Posts

blaydese · Aug 17, 2012

Not my site, but I like this guy's work:

http://ilkoallexandroff.1x.com/journal/2171/

Check out some of his work / idea / tools.

His facbook page too:

https://www.facebook.com/ilko.allexandroff

Peace! 8)

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 17, 2012

You might check Breeze software, if you haven't already. They have a photobooth application that is popular. Generally, the camera controls are disabled when tethered, but there may be some clever workarounds.
http://breezesys.com/Photobooth/index.htm
Chris Breeze is pretty helpful about answering your questions.

Omar H · Aug 16, 2012

I might have the funds from a tax refund around may/june of next year, if by then it's available, then for (almost*) sure I'll get one, if not, I'll have a tougher time deciding between the existing 100-400 which I have actually used and I'm in love with, and the 70-300 L which I have not used but I would believe might be an excellent choice given the advancement in technology when compared to the 100-400, but I certainly don't have any hardcore data to support such statement.

*almost in reference to a potentially obscene increment in price, like going from $1600 US to $3,000 US. In such case I would think, darn you Canon!

Aug 16, 2012

Curious how in the light of things that this topic was highjacked with the intro of the G1X which turned out not to be a Gx machine, bearing in mind that the original intention of the author of the subject heading was a CR1 on the introduction of a Gxx camera which so far has not materialised.
Just shows how long this subject has been simmering for, as a Google search will show.
Sorry for resurrecting this subject, just feeling let down and frustrated especially after two new Powershot models were promised this month neither of which turned out to be a Gxx model after all.
I wonder what happened to the source of the original CR1?

Aug 16, 2012

I don't recommend using tripod to shoot portrait as it's too sssssslow to act and there is not much difference in sharpness. You may need it if you want to print anything > 24 x 36in. Otherwise, dont. With the right technique and practice, you will get a sharp photo without tripod.

With just ambient light as main light, you will have to use fast speed, ~1/100s for a non-moving subjects (general rule is 1/focal length as some already mentioned) for medium lens. If you shoot kids, forget it. YOu will need at least 1/200s.

With flash acting as main light, you can drag the shutter, meaning you can shoot as slow as 1/15s without getting blurry. See the following shot taken @1/20s, f/5.0, 800 ISO.

Aug 16, 2012

Actually, here's the "real" U.K. press release. It's supposed to be September 2015 ;D ;D ;D

marekjoz · Aug 16, 2012

Below are from 17-40 and personally I love it not only for landscapes

NAC VII Superfinal (C08) by marekjoz, on Flickr

Białka Tatrzańska by marekjoz, on Flickr

Wilanów, Warsaw by marekjoz, on Flickr

Wilanów Palace interiors, Warsaw by marekjoz, on Flickr

@!ex · Aug 16, 2012

Quick and dirty. Fixed the levels, saturation, warmth, contrast, curves, and cleaned up the skin (portraiture) maybe 5 min of work. I cloned out a bit of the wispy hair, and didn't take much time, but I feel like cloning out all of it would never look quite right, and the effort to result ratio would not be good.

Moody Blues · Aug 16, 2012

Return it. It took me 3 copies to finally get one with no issues.

Quasimodo · Aug 16, 2012

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8719.0

heptagon · Aug 16, 2012

Nate said:
Which has better IQ the 7D+70-200+1.4 TC III or the 5D3+70-200+2 TC III?
How much faster would be the auto focus for the 7D setup?

The 7D has a higher pixel density and the 1.4 TC has better contrast and higher F-stop, so that would mean sharper pictures. I don't know about noise though but i guess after all it will be better than the 5D setup.

Focusing with the 1.4x should take two times as long as without TC and with the 2x it should take four times as long. (from heresay) I have never seen actual measurements on that though. Both setups still might be fast enough for you. If you can pre-focus it's no big issue but if you need focusing shot for shot in a series it might be just too slow.

charlesa · Aug 16, 2012

Good luck, not many would sell that lens second-hand. If they do, they are either borderline insane or getting out of photography

picturesbyme · Aug 16, 2012

this is also very helpful to start with: http://youtu.be/OZj16RmtFeg

acoll123 · Aug 16, 2012

Nope, but I may ask that it be taken care of when I send it in to CPS for a clean and check next year sometime - something I would do anyway.

Kcray85 · Aug 16, 2012

$39 for 16"x20" Customized Metal-Printed Photograph from MetalPixs with Shipping Included ($153.95 Total Value)

http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-16x20-customizable-photo-on-metal?c=all&p=7

I ordered one, thought I would pass it on.

Aug 16, 2012

eve said:
Where would you suggest looking for a good used lens? I'm guessing there are reputable sellers people go to?

keh.com

lexonio · Aug 16, 2012

Thanks everyone, I've checked that topic, but most posts over there were "Well you see, 1DX is better, and here is why..."
I was looking for feedback from people who own 5DmIII and who have shot some sports events with it, that's why I created a topic of my own.

@!ex, awesome shot you have there!

peederj · Aug 16, 2012

I understand photogs are visually fixated and perfectionistic...but isn't there glory in the character of well-worn tools?

Imagination, people! Are you obsessed with keeping your equipment sparkling, or your subjects?

rpt · Aug 15, 2012

I had connected two of my computers with a crossover cable and no router. That was about 8 years back. If you have connected, try to PING 192.168.1.3 from your computer...

Does the cable work if you connect some other computer to your laptop?

These days 4 and 8 port switches are small. You can easily lug one. They are not expensive either...

Edit: is your wireless on? If so, is there an IP conflict with another 1.3? Turn wireless off...

7enderbender · Aug 15, 2012

Depends on how much you like that lens. If you want it repaired I'd only have Canon do this. Probably safer to unload for cheap and buy a refurbished from Canon or authorized dealer.

If it was mine I'd probably take it as an opportunity to buy something different. It's a nice enough lens optically but it's pretty flimsy for the money and for the "L" designation. Not saying that ANY lens would survive a drop in a fountain like this, but chances are that there are lenses that are more rugged and easier to repair. I'm thinking of the original 24-70. Me personally I'd probably chuck it and buy another nice prime instead. I don't trust any of this IS business to last for more than a few years.

Aug 15, 2012

Viggo said:
For example I use the SET to magnify, but I could seriously have used it for ISO, because the new ISO button is too far to the right, and too small.

Why don't you just use the Magnify button to magnify, and the Set button for ISO?

Rich

Aug 15, 2012

zrz2005101 said:
Are you able to handheld the 300 f2.8 IS or does it have to mount on a monopod to get through the entire game? Thanks

I have only used it handheld. I use a OP/TECH Super Classic strap attached to the lens body and rest as needed. During the action it is very easy to track and capture images without feeling tired. With field sports you are not holding the camera lens still, trying not to move or shake. Most of the shots are tracking, following the action and firing off as needed. Whenever the whistle blows, I take the opportunity to rest.

My monopod head is too lightweight for the 300 f2.8. It worked fine for my 300 f4 IS and my 780-200 f2.8 IS, but I do not trust the 300 f2.8 on it.

trentchau · Aug 15, 2012

Canon 5d Mark II and a 70-200 2.8L II IS probably

firephasers · Aug 15, 2012

I just acquired the Tokina AT-X 16-28, it's actually a pretty nice lens. As others have said, it is somewhat heavier than other lenses, but as far as build quality, I have absolutely no complaints. The first picture is a cell phone shot of the Tokina, with my 5DMKII. The front is a bit bulbous so as others have said...no filters. It does have a lens cap however that encompasses the entire front of the lens, so there are no worries about protecting the lens at all. The second shot is a photo taken with the lens at Caesar's Palace in Vegas...along with a little tweaking courtesy of Photomatix. I think I'm going to enjoy this new lens a lot.

Mendolera said:
G' Day All,

First time posting a new topic but wanted to get some advice if anyone wants to chime in. Ive been eyeing a couple WA's for months now. I had the 16-35 II in my shopping cart more then once now but decided against it as the extra cost savings in the following two lens will let me preorder the Mark III once available (Some budget concerns). Currently Im rocking my almost 4 year old XSi so I know the 10-22 would be better suited for it but like I said im making the full frame jump soon.

Im guessing a fair share of people on the forum have or have used the 17-40 but wondering if anyone has used the rather new Tokina and how they might compare. Prices are comparable new though the 17-40 has more of a used market currently. The Tokina doesnt accept filters which for me is a drawback but the extra stop makes it more appealing as I do anticipate the occasional handheld evening landscape shot.

Cheers

Marsu42 · Aug 15, 2012

sdsr said:
Assuming I needed the extra reach of the 70-300 L I bought one, but must have received a bad copy - sometimes it was no sharper (sometimes it was distinctly less sharp) than my 70-300 non-L IS, so I returned it.

Even with Canon lenses, there are bad copies - look at the iso crops for the 70-300L @the-digital picture, they got another copy because the first one was bad: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The 70-300 non-L actually is also ok iq-wise except for the long end, so maybe that's why you didn't see a difference. But of course the L has better is, faster & silent non-micro usm af and much better build quality.

Concerning the 70-200/4: It is certainly a good lens and a tad sharper than the 70-300L while keeping constant aperture - but whenever I see it I find it strangely long for something you also shoot at 70mm. Of course internal zooming is technically superior to the telescope design of the 70-300L, but handling & transport imho is simply better with a shorter lens.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics