SteB

SteB

Lives in United Kingdom North Shropshire, United Kingdom
Joined on Apr 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 222, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Arkienkeli: I have to ask the same question I did when the Canon 200-400 version came out: why not just make a 180-560mm f/4-5.6 Zoom? Is it because variable maximum aperture lens does not sound professional enough? This is also variable aperture, but with a clumsy teleconverter but in.

Because the extra stop at 400mm can be a huge advantage in some situations. With both wildlife and sports photography this can be critical. You can use twice the shutter speed at the same ISO, have better separation from the background, and at higher ISOs a stop can make a lot of difference. Okay, this is more for the Pro, or the most demanding photographers, but plenty are willing to pay for it.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

badi: "If you're using this $12,000+ lens on an APS-C body"

For what i know, unlike Canon, Nikon has this "APSC" mode on their FF bodies, right? On D850, that mode is also about 20MPx resolution as well...

Many top wildlife photographers, especially bird photographers use APS-C bodies on long lenses, even when they own top of the range FF bodies. It's to do with reach.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 14:18 UTC

Yes, this was the right way to handle it. Mistakes can happen and as long as the company reacts quickly, apologises, and pays compensation it's all resolved.

Why can't all companies act like this? It's so tiresome when they stonewall, try claiming the photographer benefited and all the other denial. Most of these companies would be furious if someone else used their content without permission.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2017 at 23:22 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

emfor: The cards (as well as many other crops) show strong CA with Sony III and pixelshift.
Why is that?

@The Name is Bond - I've not said the CA was strong, only noticeable. It is slight as CA goes, but what is very noticeable is the complete lack of any CA at all in the A7 II image, which is what makes me wonder if there is some sort of CA removal baked into the RAW conversion. My main reason for making this point is that CA removal can have a minute effect on colours, which needs to be taken into account when thinking about the improvement shown with pixel shift.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

emfor: The cards (as well as many other crops) show strong CA with Sony III and pixelshift.
Why is that?

I noted the the CA issue earlier. The lens likely plays a part in that, but the complete lack of CA in the A7 II images does make me wonder if also baked in CA removal is also at work. I'm surprised that Dpreview have not remarked on the CA in what is supposed to be pixel peeping analysis.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 11:42 UTC

The first thing I noticed was that in the A7 III pixel shift images there is clearly visible lateral chromatic aberrations which are absent from the A7 II images. This either indicates the use of a different lens, or that the A7 II had some sort of image processing to remove CA, which itself would have influenced colour rendering.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 08:57 UTC as 98th comment | 3 replies

I updated to the new versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. I was processing a photo and usually I finish it off in Photoshop. I noticed when I was using the brush tool on a mask laying that there were these red lines which indicate the direction you are brushing. It's seems needlessly gimmicky, and a bit glitchy because a couple of times after I stopped brush the red line remained.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 22:39 UTC as 125th comment

I think I'll have to read that again as my mind just went into meltdown and I have no idea what it all means.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 14:17 UTC as 302nd comment

Some may call me cynical, but they look awfully like copies or rebrands of those Chinese tripods you see on eBay.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 09:42 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
On article 10 macro photography tips for beginners (51 comments in total)

Generally the advice is good. However, the advice about what weather to find insects in is not so good, and a bit contradictory. It's says to go out in weather warmer than 17C to photograph insects as they are more active. But then says "Overcast weather is usually better than sunny weather".

If you are talking about butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies, bees and hoverflies etc. you need direct sunlight and shelter from cooling winds to find good numbers. If the sun goes in i.e. it becomes overcast, these insects tend to stop being active and will disappear unless the air temperature is much warmer than 17C.

Direct sunlight rather than air temperature determines when insects are most active. This is because they use radiant heat from the sun to warm their flight muscles up to flying temperature. Insects will be active in direct sun at >17C.

The best tip is to look for sun traps which receive direct sunlight, but where there is shelter from a cooling breeze, unless it is very warm.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 16:39 UTC as 30th comment
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (127 comments in total)

The article video makes some good points, pointers I've discovered myself over the years. Most of my nature photography is done on such walks. However, I'll add a few things. First there are no absolute rules, no commandments, and especially with photography rules are for fools. There are only rules of thumb, and rules in photography are only guidelines that are meant to be broken.

The one commandment I would definitely disagree with is "you should always walk somewhere new". There is no "should" about it. It can be inspiring to walk somewhere new, but there is much to be said for re-walking the same route, over the year, from year to year. I've made many discoveries about animal behaviour, new species for the site, for the whole area or county I'd never have made constantly using new routes. In other words, it is not one or the other. Unfortunately for nature photography no lens exists that can take hand held macros and long lens shots (near macro is nowhere near macro).

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 11:54 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

SteB: I think it is very sad that the media invented term "Photoshopping" is being used by photographic websites that should know much better. This stupid term for the retouching and warping of photographs of models and celebrities has entirely misled the misinformed public of what the role of an image editor is. It has misled the public that "Photoshop" and image editors generally, are just sort of filters for creating false images, a type of fake news. I am particularly angry about this as regards nature photography, which I primarily use as a tool to convey the importance of the natural world. On newspaper comments sections I have repeatedly seen first class nature photography with no obvious image manipulation, just dismissed as "Photoshop".

Image editors are not just used to create fake images with stuff cloned in or out etc. They are also used for tone adjustments, acutance etc, where the content of an image is not changed at all, and in fact the aim is to correct default settings.

@mxx

This was my point. You can understand the general media coming up with this type of meaningless term. But when a specialist photography site like Dpreview starts using it, there is a serious problem.

To the none photographer public, "Photoshopping" has now come to mean a completely fake image. In newspaper comments sections I now regularly see genuine images just dismissed as "Photoshop".

It is a serious misunderstanding because most more advanced photographers use Photoshop or a similar image editor to process their photos. But they are no doing major cloning, warping, compositing. Yet the use of Photoshop, with this term, misleads the vast majority of the public to wrongly believe that every image processed with Photoshop is fake.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 08:30 UTC

I think it is very sad that the media invented term "Photoshopping" is being used by photographic websites that should know much better. This stupid term for the retouching and warping of photographs of models and celebrities has entirely misled the misinformed public of what the role of an image editor is. It has misled the public that "Photoshop" and image editors generally, are just sort of filters for creating false images, a type of fake news. I am particularly angry about this as regards nature photography, which I primarily use as a tool to convey the importance of the natural world. On newspaper comments sections I have repeatedly seen first class nature photography with no obvious image manipulation, just dismissed as "Photoshop".

Image editors are not just used to create fake images with stuff cloned in or out etc. They are also used for tone adjustments, acutance etc, where the content of an image is not changed at all, and in fact the aim is to correct default settings.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 19:07 UTC as 100th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

SteB: It sounds like an embarrassment of riches. Another hopefully affordable and good performing 100-400mm lens in addition to the Sigma. If it performs as well as the Sigma this lens might have the edge, because a tripod collar is always useful on a lens like this even if optional. Whilst neither lens is particularly heavy nor are they light and if on a tripod a long lens like this always handles better with a tripod collar. Having said that I think a lot will be using these lenses handheld. Weather sealing is another plus for Tamron. It's all down to performance and price.

This type of lens is ideal for birders, and naturalists, as opposed to bird photographers and nature photographers. They often carry binoculars and even telescopes, so a lens too big is a burden. Not that bird photographers and naturalists won't find a use for these lenses.

@Nojo

I've got and have used a Tamron 150-600mm. Although I mainly use a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II now. It is considerably easier carrying this lens than one of the 150-600mm lens. This is not a criticism of them.

I do quite a bit of survey stuff where I have to primarily use binoculars. I take the Canon 100-400mm along for recording anything interesting. It's just about okay to have this slung over your should for long periods. Whereas I found the 150-600mm just a bit to long, heavy and awkward for when you might only occasionally use the camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 19:25 UTC

Just a note on the Meike MK-C-UP electronic reverse adapter. I've noticed before that Meike tends to make a production run of devices, but once sold out they are not manufactured any longer. Meike used to make an automatic helicoid extension tube for Canon, but as soon as it was sold out, that was it. It appears to be the same with the Meike MK-C-UP reverse adapter. There are practically none left on eBay UK, and only a few left from other suppliers at very high prices. There is a similar Novoflex device but it is much more expensive. In other words if you want this adapter you better grab one quickly.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 10:13 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

User0127324968: Have you people ever heard about Thomas Shahan?
You won't believe when you see his camera ans lens setup for macro photography. The hole set is less than $250!!
https://www.youtube.com/user/terser
By the way the photos above are AMAZING!.

Yes, Thomas Shahan is another one of the best photographers and a great communicator. You are right that the reverse lens approach he uses is potentially much cheaper. An old manual reversed wide-angle can get you really high magnification for not very much money at all, with just a reverse adapter and some manual focus extension tube rings. Just look for a 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, or 24mm manual focus lens, which can be got for not much money.

However, it should be noted that this approach will not give you auto stop down focusing. Therefore you are going to have to either focus at the taking aperture with a dark viewfinder, or open up to focus and manually stop down which is impossible handheld with flash.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 10:07 UTC

It sounds like an embarrassment of riches. Another hopefully affordable and good performing 100-400mm lens in addition to the Sigma. If it performs as well as the Sigma this lens might have the edge, because a tripod collar is always useful on a lens like this even if optional. Whilst neither lens is particularly heavy nor are they light and if on a tripod a long lens like this always handles better with a tripod collar. Having said that I think a lot will be using these lenses handheld. Weather sealing is another plus for Tamron. It's all down to performance and price.

This type of lens is ideal for birders, and naturalists, as opposed to bird photographers and nature photographers. They often carry binoculars and even telescopes, so a lens too big is a burden. Not that bird photographers and naturalists won't find a use for these lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 16:56 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies

Very good. It's worth mentioning here that the article linked to is by John Hallmen, one of the best macro photographers in the world. I've found that Google translate does a great job with this blog with only the odd word it can't translate.

This is John's Flickr Photostream for anyone who wants to know why I regard John as one of the best macro photographers in the world. Prepare to be blown away.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/

Anyone who is interested in this article may be fascinated with another article by John, where using a similar set up to this, but with the Canon 24mm f2.8 STM + a small CCTV lens John has created a relay lens set up, a type of high magnification fish-eye lens, which produces images only this type of set-up can produce. Just pop the link into Google translate to read in English.
http://makrofokus.se/blogg/2016/9/22/diy-makro-fisheye.html

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 19:35 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

Just a general macro photographers point of view. It's a nice looking macro lens but the price seems to be way too high for what it is. I thought the same about the Sony 90mm f2.8 macro. The thing is that most macro lenses are excellent optically, and cost a lot less than this lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 13:08 UTC as 13th comment
On article Canon introduces Macro Twin-Lite MT-26EX-RT (23 comments in total)

$990 for a flash?

I had the MT24EX for a long time (well I've still got it, but it no longer works). Prices like this for an electronic flash are just ridiculous. You can make a flashgun our of fairly standard electronic components that are available for not much money. Even high end flashes tend to be in cheap plastic cases of the standard of cheap transistor radio from 40 years back. It's the interface with the camera's metering and exposure system that's difficult to replicate, without knowing the detail of the manufacturers system, which can make flashes difficult for independent manufacturers to make. It's a classic abuse of monopoly.

The Yongnuo YN24EX I'm now using, actually works better than my MT24EX did, and it cost less than the standard service fee, without costs of parts I was quoted for repairing my MT24EX by an official Canon agent (they failed to be able to repair the MT24EX).

Without the light modifications I invented, the lighting from the Canon twinflash is crap.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 08:24 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
Total: 222, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »