Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Looking for an Mirorrless or Compact for climbing/high altitude hiking

« on: May 01, 2013, 11:36:48 PM »

Are you backpacking/tru-hiking or rock climbing?  If you are, why not spend your budget on making your other gear ultra-light (tent, sleeping bag, sleeping pad, etc.)  That's what I did and got an F-stop Tilopa bag to put everything.  I have the medium ICU and it fits 5DmkIII, 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-300L, Lee filters, additional 3 LP-E6 batteries plus charger, intervalometer.  The pack is 48-liter and I can bring enough gear and supplies for a 5 day traverse.  My base weight is around 17lbs.

2

Canon General / Re: Think I need a 12 step program

« on: March 30, 2013, 02:13:47 AM »

I may have the cure to the camera gear buying addiction.  I just started photography and already have a full collection.  After my last purchase, the 16-35II, I took on another hobby of traveling and backpacking.  That seem to have cured my lens buying addiction...

except it got replaced by something else.  Now I'm spending more and more money on figuring out how to best carry what I need.  I just purchased a $400 Kata backpack, and I'm now looking at a much larger F-Stop Satori EXP.  I just spent almost $4000 on backpacking gear and clothing just from the beginning of the year and I'm just barely starting.  See, that my great cure, move on to something else. lol

I still need to get the 17 and 24 TSE but maybe after Canon released a high mega pixel camera and I got better using my current gear.

3

Lenses / Re: 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?

« on: March 16, 2013, 03:50:02 AM »

Thank you guys, i'm really conscious about comparing
two different focal range lenses and that's not comparable,

But i'ts about image IQ, it's to have an idea of what delivers
as image quality, to have an idea of what to expect comparing my 16-35 II

Thank again

+1 to PWP, not good to compare these two lenses, very different uses and composition.
and I agree with Dylan regarding the image resolutions from both of these lenses.

I know these are two very different images but I hope they give you an idea how much sharper and more contrasty the new 24-70II compared to the 16-35II.  Both images were sharpened for screen when uploaded by Lightroom, in low setting.

EF16-35II @ 16mm, F11 on a tripod and manually focused using live view

Frigid Vernal Falls by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

EF24-70II @ 24mm, f16 on a tripod and manually focussed using live view (one would think @f16 that diffraction will lower the resolution of this lens to the same level as 16-35 at f11)


Golden nugget and cotton candies... by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

It's a little difficult to see the difference on the monitor but I can definitely see the resolution difference when I printed both at 20x30.  My copy of 16-35II, at 28-35mm, the edges are noticeably soft even stopped down to f5.6-f9, but it's decent at the wider end where I need that lens to be useable.  I should add though that resolution is not the most important thing.  There are just those scenes that you can only get with a UWA lens that you can't reproduce with a 24mm.  So like Neuro said, there's a place for both these lenses in your kit.  You need both until Canon graces us with an even better UWA lens.

4

Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?

« on: March 09, 2013, 01:21:47 AM »

Processed in LR4.  Played with tone curve to bring out the details.  The scene seems not leveled to me so I distorted the image quite a bit.

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D markIII Live View noise

« on: February 19, 2013, 08:11:09 PM »

I've had two 5D MK II's,two 7D's and two 5D MK III's.  None of them had noise on the LCD screen.  However, when tethered to my PC, as the sensor warmed up after many minutes of operation, there would be noise.  Restarting the camera after a minute or two solved that.
 
All the Canon DSLR's I've had did the same, including the two 1 series bodies.  It did not matter if I was on battery or external AC adapter.  Many Canon users have noted this.

That's what I thought at first that the sensor was over heating.  I checked it again this morning in my room with better lighting than than when I first noticed it and I still get the noise.  I guess my camera has a sensor problem and I just have to call Canon.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D markIII Live View noise

« on: February 19, 2013, 06:19:20 PM »

There was too much noise in live view compared to my friends 5D mark II, and made it too difficult to focus.

You were using a lens with the same max. open aperture, right?

Yeah, we were both using the 16-35L II

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5D markIII Live View noise

« on: February 19, 2013, 12:25:10 PM »

I went on a trip to Yosemite this weekend and I tried using the 5D mark III for night shoot for the first time.  There was too much noise in live view compared to my friends 5D mark II, and made it too difficult to focus.  It's worse at 5x digital zoom.

I'm wondering if this is a problem with my camera body or there is something I can turn on/off on the menu.

I'm not sure if any of these matters but my settings are:
Live View shoot - enable
AF mode - Live mode
Grid display - 3x3+diag
Exposure simulation - disable (i tried this both on and off with the same results)
Silent LV shoot - disable (not sure what this does, but I tried the 2 modes and did nothing)
metering timer - 16 sec

Thanks for the help,
Christian

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Need seasoned advice - keep 5D Mark II or NO?

« on: February 09, 2013, 11:16:45 AM »

You should return it and get the 6D kit for just a little bit more money.  The 5DII and 6D will have very similar IQ.  You'll get newer tech with the 6D.  Upgrading from T4i means that you only have SD cards, if you get the 5DII you'll have to buy more expensive CF cards.  The 5DII focusing is crap, the 6D even betters the 5DIII in low light situations.  You don't need the 5DIII unless you're getting paid and need to shoot more efficiently.

9

Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good

« on: February 03, 2013, 09:23:17 AM »

We probably are not hearing much from 24-70 f/4.0 owners because not many are being sold - for good reason.  There are a bunch of hands-on reviews of this lens and the consensus is that it is either roughly equivalent or a very slight upgrade to the 24-105L.  Here is the link to the TDP review in case you missed it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As somebody else pointed out, it would be a decent alternative to the 24-105 if Canon had priced it around $800.  But, they priced it at double that!   So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach.  I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

Review is one thing, actual usage is another.  When I tried both the 24-105 and the 24-70mkI, I was never happy with the image quality when using them wide open, but I mostly shot at the extreme ends of the zoom.  I also understand about the usefulness of having a wide range of focal lengths in a zoom, if the 28-300L wasn't so damn heavy (and white) I would have gotten it.
 
On your 2nd point, the 24-105 was US$1049 when I bought it.  It was not $800.  I apologize now but I will be frank here, and this is not directed at you, it's for anyone here.  If price is the only issue for not getting the lens, then perhaps the lens is not the problem, it's your economy.  Grow your economy to match how you want to spend instead of complaining about something being expensive.

10

Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good

« on: February 02, 2013, 03:31:49 AM »

...
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....

I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it.  I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.

This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it.  Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better.  They also complained about the price.  Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.

11

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: February 02, 2013, 03:16:44 AM »

Beautiful landscape. Love the colors and the birds. Is this HDR? How did you do it, if you don't mind me asking? Thanks.

Thanks serendipidy!  No, it's not HDR.  I used a LEE graduated ND filter.  I just got lucky with timing the birds but they weren't flying that fast anyway.

12

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: February 01, 2013, 03:16:44 AM »

I'm really enjoying my new 16-35.  I'm glad I didn't wait for the rumored 14-24.  Here's one that, apparently, Flickr folks like.


Paw prints in the sands by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

13

Lenses / Re: Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good

« on: February 01, 2013, 02:47:27 AM »

I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the focal range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the focal range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the focal range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.

This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.


I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.

I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.

This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.

Really ?!?!

I am going to purchase a prime lens in the 85-135mm range, mostly for portraits and indoor shots on my 6D.
I already have a 70-200mm 2.8 II, but I often don't want to lug all that weight around.

I've been leaning towards the 135L, but recently have been thinking about buying a 100L macro for roughly the same cost as the 135 and using it for portraits and tightly framed indoor shots.  The 100L's macro capability would just be a nice plus I probably wouldn't use that much.

My concern with the 100L macro for my intended use is that I've heard it is soft beyond 10-15 feet.  I certainly need a lens that is capable of sharp pictures at longer ranges than that.  Does anyone who has used this lens have any comments or experience to share?

Since portrait and general purpose shooting is my primary need, should I just skip the macro lens for now and pick up the 135L?  I imagine I'll own both lenses eventually, but it might be 6-12 months before my next lens purchase.

The 100mm macro has harsh bokeh past macro distance. It should never be chosen as a portrait lens.

This is the same guy who say this about the 100mmL...

I wonder about your "reviews"... so far you couldn't be farther from the truth. I call total BS.

Haha!  He's no Neuro, alright.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Skin cover for 5d3 / 1dx

« on: January 28, 2013, 11:24:29 PM »

Would anyone know if skin covers for either of these cameras are available anywhere? I searched and failed.
Thx.

Sanj, I know this post is really old but if you're still looking for a skin cover, I found one for the 5DIII on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008FUZ06G/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1RUOWZ2794IXS

I guess this would just be for future owners looking for a similar thing

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Emergency wedding, of sorts.

« on: January 27, 2013, 04:25:59 AM »

I've done a couple of weddings in the past few months.  The first one was nerve racking so I know how you feel.  I was more relaxed for the 2nd one.  So my first advice is to relax and be confident.

You're good with the lenses that you have.  Since you only have one camera body use the 28-75 during the ceremony and during the 1st dance (or till after the father-daughter dance if applicable).  Switch to the 17-40 to get wider shots during the reception.  You wouldn't have time to switch out your lens so don't bother bring too much.  It would be best if you can get a flash unit.  One 480EXII should be enough.  ETTL is your friend.  No need to get a diffuser they are useless outdoors and not necessary indoors.  Figure out how to do flash compensation with your camera body.  Learn about the angle of the light and bounce, bounce, bounce the flash

That's it for the equipment.  Now, you have to relax.  You'll do fine.  Chances are that they would also ask other friends to shoot for them. Be assertive and don't let other people distract your subjects. Take control of the scene and tell them "there's no other camera in the room but your camera."  When you're done with the subject, you can then tell the other photographers that it's their turn.  Relax some more.  Get close to the subject.  Get really close or get really wide.

Most churches will not allow flash during the ceremony.  Assume that you can't use flash inside the church so practice how to quickly change your ISO.  You are allowed to stand and walk around inside the church during the ceremony.  Put your 6D in silence mode and turn the beep off so you can get a lot of candid shots.  Don't be afraid to walk around but wear quiet pair of shoes.  Turn your cell phone off.  Get really close.  You can stand behind them if you have to.

There's usually an hour before the reception.  This is a lot of time for posed shots.  Use a tripod if you have one.  emember to bounce the flash up the ceiling or wall, or manually zoom it to 24mm if you can't bounce.  The altar shoot should not take more than 15 minutes.  Start with the bride and groom in front of the altar.  Add the best man and the brides maid.  Bring in the brides parents.  Add any siblings.  Bring in the grooms parents. Add any siblings.  Ask the bride and groom for any other relatives or friends to be on the shot.  Proceed with the outdoor shoot with the bride and groom.  Hopefully you've scouted the area beforehand.  Treat this like you would a landscape.  Slow down and compose your shots.  Remember to check your focus.  If you go outside remember to check your ISO.  Don't be afraid to overexposed a little.  After the formal shots you can breathe much easier because the hard part is over.  Have fun, have a glass of wine.  The reception is not such a big deal.  it's just like taking pictures at a club. Shoot something unique to the wedding such as name place, table settings, cake toppers, etc..

Good luck and remember to relax.