August 21, 2014, 06:20:55 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - YuengLinger

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 18, 2014, 01:58:36 PM »
Doesn't sound must be some kind of mistake.

In fact, if it's Best Buy I'm almost SURE it's a mistake. Don't get me started with them...

Certain b&m big box retailers understandably get aggravated with all the showcasing and price matching.  The speculation the clerk was rambling on about in the original post sounds exactly like somebody unhappy with the job, unhappy with the customer, but quite happy to yank somebody's chain.

And here we are dozens of posts later.

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on going full frame
« on: August 16, 2014, 01:51:42 PM »
Not sure about the claims that "in good light" FF and cropped have few differences.

What is good light?  High noon?  Studio lights?  Ok, fine.  But that is very limiting.

Proper exposure?  Great, but even the most skilled, experienced photographers find themselves in changing light situations and underexpose, meaning a HUGE difference in noise.

I have a 60D, which apparently has the same or slightly less noise as a 7D in the same situations, and a 5DIII.  There is very big difference between the two at ISO 400.  I can get up to 1250 or 1600 on the 5DIII before I start having the same noise as the 60D at ISO 400.

How many people shoot in studio conditions?  How many want to shoot in noon day sun?  We all have different tolerances for noise, and a Rebel or other cropped sensor might produce satisfactory images for large prints, but to claim that there is little difference in real world, common, shooting situations is misleading.

Is the 5DIII perfect?  No.  Completely free of noise in the shadows at 400 if I've underexposed?  No.  But it is much less noisy than my 60D in similar situations.

Want to crop in on eyes on a cloudy day?  If you want details in the irises, you have to sharpen with pumped contrast, maybe brighten the shadows a touch.  The noise quickly becomes apparent to the point that the eyes become the limiting factor in print size.

Get the best you can afford.  Don't borrow on a credit card!  But just know that the difference between Canon FF and cropped does not begin only in poorly lit interiors or after sunset outdoors.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: What does Sigma do next?
« on: August 16, 2014, 06:04:20 AM »
First things first:  Make sure the AF works for all (at least most!) AF points on newer Canon bodies!  If they can crack that, the world's their oyster.

Anybody know what the current firmware version is on the 50 Art?  And how will we know if/when it gets updated, and, more importantly, FIXED for outer AF points on the 5DMkIII and other Canon cameras?

I've searched Sigma's site--I cannot find the current version there. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Quick and Dirty AFMA
« on: August 10, 2014, 10:09:28 AM »
"Hopefully we will eventually get rid of  manual AFMA altogether :) "

That would be wonderful.  But first Canon wants to tweak GPS, Wi-Fi, and in-camera tilt-shift effects.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Quick and Dirty AFMA
« on: August 10, 2014, 09:28:36 AM »
With the 5DIII, if I'm wearing reading glasses, I can get a good AFMA result just using a target, camera at 45 degree angle, and the display on the back of the camera.

For fine tuning, same method, but load the images.  If I'm doing several lenses, I'll tether with Canon's software.

Not extremely time consuming.

BUT, even with Canon lenses, what is spot on with recommended AFMA distances can be a couple of points off when doing portrait work.  Really only critical when shooting below f/2.2, but annoying in such cases.

And I think over time, maybe with temperature and humidity, values change.

Constant battle, ain't it?

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 07, 2014, 09:37:01 PM »
I'm also hoping for f/2.8.  Don't care about IS.  Want to be able to shoot events and creative portraits in lowest possible light.  If I want my camera to be still I use a tripod.  When the subject is moving, IS doesn't come into play.

The price and the likelihood of the bulbous front element that can't be protected with a UV filter would probably keep it out of my bag.

Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 04, 2014, 08:39:22 PM »
I'm wondering if we need a moderator to look at some of the posts on this thread.  This started as a friendly question, but some of the replies are hateful, bitter...

I'm all for freedom of speech in a political discussion, but lately, some of the replies are just venting anger that truly has no bearing on the topic.  This is a generally helpful forum for questions, rumors, speculations--not personal attacks.

Is this cyclical or a new low?

Lenses / Re: Help deciding on a macro lens
« on: August 04, 2014, 02:19:47 PM »
I'm very happy with the ef 100mm f/2.8 Macro (standard).  Dropped it hard, very hard onto a tile floor from about 4 feet up and the focus ring wouldn't turn.  Sent it to Canon, relatively small repair bill, works as good as ever.

But I have friends who rave about the L version and occasionally use it for portraits too.

Just want to say the replies lately are so helpful and sincere.

Great forum!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:52:23 PM »
The 7D produces grainy, rough images with drab colors. The slab of margarine known as the AA filter doesn't help, either. Blue channel noise at low ISOs is especially disturbing for landscapes or bird backgrounds.

You really need to learn how to use it, and how to convert and process the files from it properly, then.

Your interminable bashing just makes those of us who know how to get the best out of the 7D, realise how much it must suck to be you.

Obviously at high ISOs (say, over 6400 ISO), crop sensors give ground to FF, but that's true of all crop sensors.

The 7D's sensor is, even today, broadly comparable with any other crop sensor out there at high (for crop) ISO, converted and processed intelligently.

I've long said the 7D's biggest problem is some of the people that bought it...

Wow.  Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

Think before you type.

Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:08:32 PM »

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?
« on: July 27, 2014, 06:39:23 PM »
Bokeh is great.  AF can be awful, but some are finding it adequate. 

Does that sound like "obsessive insanity"?   If you like to play the good copy game, have fun!  Or, wait for the firmware upgrade. 

I too was hoping that some of the most dependable, articulate posters here at CR were wrong about the AF.  They weren't.  I'll wait until next year before trying again with this one.

Don Haines had a good idea, get some credit in a practical way. 

If you kind of, sort of said they could use it, take it as a lesson.  Whenever you use your camera and share the images, if you want credit, if your heading towards pro or semi-pro, have a plan in mind.

Consider visiting the Professional Photographers of America website--they have some good info for free.  Members get more detailed © protection discussions, plus access to decent templates for contracts and model releases.

At the very least, you've gotten something good for your portfolio.  While the shot itself is quite a nice one, having it used so prominently in this rolling ad boosts its usefulness as a feather in your cap for future jobs.

Lenses / Re: Which Bokeh Monster?
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:24:22 AM »
 ::)  Note that AFTER writing this post, I went back and saw in your signature that you have the f/4 version of the 70-200mm.  That complicates the decision, a little, I suppose!  Enjoy whatever you get!


Lets talk practical for a moment.  The 85 1.2L produces beautiful bokeh, but it is a specialty lens.  Not every shot in a session or a portfolio should have razor thin depth of field, so, for very versatile portrait work, as a tool, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II offers much, much more, and costs pretty close to the same as the 85.  True, its MFD is about 10" further than the 85, but, beyond that, it is useful in so many, many more situations, not just for formal portraits, but events, sports, nature, and landscape.

The 70-200mm produces DoF shallow enough to be impractical at times, meaning, just like with a faster but shorter lens, you have to be mindful of details that you might want sharp but can start melting into dreamy bokeh.  Neuro could give you all the math, I'm sure, about focal length and aperture producing OOF areas in a photo.

Not everybody has the right head for 85mm.  There are certain shapes of skulls and faces that benefit from the compression of a longer focal length.

Few working pros, if faced with a budget that allows only one lens, would go for the 85 over the 70-200mm.

Don't forget--the 70-200 has lightning AF--and IS!

Would I ever give up my 85mm 1.2L II?  Only if, heaven forbid, forced to choose between that and my 70-200mm.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm Art 1.4 Focusing problems
« on: July 25, 2014, 03:11:07 AM »
So where else is this lens being discussed in English?  Sigma Rumors looks like nothing but a promo site.

B&H reviews are all 4 & 5 stars, don't see chatter about the AF problems.  Amazon has a few mentions of the AF woes, but I bet those are from CR members!

As for those here buying up to 4 copies to find a good one, consider this: If you are able to order and receive one within a week or two, you are almost certainly getting one that has been exchanged, meaning you are increasing your chances of getting another bad one.

I'm hoping Sigma comes clean and publicizes the fix(es) when and if.

I'm also hoping Canon comes up with new version of the 50 1.2 in the meantime.

I'm full of hope.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14