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.
My little 'ol brain has enough time absorbing details about taking digital pic's as it is. There's a pro lab not far from me I've used periodically for years dating back to film days. Damn good lab called bond colour here.I take it, it's the one in Richmond. If so, I used to use them back in my film days. A good lab, not many around now.
+1. The AF system of the 5D3 alone was my reason for holding out for it (I waited months before the 5D3 came out). So glad I did. She's a real beautyWell said Wcksmith. I didn't own the 5d2 but I've used it plenty and I do own the 5d3 and I think the difference is substantial as well. Just the AF alone is huge with regard to differences between the two..Really? Because the improvements from the mkII to the mkIII seemed fairly hu-hum for the most part. Then again...everything is relative.
My guess is midphase has not shot the 5DII and 5DIII, just looked at the features list. I shot the 5DII for 2+ years & have had the 5DIII for one year. It is much better in almost every respect based on the results I am getting. The colors are more vivid, the images are sharper, and the noise is lower. Also these features make a huge difference in the field, in no particular order:
much clearer LCD screen for live view or review of image quality
5 stop exposure compensation (5DII has 2 stops max)
Ability to shoot 7 shots for bracketing - max is 3 on the 5DII
Two cards (CF & SD) for storage of images
Slightly more megapixels for more room to crop (this isn't a huge difference)
6 frames per second vs. 4 fps on the 5DII for wildlife, etc.
Multiple exposure capability for landscapes & other applications
In-camera HDR if that's your thing (it's not mine as it still doesn't save the final image in RAW)
Better auto-focus by a bunch
All in all, it's a much better camera, as expected. I know this is only one person's opinion, but mine is a hands on experience for both cameras.
I may be partial but one of the reasons I finally picked up a 5d3 was seeing so many incredibly smooth and sweet, sharp images from it. It delivers a certain look with regard to image quality that you don't see in the 5d2 or the 7d, which I also own.
I think it stands on it's own...
Slightly off-topic but important:
...there are heads/clamps which don't fit between the gripped 5D3 body and the head attachment. I have the 300 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8L2 and know that for instance, my Manfrotto 322 grip head with the RC2 plate will not fit up under the 70-200 because the bulkiness of the battery housing. I have to try the same combo with the 300 but suspect I'd see the same problem. I have an aftermarket grip but I think its shape will not differ too much from the Canon offering.
I am planning a change to all Arca Swiss (AS) camera attachment so am thinking about this right now, too. I plan to adapt all heads to the AS clamps, even retro fitting somehow the AC system on a Manfrotto 410 geared head. I will have to figure out how to replace/adapt the 322 grip, too, but I knew the inability to attach the 70-200 required some new solution, anyway.
Can't speak to your Manfrotto grip, but the 410's quick release plate is one of the most secure that Manfrotto makes. It comes with a 3/8" stud you can use to connect directly to an arca compatible clamp. I considered cutting off the QR part of the head & bolting a clamp directly to the top plate. There is also a guy on ebay that fabs a plate for this purpose. In the end I just bolted on the clamp to the quick release plate. Couldn't be simpler.
Here's a very cost effective one:
http://www.amazon.com/Desmond-DAC-01-8-inch-Adapter-Compatible/dp/B005ZLOW8K/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1366153212&sr=1-1&keywords=desmond
No, the Arca Swiss-type plates for the RRS BH-40 (and ballheads from Kirk, Markins, Acratech, and a host of other excellent brands) do not fit on the Manfrotto RC2 clamp. Manfrotto uses their own plate designs, and they're not even compatible within the brand, let alone outside the brand. That's one reason I switched from Manfrotto to AS-type plates/clamps.
While some of the Manfrotto heads can be converted to an AS-type clamp with the Wimberley C-12, the 496RC2 isn't one of them. You could replace the monopod head (with an RRS monopod head, for example, but a Manfrotto 234 tilt head with a Wimberley C-12 is what I used before getting the RRS setup to hold a 600 II), or get the Kirk 'adapter' (link) that has an RC2 compatible base under an AS-type clamp.
See, this is why I like this Forum, had no idea, now I do.
I generally don't try to work all this stuff out, so I go all RRS gear and I'm done, but it's just great that some people (neuro) do take the time to work it all out, invaluable info, Thanks Neuro as always.
I agree with Neuro the 2XIII works great on the 70-200 II if you can live with F5.6 wide open. Sweet spot with the combo is around F/8. Note also that the AF speed drops...not by a lot but it is noticeable. Birds in flight can be a challenge for it but not impossible. You wont be happy with the reach using the 1.4X. Where the 1.4 comes in handy is when you are using the Large tele's 300MM and higher.Yep. I use the 1.4x on my 300mm f4 and it works well. Plus, running it on my 5D3 limits me to f5.6 as it is.The 2x does well on the 70-200 II.
The 24L II has a ridiculous amount of coma at the edges when shooting 1.4. You'll have to stop down anyway to prevent this.Yep. My journey for the past 6 months has been to find the perfect lens for night/star shots. Hence why I ended up in the land of Zeiss. The Zeiss 21mm is a great lens for this, although, I wanted something wider and the Zeiss 15mm was calling
I was hoping I could get some advice regarding using a camera for astrophotography. Any advice is greatly appreciated!! I am not looking for exceptional pictures of nebulas, but something that can take pictures of some of the larger planets and the moon.Back in the 70's and 80's I did a fair amount of astrophotography, using film. And I was involved in the making of telescopes, mainly reflector types. While times have changed, the basic techniques are still the same.
Unfortunately, my budget is rather limited. As much as I would love a star tracking telescope system, I am hoping to settle for a dobsonian reflector.
What I am looking at is as follows:
Orion SkyQuest XT8 - F/5.9 @ 1200mm (build a scope version)
Orion 2" low profile focuser
Canon T-mount adapter and Orion 2" Zero-Profile Prime Focus Camera Adapter
And a kit of 2" eyepieces for when I want to do viewing rather than imaging
I read that refractors are considerably better for astrophotography, but ouch are they expensive. I am always open to suggestions though!
I am hoping to get into astrophography, but fear spending money on a system that isnt compatible or wont give good results at all (I have heard focusing issues is a common problem).
Thanks! Feel free to post pictures you have taken or of the setup you use to photograph the night sky!
You're a lucky man, that's an amazing lens. Nice pic, but too much light pollution, get back out during a new moon in a remote area!Thanks Axilrod. Regarding the sky pic, yeah, there's been a fair amount of burning off around Melbourne (Australia) this time of the year, in the name of fuel reduction (it's autumn). Where I live (about 50kms from Melbourne), you can see down to mag 4.5 (maybe 5) during winter. So, looking forward to a few cold nights with the lens
Congratulations on a great purchase! I myself am planning to get a Zeiss 100mm f2 makro soon, and I hope it won't be difficult to manually focus it.Thanks. I'd been hiring the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 on occasion, over the past few months, and I got to really like the images it produced. I wanted something wider and place I hired the 21mm didn't hire a 15mm, so, I simply took the plunge. The manual focus is very easy to get used to, as you simply half press the shutter button, turn the focus ring and when the green focus indicator light (bottom right in view finder) glows, then click away
