December 18, 2014, 10:38:33 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 - tpatana

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19
46
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: when are the best Sales on 5d Mark iii?
« 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.

47
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.

So, to answer your question...no.
Hi,
   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.

What she said.

48
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: October 08, 2013, 10:51:03 PM »
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.

Thanks. I like the picture, although the bokeh wasn't exactly as I hoped.

That was the coolest place I've been to. Here's another photo from same spot, different lens/angle: http://www.terophotography.com/Pictemp/TERO3439-Edit.jpg

49
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: October 07, 2013, 10:16:40 PM »
I got butterfly too, unfortunately the bokeh wasn't that good:


50
Canon General / Re: I'm so sick of Canon ...
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:05:17 PM »
... 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!)  ;D

Depends on shoes...

51
300 is easily noticeable when you compare side-by-side, but not so much if you just pick random photo and it's off that much. Also depends plenty on the photo.

52
Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR
« on: September 21, 2013, 05:02:58 PM »
I can't complain too much for a first attempt at this type of photo :)[/img]

Didn't you have more room to get further away? Or maybe use wider lens?

53
Landscape / Re: Sunset Frustration
« on: September 16, 2013, 02:07:48 AM »
Couple months ago the sky was really crazy color, here's shot I got. Not much tweaking done.

54
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: September 10, 2013, 01:46:29 AM »
How did you get the blue??

I guess same way than I get most photos I like: dumb luck.

Other explanation could be WB-slider?

55
I just threw up in my mouth

Why? I'd think that wouldn't be too pleasant experience.

56
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: September 06, 2013, 01:36:03 AM »
Was this at f/1.4 aperture?  How long was the exposure?

As I mentioned above, F2 and 15 sec exposure.

I knew the 600-rule, but I thought 30 secs would be close enough. Pixel-peeping it wasn't, but I guess for web (at that size anyway) it would have been ok. But 15 sec came out nice too.

57
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: September 06, 2013, 01:34:58 AM »
Well captured!  What was the camera you used?  I'm guessing a FF (perhaps 6D or 5DmkII or 5DmkIII?)


5D3

58
If it's $10 for life, I might jump on it even I already have LR4 and CS6.

But if it's $10 for e.g. 12 months, and then some ridiculous amount, no way.

So can someone confirm how long they promise the $10?

59
Landscape / Re: Milky Way
« on: September 05, 2013, 01:23:47 AM »
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?
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?

Thanks for the comments.

Here's the settings: 15 sec, f/2, ISO 6400

I first shot at 30 sec, but peeking at the photos I noticed some star trails even the 24mm should be fine up to 30sec. So I decided to use faster shutter and higher ISO.

60
Lenses / Re: 16-35 I vs. 17-40
« on: September 01, 2013, 11:57:58 PM »
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.

I think it's part about expectations, especially when the other one is twice the money, you'd expect plenty more from that. Also you'd expect plenty more from F2.8 compared to F4.0. If it don't deliver, then it's not the winner.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 19