« on: July 23, 2013, 10:54:28 PM »
For me, it is an amazing lens.
For me, it is an amazing lens.
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.
It's not about 'fake' - it's about transmission curves.
Can't speak for the 'Rocketfish' or Canon, but Hoya, Zeiss, and B+W all publish their transmission curves. No filter has a perfectly vertical cutoff on a transmission curve - most good commercial multicoated filters that 'block' wavelengths ramp from ~0% transmission to their max of >99% over a 25-125 nm range (although some of the longpass and bandpass filters I use in microscopy are close to vertical, with a slope covering <5 nm - and they come with a price tag commensurate with that performance).
The Zeiss has the steepest slope of the three, ramping up over the 410-435 nm range (in fact, it's cutting out some blue light, which is considered to start at 400 nm). The Hoya has the least steep slope, running from 350-460 nm or so, meaning its passing some UV in the 350-399 nm range, and blocking a bit of blue light as well. The B+W is intermediate, ramping up from 360-430 nm.
So, with the '395 nm flashlight' (which actually uses an LED that emits at 380-385 nm, but what's 10-15 nm among friends?), you can see from the transmission curves that the Zeiss will block that, while the Hoya and the B+W filters will pass some of it.
Of course, while that might be good to know if you're shooting film, none of that matters if you've got a dSLR. The dSLR's sensor is insensitive to UV light, so there's no difference between a UV filter (be it the 410 nm Zeiss or the 360 nm B+W) and a clear filter that fully passes the long end of the UV spectrum. I have empirically tested my 7D and 5DII for UV sensitivity with calibrated UV/Vis light sources (costing a hell of a lot more $$ than a flashlight to detect cat urine!) and some of those precise bandpass filters mentioned above (running a lab that has such equipment comes in handy sometimes) - there's no need for a UV filter. I do use UV filters for protection (B+W MRC or Nano), instead of clear - but that's only because every time I've needed to buy one, the UV version was cheaper than the clear one (although that's not the case with all brands or in all geographies).
So, my advice is to just buy whichever is cheaper, clear or UV. I'd still pass on the Hoya - it blocks a bit too much blue (and that's the least sensitive color channel). Since it blocks less of the visible blue light, the B+W is actually a bit better than the Zeiss in that regard (because sometimes 5-10 nm does matter among friends).
Hi, I have been getting into bird photography since the beginning of this year. I am shooting with a 7D and 100-400 L. Attached is a recent exposure (I have attached both my processed version and the original RAW). This is probably not my best work, certainly not my worst. What I am looking for is a critique of my exposure technique (what you can infer), the image itself, and the processing. Feel free to download the RAW and post an example of how you think I should have processed it (please include a basic write up of what you did).
I am just looking for opinions and suggestions on how I can improve and hone my skills.
Some details about my technique. This was taken about 7-10 feet from the female red-winged blackbird at about 6PM. I used AF Servo, single point AF, Spot metering, ETTR (as much as I dared), and IS to achieve this shot at 1/800s, f/8.0, ISO 800 @ 400mm. I processed the image completely in Lightroom 4. I cropped, adjusted WB, and globally sharpened, then applied the following local adjustments: highlight recovery, contrast, and applied NR.
RAW photo: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/36974080/Public%20RAW%20Photos/_7D_7610.CR2
Thanks to the advice I got right here one of my eagle pictures won this week's Philadelphia Inquirer photo contest. There'll be 5 finalists in September with the overall winner announced soon after. I can potentially win back the Canon 100-400 rental fee.
There was a time when OK referred to something being "all correct"...I think they are OK.
This is my exact response!! Thanks.
A few recent shots:
Allen's Hummingbird in flight (9100) by Revup67, on Flickr
Allen's Hummingbird in flight (9103) by Revup67, on Flickr
Cooper's Hawk (8947) by Revup67, on Flickr
Red-shouldered Hawk (adult) (8958) by Revup67, on Flickr
Least Bell's Vireo (8929) (Conservation Status: Near Threatened) by Revup67, on Flickr
Black Oystercatcher with oyster shell (8889) by Revup67, on Flickr
Yea, that 7D was not an easy camera for me to use. It took me 4-5 months before I really started to appreciate the information you could extract from the photos. My sharpest and most detailed shots are with it. With out a doubt what so ever for me to say that. I love detailed photos.
But? I didn't realize how poor the AF was until I went with a IV camera. For me it was a trade off well worth it. And I also think I would go with a 1DX or 5D III before ever going back to the 7D. Just for the AF.
The mark IV is the easiest camera I have ever worked with. But I cannot push it near as far as I did the 7D. The info is just not there to use and push.
My experience anyway, and my way of post processing. What really amazed me is in PS I could de noise and sharpen the 7D back to incredible detailed pics. With the IV I cannot. In my mind that is pixel density at work. Just amazing.
I was amazed at the efficiency, and tenacity that these birds fished. In this instance, this Heron netted TWO fish at once. I spent about an hour and he never stopped fishing or eating. He was essentially an eating machine- unbelievable!
Scott, really wonderful series of heron photos!