July 22, 2014, 09:46:50 PM

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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 534
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom vs. Capture One
« on: Today at 08:00:40 PM »
Here I found an interesting article, where the author praise Capture One over Lightroom as a RAW converter. He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).

See the article here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-which-raw-processor-best-24769

Has any of you similar experience?
I always find straight out of the camera comparison kind of bias. Each software has its own default settings, some may apply more sharpening than other. Also Lightroom can use custom-profile to get accurate color.
I want to see comparison where expert in Lightroom and experts in other software working on the same photo from start to finish. Then comparing the final products to see which one is better.

While its true that you can tinker with images in the software to get what you like, its also a good point that some software renders a nicer image with default settings.

Of course, with a different camera model, the results might vary, so its again something that should be tried before buying.  Phase One is said to do a super job with the high MP Nikon D8XX series.

Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: Today at 07:24:40 PM »

2.8 is fast enough for UWA - no point having a f/1.4 with tons of CA, coma effect and others, that would only be mild to tolerable above f/4..... sharp f3.5 with high iso is better than f2.0 images a lower iso I suppose.
I really don't  know - maybe it's design/optical law restriction., and only can imagine either with huge front element (>95mm)

Certainly an F1.4 wide angle would not be feasible with cost to produce and front element size, but an F2 16mm for example would be the same focal length as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 at it's widest, not have all the glass associated with a zoom, and just 1 stop faster...seeing as the 16-35 F2.8 version 1 has a 77mm filter size, I wouldn't think that while losing the zooming but making it a stop faster, we would then be talking about a front element greater than 95mm. I don't know the calculations involved for knowing exactly so this is just based on what makes sense to me.

Perhaps I did not elaborate as to what I meant by a good lens.  Check out the price of a Zeiss 15mm lens, its not f/2, but it costs $5,000.  Wide angle lenses are very difficult to build, and that extra stop comes at a huge price.  I use a Canon 135mm f/2 for concerts and theater, I do carry my 16-35L, but its far too wide for almost of my stuff.  I don't do astronomy, but wouldn't coma be a issue on a lens at f/2? 

well, the 6D is in an authorized canon service center...

the guy at the counter looked at it and quickly diagnosed it:
"its gonna be the shutter... it sure is the shutter... unless its something else"

I'm glad that its still under warranty and hope they have a good technician (and a 6D shutter in stock)

Unfortunately, shutters can die prematurely, or last forever.  They fail on a bell curve, so most of them last for X actuations.

If you bought it with a American Express card, they double the warranty, so you actually have a two year warranty.  I make it a point to do that.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mark III Misaligned Transmissive LCD
« on: Today at 07:14:37 PM »
Hi, no, this is my first post about this issue.
Did you see my examples? Did you see the viewfinder spot AF point directly over the target and still miss in example 2? Thats because the actual af point was about an inch above it. This is repeatable and is most definitely a problem or Canon wouldn't have repaired my viewfinder. Liveview focus points definitely have a physical relationship to the ones used in OVF. In live view AFQuick mode, the mirror lowers and you use the same AF points and AF method it does in OVF (page 212 of the manual). If those two aren't identical you have to physically move the camera to zero your target. Moving the camera mean altering your focal plane. Thats a defect.

It is a problem when you spot AF on someones eye through the OVF and the camera focuses on their eyebrow. Every time. Turn on live view and you'll see the actual focus point is in fact directly over their eyebrow.

Congratulations on getting a copy that actually works correctly. Ive been battling this issue for a year and a half without knowing what the problem was. Service didn't catch the issue twice - only when I specifically told them what to fix did they repair it. Im wondering if there are others with this same issue, most of witch probably don't know this issue even exists.

Sorry if you were not the one who posted a almost identical thing in another forum. 

Liveview using live AF has no physical link to the AF points, it uses the sensor.  Liveview using Quick AF does use the AF sensor, but those points are electronically generated, and there is no physical connection or link to the AF sensor or the transmissive LCD.  Getting all three lined up does involve tolerances.

If both are off by a large amount, then the sensor might be out of place, or defective.  However, the AF system does not always focus where you think it will, so a proper target designed to force it to focus is needed.  This might be a + on a large white sheet of paper.  Otherwise, its not possible to control where it actually focuses.  This has given lots of people headaches.  If focus is OK when shot straight on, and off when shot from a angle, the likely thing is that the AF is focusing on the wrong spot.  Always do the testing in such a way that its impossible for AF to pick a slightly different point to focus on.  It can do this and still show the correct focus point if its close.

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod legs locking mechanism
« on: Today at 06:59:22 PM »
There are good flip locks and bad ones, there are good twist locks and bad ones.

Basically, cheap tripods have poor locks be they flip or twist, and the high end ones have nicer actions.  I have two Benro CF leg sets with twist, they are fine, no complaints, but they are not as nice to use as the twist locks on my Redged monopod.  I have a older Bogen battleship Aluminum Tripod and similar monopod with flip locks, they have a allen wrench to adjust them, but are clunky and catch on things.  I also have a newer Manfrotto lower end Aluminum Tripod with flip locks, and I like them.  I also have a really old Red Head tripod (whatever that is) that I bought in the 1980's with flip locks.  They work fine, but are not impressive.

So, my put is that it is a variable, there are excellent examples of each, and a lot more poorly done implementations.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom vs. Capture One
« on: Today at 05:02:01 PM »
Here I found an interesting article, where the author praise Capture One over Lightroom as a RAW converter. He wrote that the colours appear more natural and representative of the original scene. And that the images are sharper at the beginning, straight out of camera (without any adjustments).

See the article here: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lightroom-or-capture-one-which-raw-processor-best-24769

Has any of you similar experience?

I've tried Capture one, DXO, DPP, and even ACDC Pro.  Each renders a image slightly differently, and its a matter of personal preference.

I did not like Capture One at all.  DXO had poor face tones.  DPP and Lightroom, while different were acceptable.  I've forgot how ACDSEE Looked, I have not used it for over a year.

It really is personal preference, so give them a comparison and see which you like best.  It is often true that they will do a better job on certain subjects as well, one might excel at landscapes, while another might be better at portraits, so pick the one that works for you.  I wanted to like the new DXO, but so far, its been a disappointment, and my trial is almost over.  Be sure to test export times, and the look of exported jpegs, as well as prints.  All those things are variables.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/2.8L IS II underwhelming
« on: Today at 04:54:11 PM »
Thanks for your answer,
I am definitely not a malicious troll, I am a 18 year old German student who tries to get into the photography business and loves canon and the equipment they make.

 I started taking snaps at the age of 5 with an analog point and shoot, upgraded to a powershot a450, and in 2008 finally a DSLR a Sony alpha 300 with sigma 18-200 DC lens. With this camera I learned a lot and found out my passion is macro photography. So I got myself a sigma 50 2.8 macro in 2012 but I was not happy with the direction sony went with the slts and evfs. So i switched to canon because my powershot nerver let mit down and got myself a 5d2 with the 50 compact macro. Half a year later the 100L and another half year later the 70-200L II. I love my equipment and would never dare to do something maleficent to Canon wich provides me with firs class Equipment and never lets me down. (all of these three were bought new from a local store)

As stated in my post I assume that poor images result from a faulty user. So I was hoping that one of you might be able to tell me what I have to improve so I get the same stellar results from that lens as just about every canon professional photographer.

As to AFMA I know about that, but without a professional setup or software I don't think its possible to do that accurately and being a student I am currently not able to afford that. If that's wrong please tell me I read and joined this forum to learn.

I am very sorry if this didn't become clear in my first post

Henry, Lenses have a tolerance, but so do bodies.  In the rare case that the tolerances add up, things can look bad even though each is fine.

Canon mounts and adjusts the lens on a reference body (A 5D MK II, if you told them) and verifies that it is working correctly.  If you send in your camera, they do the same but with a reference lens.

You can, and should consider sending both the camera and lens for adjustment.  They adjust them separately, then confirm proper sharpness when used together.   I've had two different 70-200MK II lenses, and both were wonderful.  I had 5 of the MK I version, and they were good but not great.  I've also had three of the non IS versions, all were exceptional lenses.

If its not up to your expectations, and can't be fixed, I'd sell it, because you will never be happy with it.  First though, have them do the camera and lens both.

Local camera shops here in Los Angeles were the same story as B&H, KEH, Adorama, etc.:  they offered around $650 for something they'd clearly flip for $1100-1300, so that's out.

I've opted to give Fred Miranda a try.  We'll see how it goes.

My only hangup was the call to describe my lens as a 9 or 9+.  I believe it to be a perfectly clean lens other than scuffing on the hood, so I called it a 9+ but was sure to flag the hood scuffing.  We'll see how I do!

- A

I've bought a few 24-70 MK I's for $600 or less on craigslist.  A dealer can get more, but a private party is going to have to sell for less.  If the lens has been checked recently at Canon, that's helpful.  There are some internal spacers that commonly break on that lens, and owners often are not aware of the issue, but it decreases AF accuracy.  I always add in a trip to Canon as part of the price.  That used to cost under $200, but now its over $300, so $700-$800 is the max I'd pay without a warranty, or recent clean bill of health.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5d Mark III Misaligned Transmissive LCD
« on: Today at 04:31:21 PM »
Didn't you post this on another forum where it fell on unsympathetic ears? 

The slight misregistration is typical, and the sensor is larger than the small square on the screen, so it should not cause a problem.

As you were told in those posts, live view focus points have no physical relationship to the ones in the OVF.  They are electronically generated.

I wonder why nobody has so far posted any pictures that show the photographed and processed results.


Its because the jpeg small image results are so difficult to evaluate.

Realistically, those old photo negatives and slides were often made with consumer or low end cameras back when we were poor college students, and high end scanning is limited by the quality of the original.

If you have high end film equipment, then get a dedicated film scanner and then resell it, or have them professionally done.

The "Best" place depends on the Seller.  Both ebay and Fred Miranda will net you about the same price, Craigslist buyers know the values and will want a discount.

Unless you have a lot of good feedback, ebay will not work well.  On Fred Miranda, even a new seller can advertise local viewing / pickup.  Craigslist works very well, just meet in a secure place.

Depending on where you live, consignment at a local photo shop might also be a possibility.

You will get less selling to a dealer, they do intend to try and resell it for a profit, so they will not pay full price.

I buy stuff on Craigslist frequently, but there are so many asking crazy prices that its getting difficult to find a good deal.  I usually end up selling my equipment for a high price on ebay, and often it only takes 2 hours.  But, I have thousands of positive feedback.

We bought head nets from Cabalas to use in Northern Ontario, and in the Yukon, they are only a start, since mosquitoes bit you right thru blue jeans and shirts.  Fortunately, they don't follow you out on a lake, or fishing would be miserable.  One of our fellow campers owns a sporting goods store, and proudly brought along a box of ultrasonic repellers.  We laughed at him, but he persisted in firing them up.  Mosquitoes landed all over them, they made nice perches.  Needless to say, he threw them out, and used some of our spare deet, which works quite well.  It is not something to apply to the face though.  Spraying a cap with it works when they are not so thick and hungry.

 We put a long sleeved sweatshirt in a plastic bag and soaked it with DEET for a couple of weeks before going to the Yukon.  We still had to spray our jeans.  We had to use a no pest strip indoors, because dozens would fly in thru any crack, or when you opened a door.

Lenses / Re: What would a 16mm or 18mm F2 FF lens look like?
« on: Today at 03:51:22 PM »
At the cost for a good lens, the market would be small.  Since most (not all) wide lens usage is for landscapes, where f/16 is often used, it would be a waste.  For real estate interiors, auto interiors, or in tight quarters, it might work, but having proper lighting would be better and cheaper than paying $5,000 for a lens, and then not having the depth of field needed for interior photos.

What kind of use would you have for it?  A wide angle like that is not suitable for portraits.

It sounds like the rubber drying out, there are some easy fixes recommended.  I've had at least five 40D's, actually, more like 7 or 8.  I sold my last one this Spring.  I've never seen the issue, so it does sound like a age related issue.

Yet another set of new lenses that won't work with any other camera? 

There is nothing wrong with a curved sensor, but Sony already has so many different lenses, that adding yet another set or two or more seems to me to just be alienating customers who bought in to some of those many other series.  As soon as you buy one, Sony replaces it with something different, a familiar story, and part of the reason they are in such horrible financial shape.  They will not hesitate to drop a whole product line on a whim.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 534