July 25, 2014, 02:51:54 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 - Zv

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 77
16
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 10:17:42 AM »
Thanks for all the info at least now I have a better understanding of what's required. Think I'll leave this endeavor for now, don't have any money to spare for gear for at least another 6 month. Damn residence tax came in this month, gonna be poor for a while.

:'(

How do you intend to share your images, or view them?  Online? If so... there is nothing wrong with cropping.  Don't worry about it and enjoy a nice clear night when you get one.

I wouldn't share them if they're heavily cropped. If I did get a half decent one it would prob end up on flickr or 500px. 

17
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 10:14:15 AM »

18
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 02:06:29 AM »
Thanks for all the info at least now I have a better understanding of what's required. Think I'll leave this endeavor for now, don't have any money to spare for gear for at least another 6 month. Damn residence tax came in this month, gonna be poor for a while.

:'(

19
Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM
« on: July 05, 2014, 03:17:08 AM »
I thought I'd start a gallery for this little wide angle wonder. I just received my copy last night and went out today for a test run.

Post your 11-22mm shots here if you have some, I'd love to see what others are using it for!

20
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 04, 2014, 01:50:42 AM »
My First test of time lapse using Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.

Somehow Lightroom is cutting the image from sides. Is there any setting that I am missing in Lightroom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Agko15_H4

LR could be applying Auto Adjustments at import. You can switch those off under Preferences. Also, check your import settings to ensure no presets are being applied accidentally.

21
EOS-M / Re: My best new Lens for sweet heart EOS-M
« on: July 04, 2014, 12:26:01 AM »
Samyang / Rokinon have quite the selection of wide angles for the M mount now.

There's -

16mm f/2.0
12mm f/2.0
10mm f/2.8
8mm f/2.8 Fisheye (I'm thinking this could be a fun lens to have!).

There also seems to be a 24mm TS in M mount though I need to double check this to see if it is actually M mount or if it's via an adaptor. Here's the link to amazon.jp

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00KXMFSNO/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=2NXK1AZF5QZO1&coliid=I33RAUDT0K2RV5&psc=1

And now with Tamron making an M mount lens too things are looking good for the little guy! I'm still waiting for my 11-22 to be delivered! Should be any day now!!  ;D

22
Lenses / Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 03, 2014, 10:07:47 AM »
Thanks for making this video. I liked the IS tests. 1s exposure is long enough for most of my shots. Goodbye travel tripod!

23
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 08:09:02 AM »
I would suggest that you try your local astronomy club. There will definitely be some Astro-photgrapher members and they will probably be able to provide access to a telescope so that you can try eyepiece projection. You will probably have to buy a suitable 1.25" mount adaptor, but these can be had for $10.

http://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/Canon_EOS_T_Ring.html


Thanks that's really useful to know.

24
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 06:01:15 AM »
Why do you want to take photos of the moon, especially low resolution ones? If all you want is the moon,
here are some images from when I was comparing lenses on the 5DIII and the SX50. You would do much better with the SX50 than a moderate 400mm on the 5DIII. The 600 (300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC) was the best for me. From top to bottom 100-400mm, SX50 at nominal 1200mm, 600mm, and Tamron 150-600 at 600mm. (The Tamron was taken, obviously, at a different time, and under more hazy conditions and at a poorer phase for seeing detail).

Thanks for posting the images for comparison. Yeah I see your point but I just want to give it a bash. Not entering any competition or anything. Just practicing for the sake of it. I do want to try capturing the moon in different phases like you've demonstrated here. Like I said I don't want to spend a ton of cash on a 300 f/2.8 but rather wanted to just use what I have. Guess 400mm ish is not enough then. So you think the 2x extender then?

25
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:52:06 AM »
Maybe not the direct answer to your question, but:

- For best moon pics, you would need much more focal lenght than 400mm eqiv
- you need best athmospheric consitions possibe
- you should do stacking to minimize athmospheric blur
- The moon stays the same, means you need one good opportunity, and you wont get it better anymore

So my suggestion:

- Rent the longest lens you can afford for some days, ad a 2x converter, add a matching tripod and head
- go to a better athmospheric place than your town
- inform how to do the stacking of the biggest amount of pics y can take,and how you have to take them (i dont know)

means for total 1000$ you should get breathtaking pictures of the moon, depending on where you live and what lens you can afford to rent

I would not buy any equipment for shootig the moon only.....

Thanks. You are right I need to improve technique as well as getting the right gear. I don't plan on doing much of this, was really just for the casual moon shot. I was just trying to see the absolute cheapest way would be. The TC would serve dual purpose thus making it the ideal choice.

I am intrigued by this stacking thing. Can you point me in the right direction for that? Never done it before. 

26
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 04:30:11 AM »
So you don't recommend the Kenko adaptor? Any reason for that? I feel like the Canon is over priced a bit. And for my purposes v2 should suffice right?


I have no experience with the Kenco adaptor, but from what I understand, the Canon is optically better and likely to carry on working well with all future (TC compatible) lenses, bodies and firmware updates that you might find yourself using in the future. That certainly can't be said of third party products, although due to the Kencos compromised optical design it doesn't have an element which pokes inside the rear of the lens, allowing it to physically mount to many Canon lenses which aren't designed to work with TC's.

Here's a comparison of the mk II and the mk III 1.4x TC with a 70-200/4 IS on FF:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

The corners are improved with the mk III, everything else looks quite similar to me. As for the performance on the EOS M, unfortunately this tool doesn't have the mk II TC samples on crop. The extreme FF corners are a non-issue with the crop sensor, but the higher pixel density might reveal some differences not visible in this comparison.


Corner performance isn't a priority I'll be using the center more than likely. I guess the extra cost for the Canon extender over the Kenko is worth it if it is optically better.

27
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 03:57:08 AM »
I'd suggest a Canon TC. As you rightfully pointed out, this means your new purchase is also good to go with your other Canon kit.

There doesn't appear to be much in it between the two when it comes to resolving detail:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=856&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1

But of course the 70-200 and 1.4 combo has more reach, and it gives you options with your 5D2 - 70-200/TC and 135/TC, whereas for you, buying the EF-S lens is a one horse trick.

The 2x TC will potentially resolve more detail than the 1.4x and cropping, but the lack of AF on either of your bodies with the 70-200 and the images the 135 would produce make it largely worth ignoring for any purposes other than shooting distance objects using the M with manual focusing.


Thanks! I never knew you could use teleconvertors for TDPs lens image quality comparison tool! Yeah theres not much difference, though the EF-S seemed to be slightly better in the centre. A little PP sharpening should sort that out. Yeah I think I already answered my own question but still good to hear it from someone else!

So you don't recommend the Kenko adaptor? Any reason for that? I feel like the Canon is over priced a bit. And for my purposes v2 should suffice right?

28
EOS-M / Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 02:24:19 AM »
Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.

Option 1 - use my existing 70-200 f/4L IS and buy the Kenko 1.4x plus the EF adapter. Should be less than $200. Or Canon 1.4x II (used) for a little more.

Option 2 - buy the EF-S 55-250 STM plus EF adatptor. Total cost around $400.

Just wondering which option would yield the best results. L lens plus extender vs EF-S? Anyone have experience with either of these combos?

I like option 1 as it means I can also use the 1.4x with my 135L and it's FF compatible (plus cheaper).

29
Well, the Year of the Lens is officially 1/2 over now. If Canon still plans to live up to that claim, they'd better freaking get busy ...

P.S. 100-400 II, please.

They've released 3 already and one Cinema lens. That makes four. For 6 months that's actually not that bad.

30
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: June 30, 2014, 10:13:28 PM »
This is my dream lens!!! I sense a severe case of GAS coming on! :P

The 17-40L has been good to me but it might be time to move on. Might wait a little though, gonna see how shooting with a wide angle with IS is for me using the gateway drug EF-M 11-22 first! If I like it, which I suspect I will  ;) I'll be selling the 17-40L and buying this bad boy.

This plus a 6D and my 70-200L would make a kick ass travel kit.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 77