Image-stitching and virtual tour solutions My account Updates
It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:50 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:33 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 71
Location: adelaide south australia
Mediavets problem is i guess there are so many sites on the net its hard to find every thing you want to know i have installed the free version , thank you for that ,Destiny i think that's quite a nice shot :) i probably would clone or crop foliage on left hand side out or even darken it down a bit, because its bright and noticeably out of focus my eye gets a bit drawn to it what do you think cheers Rolly1 :) :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:57 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
Thats why I am suggesting I try Focus Stacking ... :)

Destiny...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:03 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7626
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Destiny wrote:
I tried to capture a water fall using a slow shutter speed..


To be honest: the water doesn´t look at all like water - rather looks like plastic ;)

That´s always a problem with slow shutter speed on running water.
An idea is to use a flash to freeze a *part* of the movement . . this way you have a
mix of blurred AND sharp water - which "feels" much more like water.

The problem is: you need to be somewhat close to ithe water for using the flash :cool: . .
(or you take a very bright flash featuring a narrow angle)

Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:05 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7626
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Destiny wrote:
Thats why I am suggesting I try Focus Stacking ... :)

Destiny...



Focus-stacking makes it even worse: it multiplies the movement of the foliage.

But you should try "ghost subpression" in Photomatix!

best, Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:08 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7626
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
mediavets wrote:
rolly1 wrote:
the people on this forum who know what they are doing are going to tell me where i am going wrong :) :) :)


I think many would recommend that you process your RAW image before stitching.


Yes - definitely preferable! In terms of quality and also in terms of handling by APG
or PTGui.

If best quality is the goal: processing RAW to 16bit/TIFF by using an excellent RAW-converter
like CaptureOne from PhaseOne . . . or Lightroom for example.

This way you produce even more amount on data - but it´s the best way quqlity-wise.

But processing the RAWs in C1 or LR and saving them as JPG also is a way.

While processing you hav all options to get rid of CAs, vignettings, distortions
or whatever. Carefuly - sensibly - sharpening is standard too.

Prefgerably avoid noise-reduction - mybe *a bit* color-noise subpression.

best, Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2013 3:19 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7626
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
klausesser wrote:
Destiny wrote:
Thats why I am suggesting I try Focus Stacking ... :)

Destiny...



Focus-stacking makes it even worse: it multiplies the movement of the foliage.

But you should try "ghost subpression"!

best, Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:17 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
... but that is the effect I wanted...

Some better examples here..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=slow+ ... 32&bih=807

Destiny

klausesser wrote:
Destiny wrote:
I tried to capture a water fall using a slow shutter speed..


To be honest: the water doesn´t look at all like water - rather looks like plastic ;)

That´s always a problem with slow shutter speed on running water.
An idea is to use a flash to freeze a *part* of the movement . . this way you have a
mix of blurred AND sharp water - which "feels" much more like water.

The problem is: you need to be somewhat close to ithe water for using the flash :cool: . .
(or you take a very bright flash featuring a narrow angle)

Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7626
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Destiny wrote:



Yes - i know. I like the effect of *very* long exposure on the surface of the sea with moonlight.
Looks a bit like fog - i like that.
But i don´t like at all the plastic-look on waterfalls.
Just a different view.

best, Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:32 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 71
Location: adelaide south australia
Destiny i had a look at 50 to 500 yesterday ,see what you mean it is a bit on the heavy side but in a good way , I spoke to the Tamron rep and she said the 150 to 600 will be out in February no price yet , I think to get milky look water affect you use very long exposure using ND filters and or Cir-Polarizers cheers rolly1 ( this is about as close i have come to this type of pic )


Attachments:
DSC_5570.JPG
DSC_5570.JPG [ 608.24 KiB | Viewed 568 times ]
DSC_5572.JPG
DSC_5572.JPG [ 491.93 KiB | Viewed 568 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:52 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
I rather like the soft look.. That was my very first attempt. As I said I need to work on they technique more.. I saw a small waterfall so I took the opportunity to try out a slow shutter speed... I really do not want to get into filters at at the moment....

I checked out that Tamron 150 to 600 a while back, as I recall I found a price which was a tab more than the 50-500mm... I would love to see some images from it if you buy it... I have no regrets about buying the 50-500mm.. I took out a small loan to buy it but thats ok.. Interest rates these days are very low..

Destiny..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:01 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 71
Location: adelaide south australia
Destiny ,Klaus and every body hope you had a great Xmas and have a happy and successful new year :) :) :) Destiny you should be expert with that lens by now :) cheer's Rolly1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:18 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
Hi Rolly1... Happy New Year to you... You might be interested in this .... You mentioned this lens before.... To be honest, I am more than happy with my Sigma 50-500mm.. I really love the image quality.. Its a bit heavy but I am getting used to it.. I only have 6 more bank payments to make on it and then it's mine.. I have a little blue book which the bank stamps when I make a payment .. :)

http://thenewcamera.com/release-date-an ... d-sp-lens/

I would love to see some images captured using this lens... 600mm is quite amazing for such a small lens..

Destiny....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:02 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 71
Location: adelaide south australia
Hi Destiny still having internet usage problems 5 more days before I get my 8 gig back in sloooooow mode =( can't look at anything at the moment , The Tamron rep at the shop said it would be out in jan or early feb will have a look when it arrives in the shops 600mm is impressive ,one small thing you might look for at Bunings hardware store picked up a very small folding Trolly or sack truck fits camera backpack perfectly made by saxon $18.95 the proper Kata one was $100 plus ,easy to wheel than to carry in some situations cheers Rolly1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:35 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
Your internet host is terrible.. Go with Westnet.. We never run out.. Also we pay $20 per month for our mobiles.. If we call each other just once, we get $1000 credits on our called each.. The only downside, no international called but hey hey, thats a big cone anyway... Just buy a cheap mobile with prepay when you go to a country.. pay their rates. In Asia its really cheap.. Australia is a rip off with mobiles and internet..

We have a trolly cart for all our gear, we bought from Bunings, but we love Bunings so might pop in.... Do the wondering and get lost thing... ;)

Destiny..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:54 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2080
Destiny wrote:
Your internet host is terrible.. Go with Westnet.. We never run out.. Also we pay $20 per month for our mobiles.. If we call each other just once, we get $1000 credits on our called each.. The only downside, no international called but hey hey, thats a big cone anyway... Just buy a cheap mobile with prepay when you go to a country.. pay their rates. In Asia its really cheap.. Australia is a rip off with mobiles and internet..

We have a trolly cart for all our gear, we bought from Bunings, but we love Bunings so might pop in.... Do the wondering and get lost thing... ;)

Destiny..


Meanwhile in Canon country......mmmmm delicious

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/can ... m-4-1p4x/1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:44 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
... and I would be one of the first to support the Canon lens, its a beautiful thing.. However, some test were carried out with that cannon lens and others, and the results were that there was not much difference between image quality with the those lenses and the Sigma 50-500mm but for a fraction of the price.. The Canon came out in front just a tab.. Not enough to warrant the price of it.. You can buy two new cars in Oz for the same money.. Or a Mac Pro with heaps of change.. :) Lets see now... For the same $$$ A D800, + Sigma 50-500mm + Mac pro/Monitor + a little Car and a weeks holiday too..

Destiny...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:45 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2080
Destiny wrote:
... and I would be one of the first to support the Canon lens, its a beautiful thing.. However, some test were carried out with that cannon lens and others, and the results were that there was not much difference between image quality with the those lenses and the Sigma 50-500mm but for a fraction of the price.. The Canon came out in front just a tab.. Not enough to warrant the price of it.. You can buy two new cars in Oz for the same money.. Or a Mac Pro with heaps of change.. :) Lets see now... For the same $$$ A D800, + Sigma 50-500mm + Mac pro/Monitor + a little Car and a weeks holiday too..

Destiny...


Would like to see a link to these tests......trusting dpreview.com rather a lot with their comments and they are raving.

Sigma 50-500 is a great lens for the money but not in the same league.

Of course, it will be hard to make a businesscase justifing 11 thousands dollars.... some pro-sportshooters will be able to do so easily, you don't see them with the sigma though..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:31 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
I read a lot about the lens before buying it.. Bill Bailey had the older version and he said he captured some of the best DOF photos he has ever taken..

This Nikon is about $1000 more..
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/05/dxoma ... d-vr.aspx/

At the end of the day, I cannot really compare my 50-500mm with Canon since I cannot even use the Canon lenses and most Canon lenses cost soooo much more.. So no point in comparing. Generic lenses like the Sigma is good and Sigma have a good repartition as far as I know... I would have gone Nikon but as the title suggest.. "Affordable".. I actually spent a bit more than I wanted but I got it at a good price I think with a 2 year Aus warranty.. The only thing to be careful with the 50-500mm.. there are many variations of the same lens.. I have the most current version.. The finish of one release was horrible.. and it has issues. The cameras shop said they have not had any of my version returned for any issue at all.. Anyway.. I am really happy with it..

Destiny.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:17 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2080
Destiny wrote:
I read a lot about the lens before buying it.. Bill Bailey had the older version and he said he captured some of the best DOF photos he has ever taken..

This Nikon is about $1000 more..
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/05/dxoma ... d-vr.aspx/

At the end of the day, I cannot really compare my 50-500mm with Canon since I cannot even use the Canon lenses and most Canon lenses cost soooo much more.. So no point in comparing. Generic lenses like the Sigma is good and Sigma have a good repartition as far as I know... I would have gone Nikon but as the title suggest.. "Affordable".. I actually spent a bit more than I wanted but I got it at a good price I think with a 2 year Aus warranty.. The only thing to be careful with the 50-500mm.. there are many variations of the same lens.. I have the most current version.. The finish of one release was horrible.. and it has issues. The cameras shop said they have not had any of my version returned for any issue at all.. Anyway.. I am really happy with it..

Destiny.


So you really have nothing to back up "However, some test were carried out with that cannon lens and others, and the results were that there was not much difference between image quality".......

I agree the lens I pointed too is insanely expensive and agree that the sigma is the best deal for that range and price level. But it is certainly not a better lens then the lens I pointed out too.

Please don't make this about Nikon and Canon. The sigma can be bought for Nikon and Canon and I am sure Nikon shooters would love to have this 11000 dollars lens as much as canon owners long as they don't have to pay for it. ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:34 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
Well, if you do a search you will find the same.. I did not keep all the results I found.. And and since I am happy with the results at a great price.., without getting a mortgage to buy it.. The Sigma 50-500 would never match up to the more expensive lenses but the results in comparison were excellent.. I said at the time that I did not feel it was fair to do a comparison as they did with a much more expensive lens so it could never match up.. I will try to find a few of the results I found...

Destiny..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:20 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2080
Destiny wrote:
Well, if you do a search you will find the same.. I did not keep all the results I found.. And and since I am happy with the results at a great price.., without getting a mortgage to buy it.. The Sigma 50-500 would never match up to the more expensive lenses but the results in comparison were excellent.. I said at the time that I did not feel it was fair to do a comparison as they did with a much more expensive lens so it could never match up.. I will try to find a few of the results I found...

Destiny..


I did search and read about an optically great lens with problematic focus and heavy mechanics. A great lens if you really want 50-500 but with consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 3:33 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
These are two of the first photos I captured using my Sigma 50-500mm, handheld!... At the price I feel its a great lens... The only consequence I can find, is the weight. Which I was fully aware of when I bought it.. The only alternative would be be spend another $1000+ on the Nikon but without the zoom.. Any other zoom lens that comes close to the 50-500mm for the zoom factor cost $$$ more so for me.. Its perfect... Love the lens...

Destiny...


Attachments:
WaterDragon1.jpg
WaterDragon1.jpg [ 1.89 MiB | Viewed 423 times ]
Bird1.jpg
Bird1.jpg [ 1.4 MiB | Viewed 423 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:31 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2080
Destiny wrote:
These are two of the first photos I captured using my Sigma 50-500mm, handheld!... At the price I feel its a great lens... The only consequence I can find, is the weight. Which I was fully aware of when I bought it.. The only alternative would be be spend another $1000+ on the Nikon but without the zoom.. Any other zoom lens that comes close to the 50-500mm for the zoom factor cost $$$ more so for me.. Its perfect... Love the lens...

Destiny...


These two photos support my point, it is posibible to make nice photos with the 50-500. But it is also about the ratio between keepers and not keepers. Certainly when the thing you photograph is moving and light is less then ideal that ratio is gonna fall.
For years I have been shooting marathon races, making over 10.000 photos in less then 4 hours. Every photo needs to be a keeper or you loose a sales-opportunity.
Using f2.8 lenses is the way to go then. Once you have gone 2.8 you never want to go back ;-)
I rather make a picture with a f2.8 lens at 400 mm then make it at 500 mm with a f 6.3. Focussing is so much better, even when you do not make the photo itself at f2.8

It's fine with me that you and many other are happy with this lens. It allows you to travel with few lenses only. And I do understand the need to be happy with what you have. But in that enthousiatic mood i think you go a bit too far from the facts.

For people thinking about the Bigma do some reading at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... =16&cat=37 and you might see the lens in proper perspective. Some people simple love it, other take some more time and describe the pro's and cons in more detail.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:51 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4681
Location: Australia
That review you posted up is quite old, and in many cases the reviews go way back to 2008.. There have been many versions of this lens since then, in fact the image on that forum is just about the first version... It was not that great back then... The lens has come a long way since the first version.. If you are going to use a review it really needs to be a more current one, no more than a year.. If you did that with some of the Canon and Nikon lenses, you would see big difference in some of the most common lens reviews during its continued development and improvements over a period of 5 years..

10,000 image and all of them a keeper.!!. That's quite extraordinary..!! I have read and viewed so many videos of world renowned photographers and been to some exclusive forums in the city too, all of which the photographers suggest it is very common to capture many photos but only a small percentage of them are keepers..

Destiny..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:28 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:52 am
Posts: 71
Location: adelaide south australia
I think Sigma and Tamron have really closed the gap on the big 2 with their newest lenses ,take my Tamron 24 to 70 2.8 ,ok not as good as mk2 canon but equal to if not a bit better than nikon lens ,you could not say that about Sigma or Tamron lens in the past , HansKeesom I was out taking pics of small birds with D800 and 70 to 200 2.8 with 2 times converter no problems with focus it was later in the afternoon low light ,I had a problem with D800 so I swapped to my D7000 body would not focus on anything hunted all over the place depending what you are doing 2.8 lenses are a little less important than they used to be, depending on what body you have 6D 5Dmk3 D800 D4 ,Destiny I am going to check my internet usage when I get it back next week very carefully and see where i am going wrong never had this problem till lately cheers Rolly1 (ps I still would prefer 2.8 lens with internal focus if I could afford it :) :) )


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group