*OFFICIAL* general photography conversation thread

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I think that you made a relatively safe bet. My experience with things electronic is taht they usually break early on or last forever. You'll be past the "early on" phase soon.

Dave

And that's the crux of risk assessment. Cost vs the likelihood of failure. If I had been in a position to buy the 7D back when they were going for $1350, I'd have bought from an authorized dealer. But suddenly they went up to $1599 and no authorized dealer could sell them for less (which is price fixing, IMO). That change essentially put a $250 price tag on the warranty and for me, it wasn't worth it.

[M_Six]

Got my rented 70-200mm F4L IS yesterday. Nice sharp lens. This was taken with only the UV filter they sent on the lens. I didn't have time to dig out and mount the CPL, even though with the haze, it needed it. The second shot is a 100% crop from the first. Pretty sharp lens. I'm still not convinced this would work better for me than a 135 F2L, though. But I have the rest of the week rental period to get used to it.

[dcstep]

Well Mark, that looks pretty good. Was that shot around f/8? Am I seeing actual smog in the bottom half of the sky? If so, then I'm seeing great contrast and resolution. If not, then I'm worried about that example.

I love mine for its lightness, flexibility, IQ and great all around usefulness. It's sharp without correction and then running it through DxO or something similar yields incredible results.

Dave

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Well Mark, that looks pretty good. Was that shot around f/8? Am I seeing actual smog in the bottom half of the sky? If so, then I'm seeing great contrast and resolution. If not, then I'm worried about that example.

I love mine for its lightness, flexibility, IQ and great all around usefulness. It's sharp without correction and then running it through DxO or something similar yields incredible results.

Dave

Good eye. Yes, it was quite hazy this morning and the RAW file actually shows a darker, smog-like haze along the horizon line. It really needed the CPL. Yesterday was the same with a whiteish-blue sky full of haze. The type of light that makes your eyes hurt. No fun for landscape photography.

And it was shot at F10.

[M_Six]

Here you can really see the darker smog-like haze. Several farmers are burning their fields, so that may account for it.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Good eye. Yes, it was quite hazy this morning and the RAW file actually shows a darker, smog-like haze along the horizon line. It really needed the CPL. Yesterday was the same with a whiteish-blue sky full of haze. The type of light that makes your eyes hurt. No fun for landscape photography.

And it was shot at F10.

On your 100% crop, was there an AF point on the building? If not, then I suspect the lens is actually sharper than shown here. At 100% the AF point needs to be on the enhanced subject and you need either a high SS or tripod damped by your body weight.

I DO occasionally use my 70-200mm for scenics, but it really shines for close ups of animals and as a portrait lens.

Dave

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

On your 100% crop, was there an AF point on the building? If not, then I suspect the lens is actually sharper than shown here. At 100% the AF point needs to be on the enhanced subject and you need either a high SS or tripod damped by your body weight.

I DO occasionally use my 70-200mm for scenics, but it really shines for close ups of animals and as a portrait lens.

Dave

No, the focus was on the medium sized silo next to the lone pine tree. I know from being out there on other shoots that the silo is closer to my position than the large white building, so that may account for the lack of sharpness. That and a shutter speed of 1/250, which is ok with a lens with IS, but not as good as say 1/500 or better.

I'll probably waffle back and forth between this lens and the 135 F2 a couple of times. They're both fairly inexpensive to rent, so I may take my time and gets lots of practice with both before buying.

[M_Six]

LR3 to LR4 Upgrade instructions.

[Chewy734]

Happy St. Patty's Day!!!

Time to head out to the insanity...

[Weebl]

Corned beef is cooking......

[Slow_335i]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Here you can really see the darker smog-like haze. Several farmers are burning their fields, so that may account for it.

I think your problem is your editing. post the originals please

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Slow_335i

I think your problem is your editing. post the originals please

I didn't think I had a problem. I was just pointing out the haze. It was there when I looked without the camera, so I doubt my editing had anything to do with creating it.

[Chewy734]

I have a (hopefully) quick question for you Mac users...

What software should I use to make a slideshow DVD of photos? It needs to be playable on any DVD player.

I tried using iPhoto and iDVD to create the disc, but unfortunately, iDVD significantly downsamples the images before putting them on the DVD. The images become insanely compressed to the point of not being viewable on any standard TV.

[panicos81]

in the market for a medium range lens.. don't want a zoom so its down to these two: 105mm f2.0 dc vs 85mm f1.8g.

any recommendations?


edit: this came also into play http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-200mm...2199164&sr=1-1
the 80-200 f2.8 af-d, used its in my price range..

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by panicos81

in the market for a medium range lens.. don't want a zoom so its down to these two: 105mm f2.0 dc vs 85mm f1.8g.

any recommendations?


edit: this came also into play http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-200mm...2199164&sr=1-1
the 80-200 f2.8 af-d, used its in my price range..

I don't own a Nikon, but I do own the Canon 85 f1.8. It has some issues with Chromatic Aberration (CA), also known as purple fringing, around high contrast edges. And from the looks of these ISO-12233 charts, so does the Nikon version.

Now that might not be a deal breaker, but it is something you'll have to learn to work around. Stopping down to f4 solves the issue, but that's not why you'd buy an f1.8 lens. That said, the 85 f1.8 is a great lens for portraits and some low light work.

That 80-200 looks like a nice piece of glass, but it's considerably larger than the other two lenses. Much more versatile, though. If you think you could live with it as a walk-around lens, that may be the better choice.

[Weebl]

80-200mm2.8D 9+ $650.00 WALNUT CREEK
80-200mm2.8D 9+ $650.00 WALNUT CREEK
85mm1.4D 9+ $1,100.00 WALNUT CREEK
85mm1.4D 9+ $1,100.00 WALNUT CREEK
105mm2.0D DC 9+ $995.00 WALNUT CREEK
105mm2.8 9+ $475.00 WALNUT CREEK
Nikon?? Never heard of them. Used prices at my local store. Speed of a F1.8 is nice vs the F2 but you have to get closer.

[M_Six]

I can't afford the lenses, so maybe the T-shirt will do?

[The1]

lol that's what rentals are for

[M_Six]

Rent a T-Shirt?? Yuck.

[remmib]

Originally Posted by M_Six

I can't afford the lenses, so maybe the T-shirt will do?

Does one out of three counts?!

[The1]

lol... that's why I don't rent.

[Chewy734]

perhaps this would be more appropriate for you guys?