ICEINSPACE
Most Read Articles
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON Waning Gibbous
87.9%
The Sun Now
Time Zones
Sydney*
12:35 am
Perth
9:35 pm
Auckland*
2:35 am
New York
8:35 am
Paris
2:35 pm
GMT
1:35 pm




Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
  #21  
Old 03-11-2009, 08:04 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Bear in mind that should you decide to turn it to the heavens, the Nikon's are useless for astrophotography. Thank you very much, but, I prefer my RAW files not be run through a softening median pass filter prior to be being written to the Compact Flash card.

Regards,
Humayun
I have a feeling that this was true a few generations back, the newer Nikons are a lot better, and much closer to Canon in this respect. Canon is still better for this type of shooting I feel.

In the end, a camera is a tool to get the job done. I have no affiliation with Canon, or Nikon, I'm simply a user. I'm not loyal to either marque. I'm loyal to me, the user.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-11-2009, 08:18 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodhound31 View Post
Here's the head I am considering by Manfrotto, http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=244282&is=REG

I just don't know about the legs. I am after STABILITY.
Here's the page of legs. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...656+4291348219

Whilst I hike long distance with all this gear on my back up mountainous terrain, I need something that is light but still sturdy.

Baz.
I can't say much about it, I don't do a lot of tripod work (I'm a handheld macro guy, as are most macro imagers). I do have a manfrotto head/tripod, but can never remember the model numbers lol! You are right though - you want something light but sturdy. I think the head will probably be OK, the legs look a bit too weak. Others can probably offer better advice here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Dave, I don't own a 1D/1Ds series Canon.

I actually own the lesser camera (although in the words of the president of Canon Japan, the 5D Mark II is their marquee camera). The 1D Mark IIn is now old technology. That may have had crap focusing. Mine doesn't skip a beat. You can be as critical as you like, the proof is on my hard drive, in print, and in wedding albums.

Regards,
Humayun
H - the 5D mark II is a very good camera - see my comments above. I do think my comments on the AF are valid though - and I'm not the first to make those statements about Canon's lack of improving the 5D series cameras AF wise. Many on POTN and dpreview.com and FM have said exactly the same. The Mark IIn has better AF than the 5D or 5D Mark IIn, although my current camera has AF issues I'm pretty sure (back focusing) and my 70-200 really needs to go back to Canon for calibration. It's shocking atm!

And I know you're a super photographer - I've only seen a few of your wedding images but they rock. Not my genre, and I bow to those that have far more knowledge and experience in that area than I do. Remember, photography is all about capturing the image, and I suspect you have a very good eye for seeing what "might happen" and this gives you a killer edge when trying to grab an image, especially at weddings when unpredictable things happen. Remember though - unpredictable is not fast moving necessarily. A 1 series body will focus better than a 5D body in nearly every instance imho.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-11-2009, 08:54 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ballarat
Posts: 10,584
All I can say Baz, after reading the other stuff from IIS supporters, and you can afford it, go for it mate.


Leon
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-11-2009, 09:44 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Barry - you have mail :-)

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-11-2009, 10:10 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpastern View Post
Barry - you have mail :-)

Dave
Got it thanks Dave, reading and actioning mate..

hold on..

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-11-2009, 09:48 AM
lacad01's Avatar
lacad01 (Adam)
The sky is Messier here!

lacad01 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sydney, Aus
Posts: 2,586
Gday Baz, heaps of good info already given. My very small 5c worth, you might want to check these guys out as well:
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/
I've purchased clone timer remote controllers online and haven't had any issues with them.
cheers
Adam
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:29 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Would you believe it!?? The lens I want has been discontinued and the replacement is exactly the same, except it has a II in it's name for over $800 MORE!! Darned thing went from $1519 to $2350.

The Canon EF 16-35mm F/2.8L II USM

I need a wide angle zoom lens that is FAST and does not create the fisheye effect. I hate fisheye. If it's not better than my current EFS 18-55 F/3.5, then its a no goer.

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:44 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,785
Don't reckon you'll notice the difference if you get the 17-40 f/4L instead of the 16-35 f/2.8L mate. It's only one stop, and with that 5DII you'll be able to punch up the ISO to cover that loss in lens speed. No worries, just get the 17-40
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:57 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Yeah I did think about that Troy, but isn't the whole point to try to get it right in the glass, before having to compensate with sensitivity? F/4 is slower than my current. I want to go forwards, not backwards...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-11-2009, 05:06 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,156
The 16-35mm f/2.8L has been discontinued for about two years from memory. The Mark II has better edge performance. It will be my next purchase.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-11-2009, 05:09 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,156
Barry,

Buying L-series glass, regardless of it being slower than your current workhorse, is never a step backwards. You will appreciate the edge performace, and enhanced contrast, sharpness and saturation enhancements that fluorite brings.

Not to mention reduced chromatic and spherical aberrations.

All my landcape work has been done with the slower 17-40mm f/4L.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-11-2009, 05:36 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Barry,

Buying L-series glass, regardless of it being slower than your current workhorse, is never a step backwards. You will appreciate the edge performace, and enhanced contrast, sharpness and saturation enhancements that fluorite brings.

Not to mention reduced chromatic and spherical aberrations.

All my landcape work has been done with the slower 17-40mm f/4L.

Regards,
Humayun
Thanks Humayun,

I can see it is superior glass, but you see what I do out in the field. WILL it give me more light on the 30 second deep sky images that I don't have to STRETCH so much in PP to bring out the Milky Way? At F/4, I am thinking not.

This is the sole purpose of buying a wide fast lens.

My macro is taken care of in the 100mm, while all my other daytime stuff, I still have my 400D. So I don't need this new lens to do anything else.

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-11-2009, 06:19 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,785
The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop. That's double the exposure time for all the other setting remaining the same. But if you want to keep your exposure time the same at 30secs, you'd need to double the ISO. Like I said, the 5DII should handle that. Plus, keep in mind the exposures will be comparable to the f/3.5 you were using anyway. Plus plus, not many lenses are sharp as a tack wide open, so you probably could/should have stopped the 16-35 down to f/4 or so anyway. You might stop the 17-40 down to f/5.6 for sharper image? You'd need to test that. Playing with the ISO's is the solution, because you're locked in on max times, and you're going to be f/4 or f/5.6 or in between.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-11-2009, 06:28 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by troypiggo View Post
The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop. That's double the exposure time for all the other setting remaining the same. But if you want to keep your exposure time the same at 30secs, you'd need to double the ISO. Like I said, the 5DII should handle that. Plus, keep in mind the exposures will be comparable to the f/3.5 you were using anyway. Plus plus, not many lenses are sharp as a tack wide open, so you probably could/should have stopped the 16-35 down to f/4 or so anyway. You might stop the 17-40 down to f/5.6 for sharper image? You'd need to test that. Playing with the ISO's is the solution, because you're locked in on max times, and you're going to be f/4 or f/5.6 or in between.
From what I saw using Humayun's lens a couple of weeks ago, one stop on the same ISO setting makes a HUGE difference. Plus, if I can gather the same amount of light in half the exposure time, I reduce my noise dramatically!

Or so I have been led to believe....or is it just that i don't get it?

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-11-2009, 06:39 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,785
You get it perfectly
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-11-2009, 06:40 PM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by troypiggo View Post
You get it perfectly
Phew! That's a relief!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-11-2009, 07:05 PM
Waxing_Gibbous's Avatar
Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)
Grumpy Old Man-Child

Waxing_Gibbous is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: South Gippsland
Posts: 1,768
Barry,
Fine choice of camera.
A couple of nay-says:
Unless you are going to be using it for other things, stick to a fixed-focal length lens. Zoom lenses, no matter how good, will really show their shortcomings in AP. Check out "The Backyard Astronomer" for a vivid illustration of coma in the 16-35 2.8L.
ther is some truth that the diff. between f2.8 and f4 is minimal in actual use. But for focussing I prefer the extra light.
The Cannon 35mm 1.4L is brilliant on the night sky and anything else. The 24mm 1.4 L is tack-sharp though it begins to display some barrel distortion (as just about every lens under 28mm will).
Actually the 28mm 1.8 (no 'L') is a corker as well and significantly cheaper.
For tripods; I'm not a big Manfrotto fan. I find their quick-release heads quite fiddly and mine took a while to break-in. But thats me. oThers have no probs with them.
I would highly recommend a head with an extension handle such as the Gitzo Series 3(?) with the video head or if you prefer geared, a Majestic head on Berlebach legs. Rock solid.
Last: Canon Australia will not honour warranty claims on cameras imported from abroad. Period. Companies that claim to have warranty support and service mean THEY or a third party, will service the gear, not Canon.
They WILL honour warranty claims for gear that you bought from an authorised dealer while you were overseas. Receipt required.
There is no way around this unless you're a $100,000 a year customer or can suck-up like crazy.
My dentist's brother works for Canon Intrnational sales and these are his words not mine.
Oh yeah... Before you shell out the big $$$$ for a Canon 105 Macro, try the Tamron 90mm Macro. About 1/3 cheaper and more than a match (I've got the 105 so I'm a bit peeved at this).
If your using the flash strictly for Macro, go for the MX 14 Ringlite on the Cameras forum. If not then the 480/580 EX should be more than enough.
Enjoy your new gear. There's something extremely satisfying about opening a new camera and mounting a bit of quality glass.
PJH

Last edited by Waxing_Gibbous; 04-11-2009 at 07:14 PM. Reason: Add stuff
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-11-2009, 07:18 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Not all of Canon's L series lenses use Flourite I might add, only the really long lenses (500mm f4, 400mm f2,8, etc). Most of the cheaper L series lesnes use LD (low dispersion) elements. I have several versions of Canon's excellent "Lens work" books, which describe Canon's lenses in detail ;-)

L series glass, as H & Troy have said, is WELL worth it. Far better from an optical point of view. Generally, the USM motors are better too. And so is build quality. The extra money is worth it imho.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-11-2009, 07:34 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,156
I drool over Lens Work III often.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-11-2009, 07:52 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
I drool over Lens Work III often.

Regards,
Humayun
Same, and I'm usually rendered speechless to lol. Not a pretty sight ;-)

Dave
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
FLI Cameras and Imaging Accessories
Advertisement
SkyWatcher WiFi Adaptor
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
SkyWatcher 2018 Catalogue
Advertisement
Interest Free Finance
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement