April 18, 2014, 01:46:23 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 - johnf3f

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12
31
Some time ago I was taking sunset shots of Ogmore Castle (in South Wales). While were waiting for the perfect light I was chatting to a fellow photographer about the merits/pitfalls of larger capacity cards (8GB was pretty big at the time). We were discussing the pros/cons when his card was full, so he had to change it. I should say that he was standing waist deep in the river to get a better angle on the Castle at the time. The timing was perfect, the Golden moment of light had arrived and he was changing cards as his (small) card was full he dropped it! With my (then) large 8GB card I just kept shooting while he went diving for his card. The net result was that he lost his card and missed the best light - though he did have the bonus of a swim in February! I should say that I just managed not to fall about laughing as he had just completed his tirade against large capacity cards when this happened.
The moral is get a card that has  a bit more capacity than you need + a smaller card in reserve - Just in Case.

32
The 5D3 will simply not write fast enough to stretch either of those CF cards. It is only when you get to cameras that will write really fast that the top cards show their benefits (unless you are in a real hurry to download to your PC).
I did a rough test on my 1DX and found that the Lexar 1000x 32Gb card gave me just over 50 RAW files before it slowed, my Transcend 400X 16 gb card gave just over 30. Naturally the Lexar is better but the 1DX has 3 processors (2 for this sort of thing) so the Lexar is much better in this camera. Conducting the same test on my 1D4 the cards made little difference, though to be fair, the buffer cleared a bit quicker with the Lexar.
I would have though the Lexar 600x or Sandisk equivalent would be the best price/speed compromise for a 5D3, though others may have better insights.

33
Lenses / Re: 400 mm question
« on: February 17, 2014, 08:28:21 PM »
I had the earlier version (Mk1 non - IS) of that lens and loved it. The AF was fast and accurate and the IQ excellent, even with extenders. However the weight (6.1 Kilos) was a bit daunting to say the least! I sold mine simply because it was not long enough for my needs - lovely lens though.
Unfortunately the lens you are considering is, as you state, no longer supported. These lenses were built to last, but everything has a finite life. This should be reflected in the price you pay as you are taking a bit of a chance - it may work for years (and probably will) but if it falls flat tomorrow then it may not be repairable. You must balance this against the much higher price (and reduced weight) of a newer version.
Personally I would not pay more than a third to a half of what I would pay for an IS version.

34
Thanks for posting - now a little light reading!

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:17:55 PM »
Pity I was looking at the A7/ A7R as a landscape camera. I thought one of these little beauties would lighten my load and give me better images (with my existing lenses). Ah well I will just have to struggle under the weight of my 1 series!

36
Software & Accessories / Re: Looking for a new tripod and head
« on: February 12, 2014, 08:10:22 PM »
Just my 2p.
My Sirui K40X is an excellent head but it is overkill. It is not phased by the longest and heaviest Canon production lenses so a smaller version, such as the K30X will be more than adequate for your current gear and allow for expansion.
My other ball head is a Triopo RS3, it is sold in the US under a different brand but I don't know what the name is! The top plate needs to be replaced with an Arca style clamp (I use the Triopo one) so factor this into the cost. If you can live with a single lever that controls all movements (which I like) and no friction adjustment, then get this head. Unless you plan to get a Canon 1200 F5.6 then there is NO current Canon lens that it will not support rigidly + it is very cheap! Not I do NOT recommend using big lenses on any ball head, I am just stating that this one will do it without creep.
As to tripods - bite the bullet and get a good one. I know RRS and Gitzo cost silly money, but you will not be replacing one in a hurry! Don't forget to look at the used market as well, I picked up a used Gitzo G1329 Mk2 Systematic + a carbon center column about $160 in you money. The center column alone was worth that much! Alternatively companies such as Feisol etc make some very decent tripods these days - so they are well worth a look. One point to note is that tripods by Gitzo and RRS tend to have a larger footprint (when set up the feet are further apart) which gives them great stability, other brand tripods tend to have a smaller footprint and can be less stable and more easily knocked/blown over.


37
This may be useful - though it doesn't have the very latest cards:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/camera_wb_multi_page7de5.html?cid=6007-12452

For what it's worth I use a Lexar 32GB 1000x in my 1DX and am very impressed with it. I get around 50 RAW files at 10fps before it slows, the other card is a Transcend 400x and it gives about 30 files before slowing. This is not a fair comparison as the 1DX writes much faster and I think you would get good performance from a quality (Sandisk/Lexar) card with a slightly lower rating.

38
Lenses / Re: Question about Canon 300mm f/4 L IS
« on: February 07, 2014, 05:01:15 PM »
Obviously Welsh Snipe are far more wary!

I dunno, John...  I see that droplet at the tip of the beak.  It may be that our colleague has discovered a snipe who craves the occasional shot 'o scotch!  :D
I will have to see if the local Snipe like Penderyn (Welsh Malt whisky). The trouble is that I am of Irish decent and they are NOT getting their beaks into my Bushmills!

I'd rather have a penderyn :)

Have you tried it? Let's just say it's not my favorite! However Penderyn do make a whiskey matured in Port casks which is quite nice but not available in the UK!

40
Software & Accessories / Re: How long a Monopod should be
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:38:47 PM »
Sorry for my ignorance, but who is "Abe"? Lincoln??


Abraham Lincoln was rumoured to have said, when asked, "how long should a man's leg be"; "Long enough to touch the ground."

I *attempted* to make a humourous comment.  Attempted being the key word.   :-[

But you didn't allow for my ignorance!
Good quote though.

 ;D

41
Lenses / Re: Question about Canon 300mm f/4 L IS
« on: February 04, 2014, 06:36:24 PM »
Obviously Welsh Snipe are far more wary!

I dunno, John...  I see that droplet at the tip of the beak.  It may be that our colleague has discovered a snipe who craves the occasional shot 'o scotch!  :D
I will have to see if the local Snipe like Penderyn (Welsh Malt whisky). The trouble is that I am of Irish decent and they are NOT getting their beaks into my Bushmills!

42
Doesn't appear to be available in the UK, but thanks anyway.

43
Gaffer Tape.   :)

Maybe on your lenses - not mine! :P

Um.... why not?   ???  I've used gaffer tape on my lenses for years.  Never had a problem.  I didn't say duct (duck?) tape, I said gaffer tape.  Are you sure you know what I'm talking about?

It doesn't come off too easily, it offers better grip, it protects from scratches and it helps disguise/cover big white expensive looking lenses with red rings.  Not sure where the downside is...

Any tape is liable to leave a residue on the lens even the (non adhesive) ones that are GUARANTEED not too - I spent a miserable couple of days cleaning up a 400 F2.8 and a tripod after that stuff! Additionally the neoprene covers offer considerably more protection - just better in my experience.

I use gaffer tape on my camera, but they do need to be replaced once in a while. If they get too tacky, you can always use Goo Gone though...
I had been thinking of going the camo tape route, but having to replace the tape once every few months and cutting and sticking it again feels like a hassle.

The stretchable " Leaves no residue" camo tape was what caused me to start questioning the use of tape on lenses. When I first fitted it it gave a very good low visibility appearance and made my lens much more comfortable to handle. So much so that I covered the top leg sections of my Gitzo tripod and, initially was very happy with the results for the price. About 6 months later the tape had shifted a bit so I unwound it to re-apply it. Unfortunately it had left a sticky layer on my tripod and was even worse on my lens. After a LOT of cleaning with various products I got nowhere but found an old 2 pint bottle of Isopropyl alcohol which worked - with a lot of elbow grease.
Since then I have help undo a number of tape mistakes and have run out of Isopropyl Alcohol in the process! If you brand of gaffer tape works for you then you are lucky, the stuff we get over here is not suitable in my opinion.
I still prefer the Neoprene covers, but I agree they cost silly money for what they are - but compared to the price of the lens??

P.S. what is Goo Gone? Sounds useful!

44
Lenses / Re: Question about Canon 300mm f/4 L IS
« on: February 03, 2014, 08:25:53 PM »
+1 on the shot - nice one!
There are a goodly number of Snipe near me but I can never get close enough for a shot like that even with a 1.4 extender on my 800! Obviously Welsh Snipe are far more wary!

45
Software & Accessories / Re: How long a Monopod should be
« on: February 03, 2014, 08:21:04 PM »
Long enough for the bottom portion to touch the ground.  :)

(With a nod to Abe)

Sorry for my ignorance, but who is "Abe"? Lincoln??

As an aside I was quite surprised to see how poorly supported tall people are on the mono pod front. One can buy tripods that are over 9 feet tall but a mono pod over 5 feet 3 inches is uncommon at best!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12