December 22, 2014, 06:35:25 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 - infilm

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?
« on: June 05, 2012, 01:49:18 PM »
@drjlo.

What are you shooting that you want the reach of a 400mm-600mm lens? I ask because I recently discovered that my 5D2 will auto focus with my 300mm f4 and the 2x II extender in live view mode. If you're shooting something other than sports or quick moving objects, perhaps a 300 and a 2x extender might work for you. Hope this helps.

So f/8 AF works in live view but not viewfinder? 
I unfortunately am known to chase after birds and love shooting them in flight.  THAT can get quite expensive in Canon land.  I'll try the Kenko 2x TC on the 70-200 MkII, which fortunately has fabulous IS, AF, and MTF to burn, hopefully all enough to compensate for 2x TC effects.  It already works great with 1.4x TC..

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.

17
Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?
« on: June 02, 2012, 02:46:03 AM »
@drjlo.

What are you shooting that you want the reach of a 400mm-600mm lens? I ask because I recently discovered that my 5D2 will auto focus with my 300mm f4 and the 2x II extender in live view mode. If you're shooting something other than sports or quick moving objects, perhaps a 300 and a 2x extender might work for you. Hope this helps.

18
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
« on: January 17, 2012, 08:03:10 PM »
This is my next purchase ! But I'm not shure if buy now or wait for Mk II.

The new one will probably boast better optics and maybe faster focusing. To be honest though I'm not sure its necessary. The current version is incredibly sharp and it focuses plenty fast. Really a terrific lens.

19
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: January 14, 2012, 12:15:31 PM »
Another photo for your consideration...

20
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: December 21, 2011, 11:32:18 AM »
Shot in Southern California

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D
« on: December 17, 2011, 12:48:26 PM »
I posted last week to get advice on getting a 7D now... and got some truly wonderful responses about how I should take the plunge... and I did.

I got it last night and took some photos around town today.  While I was shooting around town I thought the PQ looked GREAT... I could definitely see improvements in the evaluative metering over my XSi... and shouldn't even have to mention the HUGE improvements to AF over my XSi.

Everything was going great... until I got home and loaded up those photos in LR3... and saw a ridiculous amount of high frequency noise ALL over the place... even when shooting at ISO 100-200!

Hi Derek,

I think I may have been one of the ones who recommended the camera to you last week. I'm a little surprised you're having such a problem. While I do think the 7D is a tad noisy at low ISO, I found for myself that ISO 160 seems to be great. I'm not exactly sure what Canon says about the 7D, and whether it differs from their other cameras in any way...however I've heard two things about it:

1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal.
2. The 7D IS a bit noisier than their other DSLR's (not surprising given its pixel density), and ISO 160 a -1/3 stop pull from ISO 200, resulting in a slight deamplification of the image, lowering noise, but also slightly lowering DR. (Additionally, ISO 125, 250, etc. are pushed from the previous native setting, which contributes to their CONSIDERABLE noise...avoid +1/3 ISO stops at all costs!)

This video is a helpful demonstration: http://vimeo.com/10473734

Either way you slice it, you should try ISO 160, 320, 640 and see how you like the results. I have not noticed any huge issue with using those ISO's, and if there is any loss in DR, its never been a problem for me. Additionally, remember that the 18.1mp of your 7D is 48% MORE detail than the 12.2mp of your XSi. At 100% pixel peeping, your looking at noise at a much finer level of detail thann the XSi. If you scale the 7D image down to the size of an XSi image with some standard bicubic, the additional noise should be mitigated against, if not entirely normalized with, your 450D. I've also found that Lightroom 3.5's NR does a pretty good job at reducing noise, and when I print at home with a Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 Mk II @ 13x19", the noise is usually invisible (and some noise is always a bit beneficial for printing smooth gradients, like a fade into shadow or a sunset sky.)
I'm with jrista. I have had my 7D for about 8 months. If I stay at ISO's of 80, 160, 320, ect. I get very good results. Once I go into the 1/3 stop variants of the native ISO the noise comes running in.

22
I would have to say the fall for the color and the later spring for the waterfalls. Having said that, I have seen amazing images from people who have traveled there in the winter.

23
United States / Re: Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?
« on: October 25, 2011, 01:12:19 PM »
@old Shooter. The 24-70 is okay, but the IQ of either one of those primes knocks the zoom out of the water. I also get that with the 1.6x crop the the long end of a 24-70 is a little over 100mm. That really doesn't matter to me. The type of images I want to capture are some distance away and in an urban environment. I don't want to walk around with a giant white Canon lens screaming "hey look at me with the big damn lens!!". I my mind the choice is between the extra reach of the 135 vs the flexibility of the 100mm L macro. The latter being that I get a macro, kind of a 2 for 1. I believe that I'm going to go for the 135 and if I feel the need to shoot macro I'll throw an extension tube on and off I go.

Thanks all

24
United States / Canon 135L or the 100L Macro?
« on: October 21, 2011, 09:24:05 AM »
I almost hate to post this question, there are so many posts similar to this. However here I go. I'm looking for a little advice here. I am interested in both the 135 f2L and the 100 f2.8L Macro, (and to get this out of the way I own a 7D with a 70-200 f2.8L IS.) and a few other canon f2.8 zooms. My original thought was to go for the 100L macro as it will serve both as a portrait lens and a very good macro. 2 for the price of one, right? However after reading thru the net, I have read so much great stuff about the 135L that I'm a little confused now. So, what would be your recommendations?, and what would I sacrifice if I just went the the 135L and if I wanted to do some macro I just spin a diopter on the front of the lens? Thank you all for your time.

25
United States / Re: Tripod Collar.
« on: October 04, 2011, 12:44:29 PM »
Got one, thanks all.

26
United States / Re: Tripod Collar.
« on: October 02, 2011, 04:09:25 PM »
Thanks!

27
United States / Tripod Collar.
« on: October 02, 2011, 01:04:06 PM »
I'm looking for a tripod collar for a 70-200 f2.8L is. I can't seem to even find a model number for one. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

28
Sports / Surfing
« on: September 22, 2011, 10:55:00 AM »
I know that there isn't actual surfing in this image, I just like it and I can't think of anywhere else to post it.

29
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
« on: September 21, 2011, 11:43:09 AM »
@K-amps

I don't know what your definition of nice or cheap is, but there is a 180L on B&H right now for $1250.

30
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 L Macro USM
« on: September 21, 2011, 01:33:48 AM »
@K-amps

That makes sense. Stupid me........

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5