just the software has changed.

it´s slow and IQ is not that good.
it only reaches half the resolution it claims to have.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the tip 

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Scanners

« on: April 29, 2013, 06:29:21 PM »

I noticed these in a local store the other day. Not sure how good they are:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883631-REG/Plustek_783064365338_OpticFilm_8200i_Ai_Film.html

or the cheaper model:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/894381-REG/Plustek_783064365321_OpticFilm_8100_Film_Scanner.html

I'm tempted to get one myself, as I have 1,000's of slides to process, when I have the time

11

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: April 29, 2013, 08:22:36 AM »

Nice pics Frodo. I'm hoping to do the same from here (Australia). Unfortunately, either the weather or the full moon (or just past) has stopped me in the past couple of weeks.

Out of interest, how do the corners appear at 100% with that lens?

12

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: April 28, 2013, 11:42:47 PM »

Regarding the title of the post "Best lens.....", it really depends on what "best" you are after.

If its the best priced lens, then, the Samyang would fit the bill. But, its suffers from a lack of edge sharpness (coma) and it has some subtle funky distortion involved (mustache distortion).

If you want the sharpest lens, then a Zeiss, but the price can be a killer.

Personally, I bought a 15mm Zeiss for this type of work, as it's wide (the sky is a big piece of sky-scape), and sharp.

There are some 3rd party lenses that probably fit in between, but I'd always hire and try before buying, IMHO.

13

Lenses / Re: Best lens for capturing the Milky Way?

« on: April 28, 2013, 07:50:39 PM »

A few thoughts....
ISO 1,600 or 3,200 is a reasonable speed, without too much noise for exposures of around 30 seconds, using a lens 21mm or wider (I notice you have a 5D mk2, I have the mk3, so, I'm not sure how the mk2 compares with high ISO).

f2.8 in a lens is what you will need to keep the exposure time down. And here is where the journey starts, to find a lens that has good, wide open sharpness. If you want to do a lot of night shots, I'd suggest hiring the lens first, to give you a taste of what it's capable of.

A manual focus lens can be a good option, as they usually have a hard stop for infinity (most AF lenses don't). Makes it easier to get the focus right, while fumbling in the dark

14

Lenses / Re: Lens sharpness and distance from subject

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:10:38 PM »

I suspect distance can have an effect on sharpness of a lens (or, in reality, aberration control). For example, my 300mm f4 is probably optimised (from an aberration perspective) at distant focal lengths. While it still works well at it's minimum focusing distance, the moving of the elements and groups will have an effect on the balance of aberrations. On the other hand, my 100mm macro is better suited at close work.

15

Lenses / Re: Zeiss vs Canon

« on: April 26, 2013, 11:10:55 PM »

If zeiss made AF optics in EF mount, I'd own no canon lenses.

Same here. 6 months ago, I was a one eyed Canon-ite.....until I made the mistake of using a 21mm Zeiss lens