Posts

pwp · Aug 27, 2012

Want to see highly evolved torchwork?
http://www.illuminated-landscape.com/

-PW

wickidwombat · Aug 27, 2012

i got the voigtlander 20mmf3.5 color skopar SLII and it is great i really love the sharpness compact size and build quallity
yeah its manual focus but it has electronic aperture control and snappy af confirm which works well. its well worth looking at
i think the only better 20 would be the ziess 21mm which is faster much bigger and heavier and much much more expensive too

Kernuak · Aug 27, 2012

TrumpetPower! said:
Kernuak said:

Personally, I don't like HDR, except on some occasions (there are some good examples). It is far overused in my opinion and in many cases badly (which makes the technique look worse than it is). Putting that aside though, there are many scenes where it just simply doesn't work, such as scenes containing snow to name one example. Also, adding gradients in Lightroom or Photoshop isn't going to recover detail that isn't there in the first place. If the sky is blown, then gradients are a waste of time, at best, you'll get bright white areas, at worst, you may also get weird colour casts. It's far better to use a grad (or two) to preserve the detail, even if it isn't quite enough, so that the detail is there for recovery in processing.

Click to expand...

You could do that and I have blended in the past, but I don't really have the patience for sitting editing, I'd rather use my patience waiting for light . Slightly illogical maybe, but it's probably that I've had enough of sitting in front of a computer at work.

You misunderstand me.

The gradients aren't of colors or curves or whatever.

The gradients are in the mask and allow you to choose which portions of which exposure are seen.

Take one exposure -2 EV. That's your sky. Take another exposure +2 EV. That's your foreground. Put the +2EV on the bottom layer and the -2 EV on the top layer. Add a mask to the -2 EV layer. On that mask, add a gradient that results in solid white at the top, solid black at the bottom, and a transition gradient somewhere between. How wide the transition, where to place it, and what angle to place it at define the characteristics of your virtual graduated ND filter.

Now, imagine you've got a scene with grass in the foreground, a patch of bright snow in the middle ground, dark (shadowed, forested) mountains in the background, blue sky, and a few bright puffy clouds. No way are you going to get that all in a single exposure with any ND filter ever made, but that's not a problem. Shoot multiple exposures, one for each part of the scene. Then, create your own custom ND filter in post using layer masks.

Of course, this assumes you know something of at least the basic principles of Zone exposure. You wouldn't want your exposure for the snow to put it at middle gray; you'd want it as bright as you can get it without clipping. And that shadowed forest needs to be as dark as you can get it without blocking or getting noisy (though you'd probably overexpose it a bit in the scene and pull it in post). The grass and sky, of course, should be close to middle gray, and the clouds should probably come from the same exposure as the snow.

Then, the challenge in post is nothing more than creating the proper masks for each of the layers.

Cheers,

b&

Timothy_Bruce · Aug 27, 2012

canonnovice said:
Has anyone had a good experience using the WFT-E5A to geotag photos using an iPhone to generate the *** data/location? Other *** devices? Curious as its a lot of money for the feature. When will Canon include this as a built-in feature in a non-professional grade (realize 7D is bottom of the pro-grade) or more reasonably priced camera?

for what do you need the WFT when using an iPhone to record the track-data ? by bluetooth ? does the iPhone do that kind of BT communication?

I considered an WFT for tethert shooting but most of the time I can use a cable and so it doesn´t justify the cost.

marekjoz · Aug 27, 2012

Mt Spokane Photography said:
The focus screen can be inaccurate. Canon will sell you shims to adjust the position to correct it, or you can ask them to adjust it. sometimes peoplle replace a focus screen but lose those tiny shims.
Live view uses the actual sensor, so you see the actual image being taken.

And at the same time with fast lenses wide open, after having focused properly with liveview at 10x magnification it is educationaly useful to move a camera or focus ring just a little tiny distance to see how shallow the DOF was. It is really shocking when you realize after such an excercise, how low the probability was, that you would hit the target with the viewfinder and naked eye only.

poias · Aug 27, 2012

KyleSTL said:
poias said:

If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Click to expand...

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary? Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses? What? Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift? That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

Canon's latest sensors are simply outdated in terms of detail resolution. You cannot bring superior images out of mushy low ISO capabilities. And 36mp for landscape/architecture is NOT overkill. LF, which is the ultimate choice of pro landscape/architecture photogs, goes to hundreds of equivalent MPx. And MF backs can yield 60+ MPx.

Basically, 36mpx is not enough when detail is needed. Canon is simply either incapable of bringing something to the market at competitive pricepoints, or they are milking their fanboys for their worth. Either way, it does not look good to impartial customers.

Mt Spokane Photography · Aug 27, 2012

Used lenses have dust! Its the least of things to be concerned about, and, if you get fixiated on looking at dust, you might miss the important things like autofocus or decentering.
Its pretty easy to clean most lenses, but tougher to fix a autofocus motor or IS. Realistically, its not worth considering a used lens unless you save enough for a average repair and still have a 10% margin. I won't buy one unless its at least 30% off retail, usually I go for more.

Brendon · Aug 27, 2012

Not to get to nerdy here, but it looks like this is basically a plate of material with graduated index of refraction. These have been built in the past for different applications. The big problem with this is that there is no way to achromatize this type of lens. For operating in the C-band (comms band) it doesn't hurt you too bad because most signals are very narrow (like for IR imagery) but if you tried to push broad spectrum light through this (visible light) the colors will separate badly. Essentially all of the color bend at a slightly different angle through the lens creates the purple and yellow fringing that is often seen in high contrast situations. If nothing is done to correct for the chromatic aberation, you get a smearing/bluring of the image that is much worse than the little fringes.

Aug 27, 2012

M.ST said:
Hi,

here my advice:

24L f/1.4 II - great lens, if you need the best image quality buy it

16-35L f/2.8 II - better than the 17-40 but I want besser optical quality

24-70L f/2.8 II - I am under NDA, but I can say: Forget the 24-105 IS and buy this lens, no visible CA, superfast AF. A perfect lens for all who need the best image quality. Only primes perform better.

14-24L f2.8 - If this lens came out, I sell my 16-35L f/2.8 II and go for it. It´s one of the most wanted lenses.

As someone in the industry that uses NDA's frequently... I seriously doubt this person has one. Either total #$%@ or a total newbie. It is always stipulated that even mentioning you are under a NDA is a violation of the NDA. Kinda like fight club... First rule; you don't ever talk about fight club and the second rule... YOU DON'T EVER talk about fight club.

coreyhkh · Aug 26, 2012

Thanks I picked up version two today works very good I am blown away with the 500mm = tc

here are two pictures I took today. and a few more at my site http://www.flickr.com/photos/54773292@N07/

bdunbar79 · Aug 26, 2012

nightbreath said:
Here's a high ISO sample from 1D X: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8936.0;attach=23632 (made by bdunbar79).

If you look at the OOF building roof on a good-quality monitor you'll be able to see segments of 2 slightly different colors. Interesting if it might be somehow connected to the issue mentioned there. This is ISO 25600 shot, so I won't be surprised if something similar happens at lower ISOs on lower-end cameras (due to hardware limitation, for example; just my assumption).

All I heard till now are only statements, that 1D bodies give better colors and better flexibility in what you can do with those in post. It'll be great if someone smart comes here and shares his experience on different camera bodies as I am not able to investigate this by myself :-\

You're right about the shadows on that shot for sure. I however, cannot devote the time unfortunately to see if it can be corrected or not, or if any of that shot can be completely corrected. I had 75 photos to process quickly and unfortunately all we can do is view the IQ at face value. If you do have the time, I am more than willing to give you the RAW file. Just let me know if you'd like it.

bdunbar79 · Aug 26, 2012

In my signature file or web icon, I made up a flickr account with all of my photos that I shot at the first 2 soccer games so far. Feel free to PM me with any criticisms for improvement. You gotta remember though, like Mark, most of these are in a paper or really small photo on the AU website. The photography website is coming very soon, but still only about 10-15 photos per game will go there. The point is, I have a free place now, sort of, to post all of the 1DX, 1D4, and 5D3 sports photos and I'm willing to share all of them with you. I'd like to post-process a lot more, but turnaround time is fast, but, I can spend extra time because parents and fans often want electronic copies of the photos, so in that case I could spend more time post-processing.

Ashland's main site is simply ashland.edu, then go to the athletics link. Thanks everyone. Looking forward to any discussion/conversations.

Aug 26, 2012

It's a great little head and shoulders portrait lens on a crop. It really shines on my film bodies however and I love using it as a cap.

Aug 26, 2012

I'd go with the 100-400 - you need all the focal length you can get sometimes, but the versatility of a zoom really helps. A wide-ultrawide too - depending on where you go, sometimes the animals get close. In Ngorongoro crater, lions walk right up to the Land Rovers. Consider renting a 500/4 II (and bring a solid monopod if you do).

tiger82 · Aug 26, 2012

anyone have any suggestions for good photo ops in Mt Rainier and Olympic National Parks as well as places to stay. If there is a better forum, please let me know. Is Mt St Helens a doable day trip from Mt Rainier or should I spend at least a day or so to do it justice? I'm planning on mid-July, early August 2013.

I forgot to add that my mobility is limited. I can handle moderate terrain but not strenuous climbing or steep trails.

kaihp · Aug 26, 2012

Canon has released a series of downloadable tutorials for the 5D Mk III that can also be viewed on the LCD

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/products/eos_5d_markiii/5d_mark_iii_on_camera_tutorials_resource_list.shtml
Around 3.8GB in total

K-amps · Aug 26, 2012

Godsend opportunity to upgrade to the MK.II ;D

moreorless · Aug 26, 2012

Ellen Schmidtee said:
Question is how many photographers would like to buy a lens they would have to upgrade when upgrading the camera.

Again this seems like a reason for creating a TSE adaptor for the M, people would be using EF lenses that would still work should they upgrade to a FF DSLR in the future.

Canon's TS-E lenses do not autofocus. The electronic contacts are used to control the aperture & record EXIF, but focus is still fully manual.

Yes I know but if your talking about an adaptor then the EF lenses used would still autofocus when used on a regular DSLR or with a regular EF to M adaptor.

So the investment is much less specialised, your paying for an adaptor but the lens you use with it you may already own or also use normally with AF intact.

Like the lensbaby, only with better optics & electronic contacts?

I actually thought of buying a Lensbaby Edge 80, but the price is too high, at least for what seems to me like a semi-toy.

I'm talking about something like the Hasslebland tilt/shift adaptor but without the built in teleconverter as you don't have to deal with the issued of the increase flange distance. Unlike the lensbaby it seems to me that results from such an adaptor could potentially be close to those from an actual TSE lens.

akiskev · Aug 26, 2012

Whenever I use my S5 (rarely), I get impressed from the results.

For comparison reasons here is a shot with my 30d + Zeiss 80-200 f/4 (I LOVE THIS LENS) :

Menace · Aug 26, 2012

I just say thank you very much and carry on shooting.

On occasions usually when i have the 70-200 with the lens hood, I just say "I'm compensating"...

Menace · Aug 26, 2012

Looks like you are having fun. Do share more

Menace · Aug 26, 2012

A friend of mine uses continuous LED lights for his video - they are available in various sizes depending on you need and budget.

Cheers

Menace · Aug 26, 2012

Dylan777 said:
I went with the 16-35 II for the better corner performance and the extra stop of light.

The price of 17-40 is about half of 16-35, but if you shoot from f4 to 5.6. you gonna spend alot of time in PP.

It comes down to what you shoot and at what aperture(s); stopped down you'll get similar performance from the two. I'd suggest save a bit longer and invest in the 16-35 - it's more versatile esp with that one stop faster aperture.

Cheers

pwp · Aug 26, 2012

I traded my 300 f/4is on a 300 f/2.8is. The 2.8 is absolutely brilliant, but I often wish I'd hung onto the f/4 as well. It was pin sharp wide open, was completely hand holdable & weighed next to nothing compared to the 300 f/2.8 which meant I took it with me far more often. And it focuses much closer than the f/2.8. I shot a lot of food with the 300 f/4is. It looked brilliant.

IMO it's one of the true performance bargains in the Canon L lens lineup and would be difficult to improve on, especially for the price. The current lens has a lot of fans.

I doubt we'll see this lens updated for quite some time.

-PW

Aug 26, 2012

3

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics