November 24, 2014, 01:59:00 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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 88
181
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.

182
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?

183
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. 

184
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.

185
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?

186
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).

187
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.

188
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.

189
Software & Accessories / Re: Apple to Cease work on Aperture
« on: June 30, 2014, 01:46:56 AM »
How are the organizational abilities of Lightroom for Mac in comparison with Aperture?

You can organize files and collections pretty easily. You can also rate and label using various methods (stars, colors, flags). I have no experience with Aperture so I don't know if it's easier but LR was designed with Pro photogs in mind and they deal in large volumes of photos. My fave organizational feature is the collections / smart collections and virtual copies.

I recommend one of Kelby's books for learning you way around LR. He not only goes over the development tools but also all the organizational features of LR which was very helpful for me as I was all over the place with my photos!

When you upload images to LR from a card you can have it make a back up to your hard drive at the same time and then set this up as a preset, just makes life easier really.

Random off topic numerical coincidence tidbit - my number of posts is 1122 and earlier today I ordered the
 EF-M 11-22!  :)

190
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dynamic Range Question
« on: June 28, 2014, 02:35:08 AM »
Try setting the highlight slider to -100 then slowly move the exposure slider + way, watching the histogram as you go to bring the shadows back up. Once the histo reaches the right edge stop. This work for me and gives a more natural look. Avoid increasing the shadow slider too much. Also drop the clarity on this to -10 which gives a little more of a natural look.

If this was a landscape shot you might be OK but I think with people in the shot I process my shots with less clarity.

191
EOS-M / Re: What is wrong with the AF speed of the M?
« on: June 26, 2014, 10:37:26 AM »
I say stay out of it.  First of all, it's self centered.  Second of all, hardly anyone will be appreciative.  You just come off sounding like the guy who thinks he knows everything and wants to let everyone know by telling other people what they don't know.

Did you mean to post in the "Should we tell them?" thread?

192
Canon General / Re: Should we tell them?
« on: June 26, 2014, 08:32:59 AM »
Only a few weeks ago at the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol I missed an important opportunity to give advice to someone who had a 5d3 twinned with the 70-200mm 2.8 II lens.

The advice I should have given him was "I wouldn't leave your lens there while you change to your wider angle lens".

It was all I could do not to leap off the bridge after it when his wife knocked it off with her handbag.  In fact if I hadn't been so busy rubbing my jaw after it hit the ground I suspect I would have done!

So, next time you're a hundred or two feet up on a suspension bridge and someone leaves their lens on the ledge take my advice.  Get a boat and a large net, you never know . . . ;D

I wonder if he's still married. Or did he throw her off the bridge too?  ;D

193
Canon General / Re: Should we tell them?
« on: June 26, 2014, 12:21:44 AM »
People are so sensitive and get upset easily these days over nothing so I tend to leave them alone unless they are directly affecting me in some way.

However, if someone asked me for advice I'd gladly give it. In fact I got asked often enough about the basics that I wrote several blog articles and now I just direct them to it!

If someone came over and offered me "advice" or told me that I was doing something "the wrong way" I'd listen but secretly be a bit annoyed! I hate people pointing out my errors, unless they are way more experienced than me and are offering sage advice.

194
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: New Nikon D800s... Why?
« on: June 25, 2014, 01:17:12 PM »
It never made sense to me why Nikon made a D800 and an D800e.

I don't think Nikon thought they would sell as many D800E's as they did.  I think they expected the majority of the D800 buyers to buy the D800 and only a relatively few buy the D800E.  I still think that Nikon sold more D800's than D800E's, but I also think the sales of the D800E was higher than expected.

So was this representative of the mix of still vs. video shooters they have, i.e. is Nikon's user base more concerned about sharpness than moire?  Do they simply lack a large video user base?

I wonder if a 5D3E -- a 5D3 without an AA filter -- was offered by Canon on day one alongside the 5D3, would we see all the videographers take the vanilla 5D3 and the still shooters all take the 5D3E?

Is it that simple a call?  Are there downsides to pulling the AA filter other than moire?  (Forgive me: the role of the AA filter is lost on me.)

- A

Moire can be found in various architechtural detail, certain clothing and in animal fur and feathers. It's not just video. It affects stills too. Although it's possible to reduce moire in post it can be tricky at best (well I certainly don't find it easy). It has to be removed selectively using a brush tool. Takes ages if all you want is a standard shot of say a brick house. Imagine de-moire-ing a hundred architectural shots. Two words. F--- that!

It's much easier to simply crank up the sharpness in post to compensate for the blurriness of the AA filter. RAW shooters do that anyway as part of their workflow.

195
EOS Bodies / Re: What do you hope-for MOST from Canon in 2014
« on: June 23, 2014, 07:56:39 PM »
Canon EF XXXmm F/X.XL IS USM

If you already know what numbers to put in the XXX's, you've read too many of my posts.  :P

Judging from what I read from you, it will be the 135/1.8  ;)

Lol this guys been a member for a week and even he knows!

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 88