John Bennett
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I never leave TCs mounted….ever. Its just that much more strain on the rims. So for me, I go out to shoot X…and if for some reason I need that little extra reach I put the TC on, grab the shot I want…remove…and try to get closer…wait for another day. It doesn’t matter what you your using the bare lens is always going to be “superior” to adding a TC.
Hits to IQ are “subjective”, I find I can see them regardless of lens/tc combo…Difference being “how” noticeable it is…Some I think are anal about it…if they can see the difference at 100% its “crap”…me…Im more…give me a break
Me personally ( just my personal bias, others may not agree).
If you really want a little more reach you can get the 1.4TC. I would avoid the 2x.
All TCs carry inherant “cost”. You gain a little reach but sacrifice focus speed, light loss and hits to IQ. Those trade offs are linear. Meaning with the 1.4 the “cost” are less relative to the 2x.
This is a little more subjective.
In my “opinion” TCs are best used with primes. All else equal the “cost” are less apparent/prevalent when used in conjunction with primes versus zooms. Very few zooms accept TCs “well”..<<
Long winded way of saying.
Even though I “can” mount my 2X on either my 500 f4, I rarely do and only do so if there’s no other “option”. Its nice to have in my bag but even when Id rather be 1,000mm ( 500mm f4 + 2x)because something is just that little further away I will mount the 1.4TC and shoot at 720mm f5.6 unless theres simply, no choice.And thats with lenses that take TCs with the least amount of “noticeable” cost.
Get the 1.4TC.
Even if you aren’t “estatic” with results, you should be pleased (relative/subjective) and I think you will be. Its a worthwhile “accessory” to have in your kit, even if you find you prefer not to use a lot.Dont get the 2X.
At $500 (Cdn prices) I think you will find the “cost” too muchLol Will.
Mike I rang my bell on a Sat and it was Mon, afternoon before I was sent to emerg. I was able to process maybe a dozen images in between and since then haven’t fired LR up.Going out fishing for eyes today, feel up to it but Im a little worried about handling the chop when the boats under power…We shall see
Lol ok Mike. The sorry story is on facebook and I know some here may have seen it, so generally don’t double things up much.
for the fun of it I’m just going to copy a thread from another forum into here. Its quite the tale 🙂
Tubes are another option. I use 12mm occionally with my 85mm.
Without getting into long dry mathematical discussions. Tubes act similiar to a projector screen. That is, the further away from the sensor (the screen) the front element gets (the projector) they “increase” magnification without light loss or hits to IQ as with TCs.
I forget the actual equation but I think its focal length of tubes divided by focal length of lens. So 25mm in tubes in front of a 25mm lens its still 1:1…But 50mm of tubes in front a 25mm lens magnification increases by 2:1. Alot of bug shooters use a reversed 50mm+100mm 1:1 macro and then 56mm in tubes to acheive 3:1 ratios. I know a guy that uses over a 100mm tubes on a reversed 50 for 6:1 or more.
As Will said they also greatly reduce the lenses MFD. The trade off is they also prevent the lens from focusing out past a certain point. Basically creating a bracket where you can focus on a subject.
WA lenses inherantly make things “close” appear larger than they are and things in the BG appear smaller than they are.
Hence the popularity with some photogs of making fish appear much larger than they are by using a WA and have the “grip and grinner” thrust the fish towards the camera.
So a WA in conjuction with a tube can/could be a neat little close up lens but I don’t that you would be able to make small bugs and the like fill alot of the frame….dunno
Having never shot in the field with a macro, is it possible to pull of great macro shots without a tripod?
Yes its very possible. I never shoot macro with a tripod. Its just way to difficult and takes much time to get everything “set up”. Example. How will you get a fish to hold perfectly still (and due to the razor thin Depth of Field) your subjects have to remain perfectly still while your setting up and dialing in critical focus (theres no margin of error).
Which macro would you recommend for a Canon 5D or 30D for scale shots, eyes, gills, fins, ect.?
A macro lens is a macro lens. Without splittng hairs, practically speaking the only difference between them is their focal lengths (50mm,60mm,100mm,150mm,180mm).
The difference in focal length determines how much “working” distance you have to play with when shooting at 1:1. The greater the focal length of the lens, the more working distance you’ll have.
For rough example (dont quote me, Im estimating).
I have a 180mm. Its minimum focus distance is I think 19 inches give or take.
a 60mm ( Im guessing) will have a minimum focus distance of 6 inches.
any picture taken will look identical. The only difference is with one lens the front element is 19inches away and with the other 6 inches away.
Bugs, fish, etc,etc tend to get nervous when theres big black eyes moving in so close. So “generally” speaking people appreciate the extra working distance.
The extra working distance (focal length) you have to pay for.
ALot of people like Sigma’s macro lenses. Both the 105mm and 150mm. A good compromise between focal length and price relative to Canons/Nikons Macro lenses of the same focal length.
Great stuff Mike.
Re leaving the rods and taking the camera along.
Great Idea, something I find myself doing more and more. Just be careful else you end up with bad concussions and trips to emrg. (long story from a recent “leave the rods at home, take the camera wading excursion:)I think everyone here knows I’m a huge, huge fan of Singh Ray filters. That said you don’t have to get SRs. Theres Lee and the economical choice is Conkin. Theres nothing really wrong with them, they just arent the same quality and from talking to a few Conkin users any weakness in images can be adjusted in post. In short a very good argument can be made that the extra cost for SR is arguably justified.
My 2c, (not worth alot) as I really only print for myself once in a blue moon and for family/close friends.
Anything else I outsource.
I have a Canon i9900. Its ok, but one of my largest gripes are Canon’s profiles (and lack of them). If I wanted to do more printing myself I’d probably want (have) to get a good profiler (Eyeone’s Colour Monkey etc to the tune of $500)…
Back in the fall I gave serious consideration to doing more printing and looked really hard at the Epson 3880. Profiling is better,from everything I could find more economical on inks, and found a couple references that theres documentation that will even break down your ink cost per unit, which makes it easier to price your work.
In the end though I decided to stay with outsourcing. It took me some time to find a shop I was happy with…( and one that discounts for photographer’s that are reselling, as long as you have enough cred’s.)
For example. I recently did a 24 x 36 canvas gallery wrap.
Had I used Mpix (very popular) their base price is $220.00
I paid quite a bit less than that, which ultimately let me price it lower and still maintain the margin I want.If you crunch the numbers really hard and factor everything in.
Printer, calibration device ( top of line if your intent is to sell), inks, paper, maintenance ( ink heads) matting (if you go that far), time, effort, shipping,…..everything.Its a very close call.
You might pay a little more to outsource, but you save the time, effort and trouble. Which is a “soft” cost.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
On one hand “exposure” and social media are components of marketing. Some say very minor components and others say key. Regardless it has some value, only thing arguable is how much and most will agree that the business end and marketing are every bit, if not more important than being able to take a good photo.
On the other is unauthorized use and reproduction.
I’ve intentionally avoided Flickr and Twitter (flickr being one of the worst) and have kept it to FB. I tend to go through periods where I dont want to add any or very much at all, and others when I feel like uploading a bunch (but usually dont) and get more serious about “marketing”..Regardless.
I’ve really scaled back the amount of photos I post and share on social media and websites for these and other reasons compared to years gone by. Too many images being ripped, used, copied even as screensavers etc. its just work for free ath the shooters expense.People love seeing good photography, they just dont want to pay for it, inlcuding social media/content sharing sites. Where they gain alot by having people do it and the shooters get jack 🙂
Even Getty Images is guilty to a degree.
They scour flickr, offer people micro stock rates.
The same image could be under their banner wher they charge standard rates.Same pic, same liscences, two different fee scheds.
Thanks guys, gives me some ideas’
For the shot of the Turkey Hunter below I had a flash on a gorilla pod, set on the ground (wanted it low)….Later I got it up about 5 feet and secured to a branch.I find the pods work great so long as Im not wanting an umbrellaor soft box box.Any wind and it will grab the umbrella or soft box. If theres no branch/fence post they are a) too low and b) would make an umbrella near impossible without the height.
Problem I have (envision) with traditional light stands is uneven ground or worse, rocks on a bank…and have been wracking my brain for an idea to overcome that. (great idea on sand/pebble bags neal)I’ve looked hard at the flexible/aticulated arms that you would run off a stand in a studio as a possible solution but for what they do they are heavy and short.
Has anyone found a “good” and practical solution for light stands/umbrellas et al for what we do?
Every time I think I’ve found a workable solution, I find something to shoot it down. Either too heavy, or too cumbersome, or too “envolved” to set up.
if you go light and packable, things like wind or lack of height shoot those down.
not sure if you have seasonal requirement but heres a decent upstream mend shot
/ps I can easily remove the watermark if you choose it Phil
Did not take a lot of photos; the Erie tribs are not exactly scenic, for one (we fished the Grand at a place they called “Uniroyal,” having parked next to an abandoned chemical factory
Lol, welcome to our world 🙂
Never fished an Erie trib but I have no reasons not to think they are that much disimiliar from what we fish on North Shore Lake O.
Basically drainage ditches that flow through urbanisation/farmland.lmao, if I showed images that were truly more reflective of them rather than the wee snapshots within the greater image. Its work finding decent sections and hence why I get so envious of those out west where you can play pin the tail, take the blindfold off an be looking at something beuatiful 🙂
the fishing can is fantastic though so you often overlook the less than pristine trout waters until you hook up with a shopping cart 🙂
You should make a trip in the fall Zach for some of the fall runs.
I agree Eric, I think the WT on the left is a young buck.
Heres another young buck I got the weekend before. You can definately see where the new growth is.
Re Sitka gear.
I have more camo than I can shake a stick at as well. But I really dislike the way I need to “bulk” up when layering. So I decided finally (after being aware for a few years) to go Sitka. With the right layering for your climate it will keep you warm and it breathes. Thats one reason I dislike anything else I own. Once I start hiking ( im a spot/move/stalker) I end up sweating even if and when I vent, remove a layer.Plus I have no reason to think or beleive the “science” behind their patterning isn’t what they say, unlike other gimmicky patterns or claims (Scent lok).What I would suggest is ask your buddies if you can try theirs for a day. Layer up as you normaly might and feel how the reduced “bulk” increases range of motion etc.
Re Wts.
lol, Im such a WT junkie its not funny. I’m always open to any tips.One day last year I was in a spot where the breeze wasn’t quite right. I took my buck bomb and doused myself….I ended up getting a great buck image but I smelled like buck pee all day and had to lstrip down and leave my gear in the garage to air out a bit 🙂
I don’t think so Matt but don’t quote me, US and Cda laws differ
There have been a couple photogs getting in trouble in the states, having something to do with ambulance chasing ( wearing EPS uni’s probably didnt help) and getting charged with obstruction I beleive it was.
I have a press pass and have only had to flash it twice. If I wanted to shoot something as johny q public up here for the most part I can and I cant be interfered with it. “natural disasters and news events included. Plus my images are mine and it would be agasint the law for a cop to ask for them or delete them.
My advice if you cant get a solid answer, go, do it, document it and if anyone in authority ask what your doing or to move on, politely follow their request ( except delete or hand over images).
J
Colin full techs, followed by a comment or two.
1Dmkiv with the 24-70mm at 24mm
Metering: Patial ( metered the clouds, then the reflections ahead of the boat)
Manual
ISO 1,000
F11 for depth of field
1/320th last adjustment made to render the exposure for the reflections on the water.Every single image (scenario more accurate) you take will always want different settings. They are like a menu and every restaurant offers things differently or with slight variations. While those setting were used for this shot I could be in a similiar “scenario” but use wildly different settings.
I could have raised or lowered ISO by 1 or 2 thirds, which would have forced me to raise or lower an equal combination of f/stop and or SS.
Bascially in this case I wanted SS somewhere between 250 and 500 because we were moving (albeit very slowly) and I was standing in the bow handholding the body/gnd and firing 1 handed.
I wanted enough dof to capture my 2 friends so I set it at F11.
So to do those two things meant setting my ISO where ever it needed to be. Sometimes you set your ISO first, then f/stop and SS is whatever it needs to etc.
Dunno if Im explaining myself right. Most images are mini puzzles that need to be figured out and its up to use to determine what peices to use (sometimes thats filters, tripods, panning etc) and what order to assemble them in (ISO,f/stop/SS)
