Jump to content

15sunrises

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    575

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by 15sunrises

    Durable paper for printing photobook (Epson R1900)

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>Hi all,</p>

    <p>Thanks for taking the time to look at my question.</p>

    <p>I'm looking to print a series of photo books and was hoping that I could take care of the printing at home, rather than outsourcing, as I'd like to see the process through from start to finish. </p>

    <p>I was hoping to get some tips on a paper that would be suitable for this purpose, specifically, one that would be durable enough to deal with the demands of fingers/touching etc. that is part of being a coffee table photobook. </p>

    <p>I would be using an Epson R1900 printer and specifically would be interested in a paper that would be in the matte/fine art/rag range. Currently, my favorite paper to use for prints is the Epson Radiant White Watercolor Paper, but this is far too delicate for this purpose due to fingerprints being easily left as well as "smudging" when the image is touched (not exactly smudging, but touching the photo does change the texture of the image). </p>

    <p>Previously, when making photobooks, I'd take the images to a print shop in the city, but was hoping to find some kind of alternative this time and would be happy to hear any suggestions.</p>

    <p>Thanks.</p>

    canon 100-400 issue on tripod

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    When the jump in f-stop happens, it's in perfect intervals, about every 0.5

    seconds. A workaround I have found to work is to mount the lens on the tripod

    with IS ON, enter live view, then turn off IS, after this the lens works fine.

    Regardless, seems that I will have to send it for service once I get home... Not

    good news.

    canon 100-400 issue on tripod

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I've run into an issue with my lens when using it on a tripod. Sometimes, even with

    IS turned off the image continually 'jumps' OK n the viewfinder. If I try to activate live

    view, it doesn't work. If I turn off the camera and back on, the lens continues to

    'jump' when the camera is turned back on. Other times there is no issue. Using the

    lens handheld us no issue, but sometimes as soon as I mount it on a tripod and try

    to focus on something, the jumping begins. In the viewfinder the f-stop also jumps

    from the stop set under AV and 0... This is on a 5D2 using center focus point with

    stabilization OFF. Has anybody encountered this type of issue before? This

    absolutely sucks right now...

    FF long range zoom - primarily tripod use

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>WOW, well, I bought the 100-400, found a very good sample used and they recently dropped the price by $150, so I couldn't resist. It looks basically new. At the same time, I've paired it with the Kenko pro300 1.4x extender (this combination retains autofocus as well). I have to say, this is ... ASTOUNDING compared to what I was getting from my 500mm Pentacon. The 500mm Pentacon was the worst lens of the series that I'm replacing, but this combination absolutely smokes it. My other lenses which are being replaced (the 100, 135, 200 and 300) are all within the non 1.4x range, and in each of those cases the 100-400 performs admirably with perhaps only the Carl Zeiss Jena 135 beating it in terms of sharpness. I needed to do this ages ago, it saves me 10-15 pounds and is much more versatile.</p>

    <p>Thanks for all the suggestions and tips!</p>

    FF long range zoom - primarily tripod use

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>The 5DII is definitely not getting upgraded any time soon. My need stems from not wanting to change lenses so frequently, as well as have a setup that is more friendly for walking around. The Pentacon 500 weighs as much as any of these zooms, so I was hoping to get some information regarding a change. </p>

    FF long range zoom - primarily tripod use

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Hi JDM, I do a lot of landscape work that encorporates planets and the moon, so I likely will have longer exposure times (0.2s - 1s) that would mean tripod use for sure. I'll also not be shooting much more open than f/8 in the majority of cases as sharpness trumps noise for me. Basically I'm trying to talk myself into the savings of the Sigma options in the end!</p>

    FF long range zoom - primarily tripod use

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I've been struggling with a decision to replace a number of prime lenses that I currently haul around. I use a Canon 5D2 and have been using a number of manual focus M42 lenses. I'm in a position that I can finally replace this patchwork of lenses and am looking for a lens that will cover (most of) the range with the priorities being sharpness throughout the zoom range, and decent (acceptable) results when using a teleconverter.</p>

    <p>These are the lenses I'm looking to replace:</p>

    <ul>

    <li>Takumar 100/2</li>

    <li>Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5</li>

    <li>Pentacon 200/4</li>

    <li>Pentacon 300/4</li>

    <li>Pentacon 500/5.6</li>

    </ul>

    <p>I might not need to go all the way up to the 500mm range as a zoom lens with 400mm and 1.4TC might actually exceed the quality of the Pentacon 500/5.6.</p>

    <p>As these were all manual lenses, I'm used to the workflow and autofocus speed isn't critical for me. I will likely be using manual focus for most shots.</p>

    <p>The lenses I've looked at are the Sigma 80-400mm, Sigma 50-500mm and Canon 100-400. Most of the issues I hear with the Sigmas are autofocus speed related, but I've had troubles finding strictly sharpness comparisons (especially as the lenses are fairly old and lots of the links to comparison photos are dead). Any other recommendations would also be valuable.</p>

    <p>Thanks!</p>

    Is the 5D MKlll better at high ISO than the D800

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Here are some comparisons of the 5D2 vs. the 5D3 raw files. It seems as though the 5D3 is only about 2/3 of a stop better than the 5D2 when comparing raw files. After seeing this, I ended up buying the 5D2 as low noise performance is the most important feature to me and I didn't see the 5D3 being worth the extra cost for not even a full stop.</p>

    <p>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=40829181</p>

    Replace focus screen 5DII

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Well, I took the plunge and bought the 5DII. In order to use it with my manual lenses, I also got the EG-S focusing screen to use with it. I managed to replace the focusing screen in my 30D, so I thought that this would be a simple process, which it essentially was, but I have a question. During the replacement of the screen, the metal like 'ribbon' (bendy, flexible piece of metal) became dislodged. My question is whether, in relation to the camera, this is supposed to sit above the focusing screen (further from the mirror), or below. Above seems to make the most logical sense, but I just wanted to confirm. Thanks.</p>

    Canon flash for night landscape photography

    in Nature

    Posted

    <p>I've experimented with star/planet/moon images for a while now with some being tracked exposures of the stars combined with untracked exposures of the foreground. I've started to think that a flash might be a good addition to the kit as more often than not, ambient light isn't enough to illuminate the foreground, and nights with the moon often don't provide the best viewing for stars. </p>

    <p>Since I don't need the flash to be too speedy, I was hoping that somebody could suggest a good option for a reasonable cost, I've looked at the Canon Speedlight 430EXII which seems to be a reasonable option, and could also be used for indoor shoots (which I do very rarely), but am looking for additional suggestions if anybody has any.</p>

    <p>Thanks</p>

    5D MarkIII worth the additional money for astrophotography?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Hi Brad. I attempt to do landscapes with stars, in this case, I've found that the way to get the most realistic results is to just use one exposure for the sky and one for the foreground. Once I start stacking exposures I find that the stars start becoming almost too predominant as well as the nebulae, etc. which aren't visible to the naked eye while I'm there. Some people find these effects appealing, but I try to get the shots to appear as close to how they look as possible. That being said, in this case, since I'm moving around, I find that the 1:1 dark frame subtraction (in camera) is necessary, as humidity/temperature can be changing, as well as exposure times. While it is a bit more tedious than having and archive of dark frames I could use, I do find it to be the most accurate way...</p>

    5D MarkIII worth the additional money for astrophotography?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Thanks for the reply Alan, I usually don't trust any lens wide open and would be stopping down the 24-105 regardless especially since I'm planning on printing quite large. Thanks also for your speculation regarding the RAW performance, I thought personally that the difference would be between 0.5 and 1 stop as well, which doesn't quite make it worth the money for me. 2 stops on the other hand (like the JPG performance) would sell me though! The issue for me is that waiting means missed opportunities this month.</p>

    5D MarkIII worth the additional money for astrophotography?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>While aware that I've already started a topic about choosing between the MK3 and MK2 when I was already settled on the MK2 prior to the announcement, I'm still at a crossroads in terms of making up my mind.</p>

    <p>My current setup is a Canon 40D with the following lenses:</p>

    <ul>

    <li>Tamron 17-50 f/2.8</li>

    <li>Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 (M42)</li>

    <li>Takumar 200mm f/4 (M42)</li>

    <li>Pentacon 300mm f/4 (M42)</li>

    <li>Pentacon 500mm f/5.6 (M42)</li>

    <li>MTO 1000mm f/11 (M42)</li>

    </ul>

    <p>You can see some examples of what I shoot in my photo.net portfolio, although this is quite limited and in many cases outdated. My most recent work can be found on my www.15sunrises.com webpage.</p>

    <p>The fact of the matter is that without question, I'm going to be upgrading to full frame, with the Canon 24-105 lens. I've chosen this one as it will finally bridge the gap (~80mm) that I've been missing for quite some time on my 40D. I may also get a wider angle prime (if I decide to experiment with untracked exposures), but would prefer to keep my weight down as my pack is already heavy enough as it is when going on shoots.</p>

    <p>Now, in terms of the moon shots, I'm certain that the MKII and MK3 would perform equally as well, there is rarely a time that these shots require an ISO of above 800 on my 40D, therefore I think the difference between the two cameras would be negligible.</p>

    <p>My question relates to star shots. Up to this point, I've been stacking tracked and untracked exposures in photoshop, usually with exposures ranging from 3-5 minutes at ISO 640-800. This means that a single shot basically takes around 20 minutes to complete (5 minutes tracked + dark frame subtraction and then 5 minutes untracked + dark frame subtraction). Ideally, I would like to get this time down in order to be more productive, and would like to do this by increasing ISO. I also think that the 24-105 will be higher quality than my Tamron, so I may not have to stop down as much to keep everything sharp. I'm wondering what people think the quality difference will be in terms of ISO1600 and ISO3200 files in RAW between the two cameras. All I've heard so far is information regarding improvements in JPG noise, which seems to be due to new processing in the chip. I will <strong>always</strong> be using a tracking device, but just want to get the times for individual shots down. When printing at A2 sizes, trailing is already readily visible with 30second exposures at 17mm on a crop, and I'm further looking to start printing at A1 or even A0 sizes, where trailing will be evident at even shorter exposures.</p>

    <p>Really don't know if my point got across at all here, but I've been wavering between these two since the announcement of the Mark3 and am looking for any advice. Thanks.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...