Recent Posts

31

Canon General / Re: Beach Vacation in a month... & I'm scared for my gear.

« Last post by pierceography on Today at 12:23:10 PM »

I wouldn't worry too much.  Just use common sense for the most part and you should be fine.  When I went to the Caribbean last year, I had my 5Dm3, 24-70 (mk1), 70-200, 100mm, and a few other lenses.

The vast majority of my pictures were taken on the beach, including some where my camera was almost sitting on the sand trying to get angle shots.  I would never change lenses on the beach -- I'd head back up towards the beach hotel we stayed at if I wanted to swap.  I'd only set my camera down on my camera bag while I was on the beach, but even that was only a few times.  And I never took my camera (and myself) into the water -- though I wouldn't worry about going waist deep if the waves weren't too much.

The best piece of advice I can offer is to watch the humidity.  Our hotel room was air conditioned (thank god), and being on an island the humidity was usually close to 90%.  With the temperature and humidity differential between our hotel room and the exterior, my camera and lenses would immediately fog up and be unusable for ~10 minutes once I walked outside, which would make it real difficult to run out and grab a shot if I saw something interesting.

So I would bring several large ziplock bags, put your gear in them before you plan on heading out, and let them sit outside (we had a secure porch area) so that your gear can get acclimated to the temperature.  The bags will prevent some fogging, but will it will take longer for your gear to become acclimated.

32

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits

« Last post by Click on Today at 12:22:40 PM »

Wilson's Phalaropes, females in this case (which tend to be flashier than the males), out at Cherry Creek State Park in Colorado:

Awesome! Great shots Sir.

33

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos 1Dx OR...?

« Last post by ksagomonyants on Today at 12:21:54 PM »

@ shashinkaman

Dylan, this is a good one 

OP. If you really want to impress girls in a club, bring 1dx with few big white telephoto lenses (300, 800 and 1200 mm). I've also heard that girls there simply love guys with that big Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 lens, so you may want to bring it too. Once they're impressed, you can donate all these lenses to me (OK, I can pay you $50) 

34

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos 1Dx OR...?

« Last post by whothafunk on Today at 12:17:06 PM »

I suggest buying a 300mm f2.8 Mark II and shove it up your bunghole.

35

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 14-24 or 16-35 for Nikon D600?

« Last post by ksagomonyants on Today at 12:15:31 PM »

I shot 14-24 on D800 through a friend, all I can say is WOW.

My vote is 14-24. I wish Canon can match or do better than current Nikon 14-24.

There are already lenses for Canon bodies whose optical quality surpasses that of Nikon's 14-24.

Can you pin point Canon UWA Zoom lenses that equal or out perform Nikon 14-24?  I'm still looking for one

Dylan, please read my post above. Probably I didn't state this clear enough when I said there are better UWA lenses than Nikon 14-24. The point is that i) I meant both fixed and zoom lenses, and ii) a guy already invested in Canon, so why not to get the best UWA lens from Canon (17mm TSE) or Zeiss (15 or 21mm) instead of investing into Nikon. Nikon 14-24 is still going to be manual, you need to buy an adapter, loose an F-stop, can't get a filter for it; it's subject to flare and some CA. In your case, if you really need to have an UWA zoom lens, then I agree with you, Nikon 14-24 is probably your best choice. But it's a very special lens, and I personally wouldn't buy it unless I used Nikon body. I hope it clarifies what I meant initially. For OP, Nikon 14-24 would be a better choice. Have a good rest of the weekend 

36

Canon General / Re: Beach Vacation in a month... & I'm scared for my gear.

« Last post by Z on Today at 12:11:04 PM »

I understand your apprehension, but the way I try to look at it is: what's the point in having that gear with you if your fear will inhibit your creativity?

Either get your gear insured for all risks (which you should anyway) and forget about it, or just take the $200 point and shoot. You'll probably end up with better photos.

37

Lenses / Re: Telezoom lens (70-300L vs 70-200 vs 100-400)- Advice

« Last post by kirkcha on Today at 12:09:49 PM »

The only thing I didn't like was no tripod ring, which I would need.

Just curious as to why you'd need a tripod ring for the 70-300L (and not the 70-200/4L?)...

Either way, Canon does sell tripod rings for both, and there are cheaper 3rd party options, although quality varies.

Not saying I don't need on the 70-200 but I was able to manage without it much better than on the 70-300, I would have to have it with the added weight and length at 300.

Any recommendations on a 3rd party, Vello seems to be rated fairly high?

38

Canon General / Beach Vacation in a month... & I'm scared for my gear.

« Last post by jdramirez on Today at 12:03:55 PM »

The last time I went to the beach, I had a Sony point and shoot ($200) and I had no fear.  I was taking pictures while the water was up to my knees with my daughter splashing around. 

And now that I have a 60D which might be a 5d mkiii by the time we are beach bound, a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS mkii, a 24-105mm, and a bunch of other lenses.  And one grain of sand is all it takes to screw things up. 

So... what do yall suggest?  I will absolutely avoid changes the lenses outside... and I will absolutely not leave my gear on the sand or even on a blanket that might have sand on it... but is it worth the risk to even take it out of the hotel?  Should I rent a body/lens and let the guys at Borrow lenses remove the sand from the motor? 

I was thinking of stupid ideas like wrapping saran wrap around the lens and body and then just treating the lens like it was a prime... but that doesn't really seem reasonable. 

I should have agreed to go to Disney again. 

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Eos 1Dx OR...?

« Last post by jrista on Today at 12:02:41 PM »

HI!

Like most here on CR I have more money than brains and can't shoot a good picture even if I my life depended on it, but still need to have the 'best of the best' in order to look good with the mates!

That's why I launched this topic:

What would impress the girls and boys of the local photo club the most (and remember, I am a sad poser and can't shoot sh@t!): 1 Canon Eos 1Dx  with the 3 -L 2,8 zooms, or 2 Eos 5D markIII with that 'holy trinity' some of you are always going on about??

Money is absolutely no issue here, I just need to look good and cool!

Appreciate your expert imput on this one!!!!

WTF? Megatroll much?

40

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« Last post by jrista on Today at 12:01:54 PM »

It's not a secret that NASA uses Nikon cameras and lenses (http://www.nikon.com/news/2009/1221_NASA-D3S_01.htm) after using Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo mission.
Could we reveal the reason?

very, very simple reason:

Hassy has a bigger camera body ( more easy to manipulate the settings in a space suit)

Nikon sensors have better DR than Canon.... and in space this performance is crucial.

Yes it must be the DR. NASA has been awaiting that for years up until last year when Nikon introduced the D800...

Do you believe yourself what you're writing?

You.... again 

Well, factually speaking, DR is NOT the most important thing in space. NASA bought into Nikon a few years back because at the time Nikon was the king of HIGH ISO. You don't shoot the dark side of the Earth from space at ISO 100...you shoot it at ISO 6400, 12800 and at high shutter speeds to freeze the motion of 17,500mph! At High ISO, DR is physically limited. You lose about 1 stop DR per stop of ISO increase...you have only 7 or 8 stops at those high ISO, so the most important thing is the total electrons per pixel at maximum saturation. The higher the charge, the lower the noise.

Today, Canon rules the high ISO/SNR realm. By a relatively small margin compared to how much Nikon rules the low ISO/DR realm, but enough to give them an edge now. I believe the only reason NASA currently uses Nikon and has not changed to Canon is there really isn't any reason to. They are invested. They have the gear, have the lenses. Why change? They don't need the compelling features of the 1D X...it was built for sports, so it has an AF system and frame rate to match. I'd figure the most compelling Canon camera for NASA would be a 40-50mp FF monster with good ISO 25600 performance...which doesn't exist quite yet.

hmm what do you mean in all this text?

If you brush up on your English, you might understand it. Everything you need to know, my entire meaning, is in the text above.