July 28, 2014, 10:15:51 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 - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 114
166
Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: May 08, 2014, 07:58:28 AM »
Here's a couple of different takes on the panoramic wide angle approach. Shot on 70 mm ( 24-70 f4 IS), and for all you guys who like an f1.4 or 1.2 for shallow depth of field: these were both shot at f10. ( But then I have had my leg pulled for saying 2 metres is a shallow dof  ;)  )

167
Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: May 08, 2014, 07:53:37 AM »
Sporgon, as one of our resident pano masters, I appreciate your reply and the many excellent samples and explanations you posted!  What a huge variety of focal lengths you use and I really like your work.  I'm sure the 40mm works well and now I kind of wish I'd kept mine. As for the 17mm comment, I feel that way, too, but then I've found myself looking at some amazing panos and read that they were shot at 14-17mm :o  Obviously some scenes are suited for it.

That's the beauty of the 40 pancake; at that price and size you have absolutely no excuse for not getting another one ;)

It's a question of style really; a 17 mm would not suit my style at all.

168
Lenses / Re: Prime v Zoom Bokeh
« on: May 08, 2014, 07:40:16 AM »
Maybe...but it's also nice to be able to actually see the true DoF through the VF, for compositional reasons.

Agreed, the greatest benefit of the 's' screen is real dof. I find the difference in ability to nail manual focus only marginally better than the standard screen.

I stick to what I said; maybe Canon underestimated the desire from 5D owners to see real dof, or maybe that desire isn't actually there across the broad user base, or maybe it was to add a 'crippling' differential to the 1Dx.

169
Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: May 07, 2014, 12:33:22 PM »
With the tele lenses the compression of the scene is often clearly visible, no matter how wide the panorama later on is. The whole scene looks then easily a bit flat.

So if you use a 150 mm lens on a 5x4 camera do you get compression ?  ;)  Or a 300 mm on a 10x8 ?

170
Photography Technique / Re: So I really stepped into it....
« on: May 07, 2014, 05:29:17 AM »
Well, here's my response Joe. These action figure images are an embarrassment and if I were you wouldn't hold them up as an example of anything even remotely related to good photography. This page represents the local (sic) Camera Club and I think we can do better than this.

 ;D;D



Well you know what to do there then: give that lot a wide berth  ;)

I thought your last picture was a very good example of how to make a picture more pleasing to the eye.

171
Thanks macguyver, but I got to this point on my own. The issue was the scale; How much do I adjust AF/step on their scale. From what I understand, I can do a FoCal on each of the distances and then I can punch in the adjustment values pr. focal length. That way I get a much more accurate AF from close to infinity. The Sigma scale has 20 steps +/-, like FoCal, so I suspect they will match fairly well. AFMA pr. lens will then be the offset to that again.

If I only had more time ....

Since this is about images, here is my Local Swan mother, taking care of her 6 eggs. I don´t remember having shot birds with a 50mm before, but there´s a first for everything.
5DIII, 1/100s, f5.0, ISO 160

I missed this the other day and sorry I couldn't be more helpful, but I love the swan shot!  I can't believe you got so close.


This is Norway, lol, we go birding with uwa's.

Here's a recent shot with the 17-40 at 17mm  ;)



Nice!  Great shot as well, and you must have swans with the calm Scandinavian demeanor.  The last time I got that close to American swans, I was attacked, and yes, their bites actually hurt!  I suppose my Norwegian heritage (my last name is Anderson) didn't buy me any professional courtesy ;)


It would have been an interesting test for the multi coating of the 17-40 mm  ;)

172
Lenses / Re: Prime v Zoom Bokeh
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:53:58 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Davies Photography
link=topic=20815.msg394134#msg394134 date=1399391530
The Canon L is reputed to be slow focussing

It focuses as quickly as you can turn the ring. Unless you're too lazy and use autofocus :P
It is very slow and the focus by wire manual AF isn't great, either, but not so slow as to be unusable.  The trade off is exceptional image quality, and it is every bit as good as you've heard.  If you don't need/want to shoot below f/2.8, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II makes a lot more sense from a practicality standpoint, but it's those f/1.2-2 shots that are amazing.

Sure, the quasi manual focus is a little strange. I was just offering worthless commentary about what I thought to be an odd disconnect (zoom lenses are for lazy people willing to sacrifice IQ for convenience, but autofocus evidently is not for lazy people willing to sacrifice accuracy for convenience).
I get the humor, but without a good viewfinder screen, manual focus at f/1.2 is pretty much impossible to do well or consistently.

Well said.

Bodies like 5DIII and 1Dx can nail auto focus on the 85 at f1.2 consistently.

Which is probably why the 5DIII design dispensed with the interchangeable screens.

173
Photography Technique / Re: What Lenses Do You Use for Panoramics?
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:45:17 PM »
OK, don't laugh ... The lens I've found most useful for Panoramas is the 40mm pancake - the negligible distortion is a breeze to work with. In fact, I was guided to it by Sporgon here on CR - BTW, I really like his work.

I recently got the 17mm TS-E lens which has a stellar reputation. I'm still getting my head around the various tilt and shift movements so I haven't tried creating panoramas with it. The learning curve is extremely steep and I'm struggling with time constraints these days :(

Thanks J.R. Yes the 40 pancake is my default lens now, assuming no IS required. It has zero distortion and a short nodal point meaning that it (generally) stitches together very easily with little after corrections needed. I don't bother with a sliding panoramic plate anymore as the recent stitching programs  are so good.

When in portrait the vertical field of view of a 40 mm is about the same as the vertical field of view of a 24 mm in landscape orientation, so people who like 24 mm are going to find panos with the 40 familiar territory.

However as Don says, it does depend on where you are and what you are trying to produce. I've attached a few pictures that range from 400 mm, 189 mm ( 135L+1.4II converter), 135 mm, 40 mm and 28 mm.

On the 189 mm shot I was on the side of a hill and couldn't move any closer without losing too much altitude. In the 135 mm shot I needed to get the trees in front of the minster out of the way as much as possible. By moving back the trees become smaller in relation to the building behind. Google images of Beverely Minster and you'll see how when you are closer the trees obscure more of the church. In the 40 mm shot it was the right framing for the perspective I wanted, and lastly on the 28 mm pano I couldn't move any further back for a number of reasons.

@Mack, not at all surprised on the 50L. I'm sure you are shooting in portrait so over lapping the long side of the sensor takes away the edge resolution. The sky takes away perceived resolution in the top part, but most importantly you are creating a larger format and so the enlargement of each frame is much less, and is much more forgiving on the lens. ( Just like MF / LF does not put nearly so much pressure on the resolving power of the lens.

I can honestly say that in my panoramics it is impossible to tell the difference in print between the 24-105L @5.6 - 8 and lenses such as the 35L or 135L at the same apertures.

I would never use a 17 mm lens for a panoramic.

174
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: May 06, 2014, 09:09:32 AM »
This all sounds a bit alarming to me. As someone who's very much into 'plug & play' I think I'll be sticking to Canon; hurry up with the EF 50 1.8 IS  ;)

175
Canon General / Re: Let's confess our disgusting perversions
« on: May 06, 2014, 04:14:44 AM »
Art, including photography, has never been defined by technical perfection. Art worth viewing is always a manipulation of reality, whether by great or small amounts.

Skilful exploitation in the limitations of the medium often add to a picture. Are 'Casablanca' or 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' less of a movie to watch than say 'Avatar' ? It's the same with still photography, that's why the odd Missionary who visits CR to save us from our dark Canon ways and embrace the holy light of Exmor are so annoying.

I see you are using the original 5D. That camera tends to be a little more 'abrupt' and 'harsh' in it's tonal changes, but that can be used to create a signature picture that is not necessarily worse than the latest tech sensors.

I'm attaching a picture where I decided to leave the lens flare in and darkened the shadows on the cliffs. I think the picture is better for it. 

176
Lenses / Re: Fashion Show FQM 2014 70-200mm mk ii and 6D Bokeh
« on: May 05, 2014, 02:51:02 PM »
How is this one with a 70-200 f4?

How is it ? Nice !   :)

177
@ Surapon, that's a stunning picture of the arthropod's eyes !

178
Lenses / Re: 28mm/1.8 USM
« on: May 05, 2014, 02:39:04 AM »
Interestng looking at the date of the OP. Three years on this lens is still easy to find in Europe - everyone has one in stock.

It's actually much better than on line reviews give it credit for. These reviews have destroyed the second hand value.

179
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: May 04, 2014, 01:03:55 PM »
1Dx Otus 55f/1.4 @ f/2 & 1/125th ISO800

Bali Nusa Dua
I haven't been on in a while but been shooting a lot which is good :) here is a shot of Metja :-)

beautiful!

+ 1,

(Lens must be quite good too  ;). )

180
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: May 04, 2014, 05:41:24 AM »
Last of the sunlight for a day over Givendale in the North of England

5D + 35 f2

Nice shot, is that the 'old' 35mm f/2?

Many thanks Click & MRS. It was shot on the original version. I sold it when I got the 40 pancake which I really like.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 114