« on: October 20, 2013, 04:11:14 AM »
Bought mine last February with 24-105. Sold the lens (as I already had one), effective price for the body $2500.
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.
It's not the pixel size, it's the total sensor area that gives FF the better ISO performance. The 5DII and 20D have the same pixel pitch.Hi,
So, to answer your question...no.
I had to disagree... the iso performance of the sensor is base on the pixel size and the sensor technology, not the sensor size... 5DII have better ISO performance than 20D is due to the sensor technology and image processing advancement.
For example, if I crop a 5D3 image to the same size as a crop sensor or I create a crop sensor mask and install in a 5D3 camera, will the iso performance suddenly become bad??
Have a nice day.
I got butterfly too, unfortunately the bokeh wasn't that good:
I disagree. I think this is a very creative butterfly shot with the balcony and fence nicely out-of-focus with smooth bokeh. Good use of DOF to isolate the subject while still providing a sense of place. Well done.
... I just ordered a 16-35L f/2.8 II and a 70-200 f/2.8 II ... What to do of this addiction?
The good news is that those are workhorse lenses and they can earn you money, unlike her shoes (that's right, I thought it, I said it!)
I can't complain too much for a first attempt at this type of photo [/img]
How did you get the blue??
I just threw up in my mouth
Was this at f/1.4 aperture? How long was the exposure?
Well captured! What was the camera you used? I'm guessing a FF (perhaps 6D or 5DmkII or 5DmkIII?)
Went out last night to shoot Milky Way. I had my friend's 24/1.4 with me. It was late and I was tired so I forgot to try also with my Sigma 14/2.8. But the pics with 24/1.4 came out quite nice. Even I drove to North-WA trying to get away from light pollution, still there's quite strong light on the bottom.Comments: Nice picture... the light pollution at the bottom seems to add to the image and gives detail on the landscape, yet fades off quickly enough to not overcome the details of the stars.. it works quite well together and makes it a more interesting image than just the stars alone.
Questions: What was the exposure and ISO?
I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm surprised at how disrespected the original 16-35 is. I'm also surprised at how respected the 17-40 is. I learn something new everyday.