Re: Long lens support -- Wimberly vs RRS Gimbals -- Experiences & recommendations?

neuroanatomist said:

johnf3f said:

Have you tried with a 2x TC on a MkII lens?

Click to expand...

No I have not, is there a problem balancing these? I don't have any Mk2 lenses but had an opportunity to have a play with one - very nice too! I am now lusting after a 600 Mk2, but even if I sell a lot of kit it is still out of my reach for now! If there is a problem balancing them then perhaps a suitable foot would be a solution.

Click to expand...

The MkII lenses are much lighter than their predecessors, and one reason is the elimination of the protective meniscus lens in front. That shifts the lens' center of backwards, but the tripod collar/foot is in the same relative position. It's fine with the bare lens and a 1-series, but problematic with a 2x TC and/or extra weight on the body (I sometimes use an ST-E3-RT to trigger a 600EX-RT with a Better Beamer on a bracket with a long, forward-angled extension). If you used a long lens plate (Wimberley P-50) attached so it extended quite a ways back, that would likely be fine. The RRS replacement foot dovetail extends a bit behind the mounting screws on the collar, and with the 1D X plus 2xIII on the 600 II, the back of that foot is even with the back of the 80mm clamp when correctly balanced - any more and it wouldn't be using the full clamping surface.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I thought it wouldn't be a problem with the long Mk2 lenses as when I tried the 500 Mk2 it didn't look like it would be an issue, however I didn't try my extenders.

If you love Macro and now have the 70-200 f/2.8 II, I would suggest you take a look at the Canon 500D close-up lens. It's a 77mm filter thread that attaches to your 70-200 and allows you to pull focus as close as 15".

http://youtu.be/6LFiMKiOMgc
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A001_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

Drizzt321 said:

Especially if you get ones that are UDMA7, even if they aren't 1000x or anywhere close. Reason is that the UDMA7 spec includes support for the TRIM command, which means the camera can tell the card when a file has been deleted, so it can go ahead and clear out those flash blocks ahead of time, instead of at the time you are going to be writing to it. This can drastically improve write times if the CF controller manages things properly.

Click to expand...

That's easily worked around. Don't delete large numbers of photos on the camera, and after you've filled a flash card, write ones across every bit in every block, then format it. A flash cell must be erased and rewritten only when bits go from 0 to 1, not when they go from 1 to 0, so your computer will take the performance hit of erasing all those cells when you write 1s across every bit, and you won't have to wait for them to be erased while you're shooting photographs.

Of course, to do this efficiently, you'll need to know the flash page size so you can stomp an entire page in a single write operation. Otherwise, you'll waste erase cycles unnecessarily.

There should be tools out there to do this already. If not, you can probably write one in about ten lines of C.

Thanks, thats very interesting.

In all fairness I'll provide some shots taken at ISO400 (upper row) and ISO640 for comparison. Processed with ACR, RAW downsized to sRAW size. No noise reduction was applied.

Image #1 is a 100% view of an image area.

In the 2nd and 3rd image I used a 400% magnification. It's interesting to see, that the RAW images still have a higher noise level at those low ISO values compared to sRAW. The gain in resolution in the RAW files is visible on a pixel-peeping level. The RAW images resolve shadow detail better in these images for example (see image #2, lower row). Well - there must be some good things in RAW too, right?

Image #4 shows the full images.

Now it's up to you to draw a conclusion.

Kind regards,
Th.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Click on the attachments and other options link below the text box when you post. That will let you upload a small image (800 X 800) ??
I'm curious as to how you could use a 44mm flange back lens on a 44mm flange back camera and get infinity focus, it would not focus to infinity unless the adaptor had zero thickness, or unless you modified the lens by replacing the mount.
M42 lenses with their 45.5 mm flange distance are commonly used on Canon EOS bodies. Some M39 lenses had 45.5mm flange back distances, I don't know about the Pauxette.

Click to expand...

Hi,

thenk you for the input, I try asap.

The solution is easy.

The EF-mount is wide enough to remove enough material from a commercial Leica-EOS-Adapter (or a M42-EOS-Adapter with an additional reducion-ring M42/M39) in a smaller diameter then the EOS-mouth and have a stable adapter as good as before, if you find an adapter made of a very good material. Therefore we use only brass adapters and none from aluminium.

There is not very much metall remaining between the machined area of the adapter and the mouth of the EF-mount - but enough. It only works because of the very small dimensions of the Paxette-Lenses, they dive in the EF-mount, to use a imaginable metapher.

Joerg

Brand B said:

Random Orbits said:

24-70 II, 50, 135L, 70-300L.
Week 1: 24-70 II, 50, 135L.
Week 2: 24-70 II, 70-300L.

Click to expand...

I'd second this. Just spent 2-1/2 weeks on a trip with similar circumstances and my older 28-70L and my 70-300L got me basically every shot I wanted. Didn't use any of the other lenses I brought almost at all.

Click to expand...

We are leaving tomorrow. I was thinking I would just take the 24-70 and 135 and 1.4 extender. But, after more thought I think I can make room for the 70-300 as well. I'd hate to miss some wildlife shots because I only have 189mm (135 with ext.) capability.

I'm still on the fence about the 50. It is great for low light and shallow DOF shots. But, I'm thinking the 24-70 2.8 can handle those duties, as I normally step the 50 down to f2 or 2.8 anyway.

Manual: http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300008700/01/pssx50hs-cug-en.pdf

No IR input directly. You can use a remote RF trigger connected with an E3-type plug - look for one compatible with a Rebel/xxxD body, there are several available from Satechi, hähnel, Vello, etc.

Sent mine to Canon Australia.

17 days later [2 days after there turn-over time] I recieved mine in the mail.

They said they had carried out the necessary repairs, no cost to me and I had my baby back. Also, it now has the black mark on the inside of the battery compartment.

paul13walnut5 said:

I picked up a camera because I was interested in the power of photography. I became interested in gear, but really a great image interests me more than a great new innovation.
...

Click to expand...

Great intro! Gear is tool, nothing more, nothing less ...

Now to the main theme:
I really enjoyed to read Bruce Barnbaums "The Art of Photography: An Approach to Personal Expression"
- the book title is "program". He tries to open all the dogmas of photography like "there has to be black and white in an image" or "you have to compose after the rule xyz".

Before I read the book I have defined photography as "pure photography" - results out of camera are real photography. But these photographs have NOT shown what I have seen, they have been without "personal expression".

Another important perspective of Bruce Barnbaum: It is nothing wrong with a photograph which shows a lot of detail/things - but it is not easy to create great photographs with a lot of stuff in it.

Here a link to Bruce Barnbaum's web site: http://www.barnbaum.com/barnbaum/Portfolios/Portfolios.html

... and a shot that I haven't liked in full color but after converting to B/W and manipulating the contrast curve (after reading Barnbaum's book) I really like it (Lake Garda, Italy, late spring):

14-24 f2.8

Glass ND's are multi-coated. That alone would worth the cost. When you stack multiple filters as you do in landscape shot, the reflection between filters are the worst offender to cause flaring

But I'm not sure if I can uderstand the topic, wideangel... that must be some special angel isn't it?

I am with BozillaNZ on this one.

I used APS-H for years, indeed I still have my original 1D, but when I used them the 16-35 was permanently on one, it is the best lens for the camera by far.

Now I know you said the 16-35 was out of the question, but what about a second hand 17-35 f2.8 or a MkI 16-35 f2.8? They can both be had for reasonable money, the 17-35 often around $500 on eBay.

Best bit is you lose the lenses pretty bad corner performance when using an APS-H so you win every way round.

Random Orbits said:

but the bigest improvement will come with your 50 and 70-200.

Click to expand...

I doubt the 50/1.8 makes a good ff lens, I have it and even on crop using only the center it's less than mediocre.

chasinglight said:

Thanks for your input. I have looked at the 5d2 and actually wanted it over the 6d for some of its features such as ergonomics and PC sync, but people still want a lot of money for 5d2s.

Click to expand...

Yes, again same here - I cannot find a used 5d2 on the open market that has what I'd consider an ok price considering shutter count and the improvements of the 6d. I just mentioned because you might happen to know somebody who'd sell a 5d2 for an ok price to "good hands" of an enthusiast.

Going off the Amazon description, this flash can't act as a master flash. The M mode is for "manual." It is not E-TTL capable, either.

Get the 6D and save $1000. Keep the 50 f1.4 and the 70-200 f4is. Buy the 24mm f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8 (when you sell the 10-22 you've paid for both of these) Buy the 600 flash if you need one with the money you save.
Bank the rest and save it until you find out how this covers your shooting style. You can sell either the 24 or
85 (or both) and buy the L versions when you're flush and if you need them. Keep you eyes open for a new wide
zoom, an improved 35L, a tele-extender for the 70-200 and/or a second flash or whatever - including a second 6D or the next click on the full frame ride.

markojakatri said:

600EX RT is the best speedlite for 5D3. I have two of them, 430EX II and used to have 580EX II before. 600 is easy to use and it just works. Flash head must turn 180 degrees both sides, which 430 can't do -> 580/600 if you will buy canon.

Click to expand...

600RT or even older 580 EX II will be very useful. At $373 for refurb 600RT, grab it.

On the website NorthernLightImages there's a mock up of a 42mm f1.2 lens and the description clearly labels it as a fake. But it did get me thinking about what if Canon (or the N word) started to rethink their lens lines. A fast
42mm would be wonderful (especially with APS sized sensors). What other "new" lenses would you like to see.
It appears the zooms killed the 150mm focal length. Could you make a "less expensive" 250mm or 350mm (the
old Leica R longer primes)? Any other candidates?

RLPhoto said:

I make a decent income from my micro-stock sales. You really need to find niche markets because almost everything under the sun has been shot.

Also prepare for rejection... Alot of it.

Click to expand...

LOL, I am ready for rejection.....and I don't expect to get rich off this.
But mostly jumping for fun,and would be thrilled if someone actually wanted to buy something I shot.

I was looking on istockphoto...and it appears that the video area, is one area that isn't as saturated as the stills....thinking of trying for some of those too.

C

Do you mean the 9000? I need to get more ink for mine - this 13x19 size is addicting, and pricy

Again, to each their own and it is wonderful that we as consumers have options. Just wanted to add that these units are now available (got an email today).

For events, you'd require at least two cameras. One with wide lens and one with long lens. Most of the time, changing lens isn't an option. If you can't afford 5D3 + 5D2 (or some other cheaper 2nd cam), go for that 70D + 6D combo. Having the best gear isn't as important as getting the shots. Of course for other purposes, your 5D3 alone might be enough.

I tried both the Canon 1.2 and Zeiss 1.4. I bought the Zeiss because of it's contrast characteristics. I also like the bokeh compared to the Canon. I think it's also sharper. I remember the Canon being a good deal soft at big apertures. But the Zeiss is MF only. Which is fine for me.

The only 50mm that's going to trump both of these is a Leica with a Canon adapter. And that lens will cost more than both of these combined. But the Zeiss 55mm that's coming out soon will be even pricier than that!

BozillaNZ said:

cbecklund said:

BozillaNZ said:

Long exposure noise reduction

Turn it off. What it does is take another exposure with shutter curtain closed, called 'dark frame' then subtract this frame from your photo, intended to remove hot pixels.

If you shoot RAW you don't need it. hot pixels are easily fixable in almost all RAW processing software.

Click to expand...

As far as hot pixels go, I would agree. However as far as noise goes, you cannot remove that much noise in post without loosing a lot of detail. Although long exposure noise reduction is annoying (especially when taking 5+ minute exposures) I think it is worth the time to get an almost noise free image.

Click to expand...

Dark frame subtraction only removes hot pixels. It can't cancel out RANDOM noise, which is the major noise in modern sensors. Because noise in each shot are different, and you can't subtract noise from noise to get a noise-free image, the math doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

Ok, well either way, I think it would be a pain to get rid of hot pixels. Here are two pictures, one without long exposure noise reduction, and one with (both at around 8 minutes).

paul13walnut5 said:

The squirrel with the 10-stone testicles? Posting that image is going to haunt me isn't it?

Click to expand...

That's the One

&

Yep