July 31, 2014, 02:20:33 PM

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 - dr croubie

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 94
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM
« on: November 03, 2013, 03:33:17 PM »
I have this lens and I read that the Canon Extenders will not work with the lens.

Question is, is there some other extender I can use with this lens and get good results ?

I've used the Kenko 1.4x 'Pro 300' version perfectly fine. Most of the Kenko range should fit, but that's the only one I've experienced.
AF doesn't really happen at 300mm in dim light on my 7D, but in bright light it's fine. IQ doesn't take much of a hit at all (to my eyes)

Get a Sigma 8-16mm. At 15-16mm it covers full frame, at 16mm there's less than 1% pincushion, 15mm is almost dead-even.

Contests / Re: Lens Rentals Photo Geek Contest!
« on: October 23, 2013, 09:14:27 PM »
Yep, I've already entered 3 shots, but just from my archives.
I reckon I've got enough extension tubes, teleconverters, and bellows to stretch across an entire room when I get a chance to try it on the weekend...

Lenses / Re: Old lenses - really so bad?
« on: October 23, 2013, 09:13:00 PM »
Damn, I'd better throw out about 50 of my >30 year-old lenses, they're obviously not as good as my latest lenses.
Yes, the 70-200 II and 24-70 II *are* better than the ones you have currently, in most respects. But why exchange them if they do what you need? You'll be about $1000-$2000 out-of-pocket per lens, is that worth it for snapshots?

Fake would be in a studio or a zoo and trying to pass it off as if it were in the wild.  Fake is not setting up shots through painstaking planning. 

Interesting you say that, for I've had that exact experience. In the Adelaide Zoo about 10-15 years ago, walking around with a bunch of kids as part of some school-holiday daycamp thingy (something my then-gf roped me in to help with).
We get to the Siamang section, and there's a camera crew there, looking rather bored. Being the nut I am, I start talking to the camera crew. They say they're working for a new David Attenborough series (which turned out to be 'Planet Earth'). They'd just spent weeks in the wild trying to find these monkeys to film, and given up, filming in the wild is damned expensive. On a hunch they thought they'd try the Adelaide Zoo, there's a really good habitat for them there.
So there they were, and the damned monkeys were silent, and the film crew were rather annoyed. But then the kids started yelling at the monkeys, and we being the 'responsible adults' were ridiculously embarrassed, trying to shut the kids up. But then the monkeys started yelling back. So as it turned out, we turned it into a game with the kids. Got them to yell for a bit, enough to get the monkeys started, then get the kids to shut up for a few minutes (the hardest part) while the film crew could get their shots, and repeat.
I always like it when that series comes on, because I can still pick the bits that were shot in the Zoo (you can kind of tell, the sky is really blue and it's shot from almost directly underneath and the monkeys are looking straight at the camera). Nowhere does it say in that scene that it's in a zoo, but nowhere does it also say it's in the wild. It mentions the Adelaide Zoo in the credits (either in the 'filmed on location' bit or the 'thanks to' bit), along with a whole lot of other zoos and wildlife parks.

I know it's nothing like when Attenborough was the first white guy to set foot in some remote forest to collect specimens for the London Zoo (which is how he started), but finding something classed as 'wild' is getting harder and harder these days. So I don't mind if stuff is filmed in Zoos or whatever. The only time I'd mind is if it was a faked one of those 'look at how these monkeys have started using tools in the wild', which it wasn't. In the end, there's only about 5-10s of stuff filmed there, spliced in with 'real' jungle footage, so who cares?

edit: I should call them Siamangs and not Howler Monkey, before some nerd picks me up on it

I got rangefinder fever once. Bought a Bessa R3A, Nokton 40mm f/1.4, Apo-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5, and a few 100' rolls of Tri-X 400 for about $800 all up. GAS solved.

Gossen Digisix. Once you start using a handheld meter, you'll wonder why they still bother putting all those fancy TTL meters in cameras at all. (OK, it's not a spot meter, but the digisix is smaller than my shorty mcforty and does the job). Meters nominally 0 to 18EV, but does -9EV to +27EV with a trick, by comparison the 1DX only meters 0EV to 20EV.

Lenses / Re: How to clean lenses ?
« on: August 22, 2013, 07:39:14 PM »
Rocket Blower + Lenspen are an awesome combo. I use the blower to remove dust, the brush on the pen to get anything else off and the pens' carbon dust to clean the lens.

Blower then Lenspen is the only way to go

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces the Facebook PowerShot N
« on: August 22, 2013, 02:27:12 AM »
So someone steals your camera and they can instantly post photos of their genitalia straight to your Facebook wall!
Who wouldn't want to buy this?

Arrrrr Squidy looks cool, does it come in international (ie Australian) versions?

Depends, how directional are the torches, how big are the rings, how big in relation to the frame, what's the background colour?
In short, gold rings are reflective. You are going to see every part of your lighting setup and your studio and camera too if you're not careful with the lighting. Easiest way to not get reflections of the camera and studio is to make their reflections (in the rings) relatively dark compared to the subject itself, ie lots of light overpowering the room lights. But then you get lots of reflections of the lights themselves.
Also, having highly directional lights can blow out some parts and leave really dark shadows (although that could be what you're looking for). Solution is to get more lights to eliminate the shadows, or use softboxes to diffuse the light a bit. If you've got no softboxes yet, you can also get them from chinese fleabay for £5 each. They're made for speedlites, but nothing some Gaffa tape won't fix. And if the torches are too bright, you can add successive layers of tissues to cut it down more, or just move them further away.

With, say, 4 torches and 4 softboxes for £60 you might end up getting a quite versatile setup (at least, for macro, won't be much use for portraits).
I'd also be thinking about how to mount them, those Manfrotto gorilla-clamps (or whatever they're called) would be ideal, gorillapods and gaffa tape if you've got them, or the traditional stack of books and a few beanbags would make a very cheap setup.

Landscape / Re: Pricing of landscape photos?
« on: August 18, 2013, 03:14:25 AM »
Firstly, nice shot.
Secondly, before thinking about pricing, think about printing, as in where and how to get it done. You didn't mention yourself if you had a printer (and how good it is), or were you planning to go to a lab?
If you've never printed (big) before, the best thing to learn is that screens and papers look very different, you might go through a few paper-sample-packs before you find something that matchess well with what you're printing, especially as your buyers saw the shot on their screens. If you've got a printer at home, try out a few papers and profiles and whatnot to see what would look best, or ask your local lab if they can give you some smaller prints for a sample.
(I'm lucky, in that I've got an Epson R3000 which goes up to 13", if I want wider than that my local lab has the larger epson 4800 or something which uses the exact same inkset, so that it'll look the same just larger).

So if you want that big, unless you've got a 20" printer already, you'll be going to a lab to get it done. Start by asking how much it's going to cost you to get it printed. For example, my local lab charges $120 for a 60x75cm (24x30") print onto "fine art" (etching/museum rag/metallic pearl/etc), or $60 for a regular "photo print from digital". Then maybe double or triple that to cover all your work, gear, test shots, etc. (or if you're nice and doing it for friends, just give it to them at cost plus a few bucks)

Depends on your definition of "local publication" too. If it's just going to get printed on a raggy newspaper, IQ won't matter so go with the flexibility of a zoom. If it's getting printed double-page in a nice glossy mag then you might be better off with the legendary-IQ of the Distagon (although whether the 16-35 is good enough for a magazine print is debatable, depends on your camera, lighting conditions, tripod, etc, it could still be more than adequate)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New Canon Hi-pixel Medium format...?
« on: August 14, 2013, 02:33:46 AM »
Then you also have to make lenses that can project for MF image sensor. Let's say you use the 24mm v2 TS-E as an example (since I believe it does project the size of MF or larger). That's well over $2K. And we're not talking any AF at all. And if Canon chooses to go the leaf shutter route, the lens gets even more expensive.

You don't wanna know what MF lenses cost...
(I took Leica off that list because, well, they're Leica, but they're even worse.)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 94