Posts

Don Haines · May 12, 2014

My weapons of war.....

I am a peaceful kind of person

surapon · May 12, 2014

Dear Friends.
This is my fist time that use this Awesome / Cheapo Lens Rokinon 14 mm, F/ 2.8( $ 297 US Dollars) to shoot in the night time, with hand held shooting in the dark of the night , with the Technique of our friend Yorgasor by use 2 sec. self timmer and deep breathing, and hold, during press the shutter.
Use My dear Canon 1DS MK I with 14 mm. Lens, Set at manual Mode, F= 2.8, and Suck the air out of my Lung, and shoot these photos with SS. 1/6 sec. and 0.3 sec, with 2 sec. Time delay/ Self Timer ,
= ITS WORKS, SIR= thousand thanks for your great trick, Dear teacher Mr. Yorgasor.
Enjoy.
Surapon

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20846.0

Dholai · May 12, 2014

Dan,
I agree, a heavier tripod would be better and I have seen the same lens on a Gitzo 1548 (Old) seems to be more stable- but ...
I feel that the large diameter of the front end results in a much higher surface area for the wind to strike and that is where left hand may be helpful.

Steve
Let me answer your specific questions/make counter statement

You just don't know how to use the equipment.[/i]
Agree. That was the purpose of this thread.
Why did you buy both of these lenses?
Because I have too much money to waste(just kidding). I thought prior to my trip to Africa and subsequently, , I would need these two-both on 1Dx each Perfect for games, isn't it ?

Were you upgrading from something else?
Has been using 100-400, unacceptably soft at long end.
How much wildlife shooting have you done and what were you using before?
There is first time for evrything, isn't it ( kidding again). Did some in India/B'desh. 400 DO F4 and 100-400

Have you been developing technique?
Trying to.
There isn't anything else you can buy that's going to make the pictures easier to to take, you just have to go out and do it, over and over and over again until they start looking decent.
Agree. Just was wandering whether there are things that exist to support the front of the lens. e.g. RRS long lens support.

Lion,
I shoot exclusively from a tripod, as I mentioned earlier. I am a small person but I am ready to carry a load of lenses if necessary as image quality is of utmost importance to me. I take my gear to India every year for the last 15 yrs that I have been shooting pictures

BTW- a Lion scared of a 200-400? ;D

Thanks everybody, for your time- sorry for the delay in replying. Working extra--have pay for these bazookas, right ?

Dholai

ScubaX · May 12, 2014

jrista said:
ScubaX said:

jrista said:

jeffa4444 said:

As for you can do everything in Photoshop etc. if that was the case then why do professional landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish, Jeremy Walker, Mark Denton, David Ward, Charlie Waite, David Noton, John Gravett, Tom Mackie, David Clapp (he has made videos for Canon on the 6d) etc. carry them in their kit bags adding weight & bulk?. I would suggest looking at Xposure the free new download magazine on the Lee Filters web-site this highlights professional photographers using filters in many situations and why.

Click to expand...

The reason you cannot simulate what a solid ND does in post is because it allows you to expose over a duration of time within which motion is occurring. You can take a photo of water, but if you take it with a high shutter speed, your not going to be able to replicate the effect that flowing water produces over a longer duration with an ND filter. Same goes for clouds, or anything else with motion. ND filters reduce the rate of light entering the lens, and therefor allow longer exposure times. There is no way to simulate a longer exposure time in post.

The reason you cannot simulate what a GND filter does in post is because it reduces the dynamic range OF THE SCENE. If you are actually clipping your highlights without a GND, then those pixels are pure white. There is no recovery, and there is no simulating a GND filter...all you could do is make those pixels gray, you could not actually recover the detail that was lost by not using a GND filter. With GND filters, you pull down highlights in ANALOG space, before the light ever even reaches the sensor, thereby reducing the dynamic range of the world around you AS it enters the lens.

These are real-world physical effects. They cannot be simulated. Hence the reason photographers who know what they are doing invest the money on a good multi-filter holder (like the Lee Filter system) and a bunch of good 4x6" filters. Because they are quite literally ESSENTIAL to achieve the effects they support.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said, but I think there are situations where GND can be simulated in post. Just like using a filter, it takes some forethought by taking multiple exposures of that scene and then in post compositing and masking. As long as it doesn't include motion such as clouds or water it will be a pretty good substitution for a GND filter.

Click to expand...

The whole entire point of GND filters is to AVOID having to take multiple shots, which is where you get into HDR. HDR is really a misnomer...doesn't matter if you do an HDR blend and convert down to 16-bit, use Enfuse, or manually tonemapp, all three approaches achieve the same thing, and all three require more than one shot. HDR is certainly a viable option, however HDR is different than using a GND and it's not the same as single-shot photography. The purpose of a GND is to balance contrast and reduce dynamic range so you can take one single shot of your scene and not have to worry about clipped highlights.

I agree 100%, but that doesn't mean there are not photographers that would prefer using multiple exposures to obtain the same effect as GND in some instances. They save on the cost and don't have to carry the equipment. My preference is to use the filter and skip the post process of doing the same thing. But since I also prefer shooting movement, that is only done with a filter or in very low light.

Dr. Bob · May 12, 2014

Thanks for the additional information. I can now see that there are many variables, which is maybe why it has been hard to get a simple answer to 'which card is best for me?'. I did format each card prior to each test, and kept all the other settings constant.

I guess everyone has to run their own tests with their own cards and equipment to see which ones they prefer, which is also based on what is important to them - write speed, read speed, perceived reliability, brand image etc. It would appear to be more complicated to choose than say an HDMI cable (remember those $80 versions?). At least I have found something that meets my needs! But if anyone finds a reputable brand 32GB CF card that is cheaper and faster at writing I would be delighted to hear from them. Maybe forum members could submit their own test results for writing performance - we could come up with a set of settings based around a 5D3.

Mharwood16 · May 12, 2014

Great shot!
It just too bad that the buffs are so bad

wickidwombat · May 12, 2014

the trick with runway is watch where the hotspots are and avoid shooting those

I prefer to time shots in the best lit positions with short bursts.

I've seen a many just spray and pray the whole thing, but they have 1Dx's and d4s with massive deap buffers
and they often have minions to sort through the 10 billion raw files they just spammed.
to me that involves no skill at all, a trained monkey could do that.

but the whole fashion scene is a bit whacky and perilous. shooting it can be fun but it's also alot of hard work.

mackguyver · May 12, 2014

Steb said:
Got the WII filter this weekend. Fits perfectly and works great. The slight color mismatch is even less noticeable than I expected, so not an issue at all. Thanks again for your support.

I hope you like it as much as I do - I have found it to be incredibly useful to cut reflections, reduce dynamic range (by killing the glare), slow shutter speeds, and punch up the colors. I wasn't expecting to get so much use out of it, but I have.

NYCPHOTO · May 12, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
Thanks, Arnie. I was hoping you'd found a way to trigger a TT5 from the PC port. I've got a MiniTTI/AC3, a pair of TT5s, and an MC2 for my Einstein, but since moving to the Canon -RT system, the reliability makes me reluctant to spend more on my PWs. The Einstein's optical slave has been working for me, fortunately.

I have to say...I've been much happier with the pocket wizard Plus series than the Flex.

eddiemrg · May 12, 2014

Logan said:
anyone have a working link to info on this? I have searched canons site, their estore site, google, and no mention of a "canon club canada" or a "canada eos club canon" anywhere, some google results but they dont lead to the same page on the canon site that the google excerpt is from.

Infact it seems to be removed..... Booh!

Anyway, Crumpler answered me: the strap is definitely out of production and not even remotely in stock. Exist only one that is smaller and with a smaller logo...

e17paul · May 12, 2014

100 said:
To get an idea of the possibilities with tilt-shift macro on 35mm:
http://www.photodady.com/blog/2012/05/18/tilt-shift-stacked-hdr-macro-photography/

Pennies are flat and don’t move. With living insects the third dimension and the possibility of movement make it a lot harder to get the result you want. My experience with tilt is that it takes a lot of time to get the shot exactly like I want it. Set the angle, focus (manual only), check the focus plane in live view, adjust the angle, check again, etc. Sometimes I need to do that 3 or 4 times to get it right and that’s with non-macro static subjects on the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

About the fly shot
I see about 1/3 of the fly filling 80% of the height of the picture.
If shot at 1:1 on a 7D (22.3 x 14.9 mm sensor) that would make the fly 35mm or so. That’s either an enormous fly, or this is a substantially cropped image.
What is the real diameter of the flies eye?

What the DOF is depends on how you calculate it and the values you use.
The 100L at its minimum focus distance of 30cm is no longer a 100mm lens but about a 75mm lens
It’s shot at f/5.6, but at the minimum focus distance the effective f-stop (that’s what determines the DOF) is no longer f/5.6 but about f/11.
If I use DOFMaster http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to calculate the DOF (Canon 7D; 75mm; 30cm; f/11) I get a DOF of 0.52cm (5.2mm).
With 100mm; 30cm and f/5.6 I get 0.13cm (1.3mm).

If I use the Macro Depth of Field Calculator at Cambridge in Colour http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-lenses.htm (a great source of information by the way) and put in a magnification of 1; sensor Size 1.6 crop and f/5.6 (f number as seen by the camera) the DOF is 0.45mm. This is millimeters instead of centimeters, so there is a huge difference between these calculations.

With a DOF of 1mm or less you need to be very accurate with the focal plane to get the exact result you aim for. I think a TS-E 1:1 macro will only be useful with static subjects.

Reading this and other posts makes me think that a depth of field scale would be every bit as useful as tilt/shift. The scale on my 50 macro is great, surely it would be more so on the 100L?

I am aware that focus ring travel may need to be greater to make a scale truly useful.

Mt Spokane Photography · May 11, 2014

I have the G1X original, and, after reading the review, I stopped by our local camera store today and tried one on display.

I do not buy cameras as a fashion statement, but to use taking photos, so I was interested in the functionality. Generally, every part of it seemed to be a noticeable upgrade from the original. The lens now has a built-in lens cover, it has Wi-Fi, and a biggie for me is the touch screen, since my large fingers really struggle with tiny buttons on the small cameras. The fold out screen is a improvement as well, since you do not have to fool with swinging it out and rotating it, and it is larger. I had to walk around the camera section twice looking at all the models, it looks much better and smaller than the original, and did not look any larger than the other P&S cameras around it. I had been expecting another Fat Albert.

I have a old 40D that I tether for product photos, and am wondering if this would replace it. The original G1 could not be tethered. I have my 40D, a 20D, and my Nikon D300S up for sale now, so I might buy one and sell the old G1X after that.

Click · May 11, 2014

Manually.

candyman said:
Very often auto adjust in the moment I do not want it to adjust. :-X

+1

Rick_In_Denver · May 11, 2014

When in the main window, scroll to the over/under exposure area in the 2nd row. Leave your selection there, then rotate the wheel up by the M.Fn button and camera trigger. Looking at the exposure area, you'll see the selection (say +1) be bracketed by your 2, 4 or 6 additional desired brackets. Spinning the wheel will increase or decrease the exposure range of the bracketed shots. You'll have to press the trigger 3, 5 or 7 times, but the camera will automatically roll through the different exposures. To turn this off, spin the wheel to the left until you only have one selection left. I apologize in advance if I did not use the proper terminology for referencing the camera parts, but hope this helps.

Roo · May 10, 2014

and some more...

Joe M · May 10, 2014

It's a shame there isn't some mechanism for lenses as there is for cameras such as the ones that exist for camera bodies. I hope his insurance deductible isn't too high and he can secure a replacement.

Joe M · May 10, 2014

Sassy little things aren't they? My favourite is the last, a little cutie lost in the flowers. Nice feel to it.

Valvebounce · May 10, 2014

Hi Wsmith.
Beautiful shot, stunning detail, well done.

Cheers Graham.

wsmith96 said:
Portrait of a Painted Lady Butterfly

I love the detail of the fur on this butterfly. Macro photography really allows you to see some amazing things. I grabbed the camera quick as my daughter held this butterfly on her finger.

Shot with a T1i with EF-S 60mm macro, 430EX flash, and Rogue flash bender soft box kit.

jrista · May 10, 2014

neuroanatomist said:
Speaking of TL;DR, let me explain...no, there is too much, let me sum up:

DxOMark Scores = Biased Scores = BS.

'Nuff said.

;D ;D ;D SUPERB summary! My thoughts in a nutshell.

Dylan777 · May 10, 2014

KKCFamilyman said:
mackguyver said:

KKCFamilyman said:

I did also return my 300mm 2.8 since that is just too much. I would prefer to wait until canon answers with a revised 100-400. Events and portraits still remain my main focus.

Click to expand...

If the 300 f/2.8 was too much, then I think the 1D X is probably going to be too much as well. The 1D features are really nice, but there are simple workarounds to most of them that can be done with the 5DIII. I think the 1D X is really for those needing one or more of the following: combat-ready build quality, 12 FPS (are you missing a lot of fast moving shots?), or are someone who uses big whites a lot and and would benefit from the higher votage drive for faster AF, or for someone who has pretty much all the other lenses and gear they need. If wildlife or fast motion things like sports aren't a priority, lenses and other gear are a better investment. The 5DIII is an amazing camera and the 1D X is better, but (other than the frame rate) not mind-blowingly better.

Click to expand...

Those are good points. I just want to clarify that the 300mm felt large and was so expensive for what it was. I felt if I was going that route I would save for the 400 with extenders for next season. Lately i have been doing some indoor water polo at a high school and wanted better files to work with in the iso 3200-8000 range. Also when I am chasing the kids I felt the multiple mn buttuns that can be configured on the fly sounded beneficial such as being in one shot and being able to prog my dof to aiservo and the other the all focus points if the kids/animal just moved to quick to react.

Keep in mind, the weight of 400mm f2.8 IS II is heavier, handheld becomes more challenge.

I bought the 300mm for indoor swimming, but like you said, it wasn't enough reach. In my case, it wasn't enough for close-up shots. I took a bite on 400mm f2.8 IS II and that was a right decision. With two bodies, it fits well with 70-200mm f2.8 IS II combo.

If you ever decide on 400mm f2.8 IS II, be prepare for decent tripod and gimbal head. I plan to add decent monopod to use with my Wimberley II in near future.

Just in case, this thread has great feedbacks from knowledgeable members: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20609.0

RobertG. · May 10, 2014

With such a lens collar like the Zörk one or an integrated lens collar in the right position, you can create a panorama by shifting to the left, no shift, shifting to the right without any parallax error. Even full tilt can be used at the same time. If you shift the lens instead of the camera body, there is a parallax error. That's what my own tests have shown. Modern software like PS or Kolor Autopano Giga does correct the parallax error very well but there are sometimes applications (e.g. in interior photography) when such software can't be used. In such a particular case the photos need to be stitched manually and here parallax plays a big role.

As I said before, I do shot mainly landscapes with my TS-E lenses and use software to stitch my photos, so the parallax error is no issue for me anymore. But in case it does become an issue, I do have at least a solution at hand.

About the hefty price: in November 2011 I paid €180 + €6 shipping + 19% VAT = €221,34 . That's OK for me, especially considering that's there is no cheaper alternative. If you consider the price of the material and the time to manufacture it, it is actually quite cheap. No wonder the price increased. The Hartblei "Canon TSE Tripod Collar" costs more than twice as much. That's what I would call a hefty price. But both lens collars can't be compared to each other because they do not offer exactly the same functionality.

"privatebydesign", if PS is such a great software, why bother to use a TS-E lens at all? (It is a rethorical question and no answer is expected.)

Tilt-shift lenses are highly specialized gear and the same can be said about lens collars for them. For some shots these tools are needed and sometimes a smartphone will do.

May 9, 2014

That's a lot of time spent fooling around with the outside of the camera, pity they didn't machine it properly in the first place.
I noticed they spent no time on the inside - that's the part I am interested in!

Mt Spokane Photography · May 9, 2014

I was wondering if one of those was a mirror lens. Mirror lenses do have distracting bokeh, so its necessary to work around that.

Here is a cropped example of from a old Sigma 600mm that I once had.

This one has the awful highlights

This one is a heavy crop from a different Sigma 600mm, it has no highlights in the background, so its only affected by the poor sharpness.

Here is one from a old Nikon 500mm reflex mounted to my 1D MK IV. I found it difficult to manually focus accurately at a close distance.

Mt Spokane Photography · May 9, 2014

I did not have any complaints about my 17-40L, as lenses go, the price was low, so I did not expect edges and corners to be sharp at f/4.

For those applications that need edge to edge sharpness at ultra wide angles, its going to be expensive, and you may trade off one weakness for another.

I've never managed to feel that any of my ultra wide lenses were all that sharp outside the central area, I was happier with my old Tamron 17mm f/3.5 prime, so I kept it and sold the 17-40.

mackguyver · May 9, 2014

rocksubculture said:
mackguyver said:

Now that you've had both lenses together for a little while, can you comment on the ergonomics of using them? I realize this is a lot more subjective, but how does the Sigma's weight and balance (front or back heavy, balanced?) feel in hand? Which one is more enjoyable to use? If the IQ was exactly the same, which one would you prefer?

Click to expand...

In terms of ergonomics only, I would chose the Sigma for more action kind of photography - feels much more rugged and gives you more to work with. The Canon maybe for portraits or stealthy street stuff, since it is really short. Overall I prefer the ergonomics of the Sigma, but I don't mind big/heavy lenses (not that it is really, just compared to the Canon). Probably my two all-time favorite lenses are the Canon 70-200 2.8 II (and obviously that is a big and heavy lens) and the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. So I don't really have a brand bias. For me it's matching what a lens can do for the kind if photography I do.

Jason

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I guess I owe it to myself to check out the Sigma.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics