March 03, 2015, 10:31:34 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.

Topics - RS2021

Pages: [1]
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / 580EX C. fn issue
« on: March 30, 2013, 08:01:37 PM »
Hi guys,

I use two older, 580ex's as A & B slaves (shown below) and a third 580exII functions as disabled on-camera master.

Recently I have noticed 580EX "B" slave is underexposing a bit. When I swap the two 580EX's (A switched as B assignation), the "A" side is now underexposing. So I think this has something to do with the physical B unit and not an issue at the level of the master or settings.

I now see the B unit always displays "C. fn" on LCD whatever I do with the settings (see picture). The kicker is that both 580EX units are set at C.fn values of "1/0" when I check. There appears to be no way for me to get the B unit C.fn off on the display. To be fair, I really wouldn't even have noticed the display difference between the two 580EX units or cared had it not been for the underexposure issue, so can't rule out it had always displayed that way on this unit. But the exposure issue is recent. So I am not sure if I toggled something or if the unit is malfunctioning or if the C.fn display is normal.

1) Could the display difference be just due to variance based on when or where the 580 units were bought from? "A" is newer and was bought in Europe over a trip, while B is from the US...

2) Is there a way to reset the whole B unit? I am a tad worried if the C. fn funciton is somehow toggled "on" in B unit and is responsible for the exposure discrepency. I am not a speedlite whizz so I am hoping there is an easy answer.

Best, Ray

Lenses / 35mm lenses and people photography
« on: March 03, 2013, 05:32:01 PM »
35mm focal length is a quintessential "people" lens...its use straddles a wide range of people-photography genres...from out-right portraits, to street- and event photography, to traditional reportage. I will post a few from a recent trip ...

This is a focal length that helps tell a story so I wasn't keen on pixel peeping...
These are 35L shots but any 35mm is a 35mm, no? :)

Lenses / Canon Primes FOV compared by Canon Reps
« on: February 25, 2013, 09:35:21 PM »
Came across this interesting short video, persumably by Canon personnel.

It compares some common canon primes, L and non-L, with the subject staying still and the video appears not to have received too many hits, so I wanted to share for those who may have missed it.

It is charming if you are a jaded, cynical old hand and highly informative for the newbies who don't have a feel for what it looks like through the view finder with various lenses in one go. Ah..hem, I found it charming  :P

In passing, I notice he stays at ~near minimum focusing distance for 85  f/1.8, 85L, and 135L generating interesting FOV comparison:

EOS Bodies / 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)
« on: February 23, 2013, 10:27:02 PM »
5D3 candle light shot at ISO H2 (102400)

Set up: Shot with 35L. Zero lights in any of the rooms with only the candle seen. Aperture priority f/1.4 generates shutter speed 1/1000 sec. House cat is mostly dark grey and you can see her under normal lighting in another post:

LR4 and export:   Everything that had a sliding dial on LR4, I set to zero (first pic and crop). No sharpening, no NR etc… WB was ‘as shot’. LR4, by default, wanted to set  NR “color” slider to 25 which clearly cleans up the picture a bit even if everything else is still at zero (second pic and crop). I am not a post-processing officianado, so be gentle.

I realize I can get a much cleaner picture by using a sensible ISO and slower shutter speed, but I just wanted to play with the extended ISO a bit. Coming from film, not so many years ago, getting a relatively discernible image at such low light and high shutter speeds would not even be thinkable for me. I do see the banding up top and the general ugly noise, but either today’s sensors are wonderful or I am one of those saps who is too easily pleased. Cheers! :)

Edit: Just uploaded the original CR2 Raws to skydrive, hope this works:

The primary shot used here at 1/1000 sec:!ADK2oOGh3O_uCXI

An extra shot that is slightly more exposed at 1/800 sec taken moments apart with the same setup as the primary:!107&authkey=!AOL_-sdrd4HXRmY

Lenses / 100-400L Version II ain't comin' either!
« on: January 25, 2013, 03:14:46 PM »
Though periodic rumors keep us guessing, I just don't see 100-400L update coming anytime soon, for reasons similar to the ones I listed for the 14-24L earlier, granted only point #2 really holds for the tele:

Canon simply may not see the release of an updated 100-400L II in its best interest right now.

The current 100-400L is a good zoom; they still sell a ton of them; and increasing its IQ any more could potentially cut into other new entries and higher priced lenses... including their yet to arrive in real life "200-400L + 1.4Ex".  They would want you to upgrade into the higher price rung if you are that eager and willing.

Remember, Canon has left a lot of lenses from early years as they are... this zoom is rather new in that context.

I have given up, though I naively thought that it will be coming and I can replace the push-pull, and may be get more complete/full weather sealing. 

A rumor here hailed earlier: "2013: year of the 400 lenses?" And I say, only if you are 420-friendly. ;) If you want a 100-400L get it now, no point waiting. I don't see such a lens showing up, regardless of the rumors that keep us on our toes.

Lenses / Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon
« on: January 13, 2013, 01:58:11 AM »
Canon may not be in any rush to introduce 14-24mm quickly in spite of all the hype in the rumor circuit...if it comes at all, it would be a pleasant surprise for those who are waiting....and not an expected obligatory move from Canon. In fact, some sober thought would suggest the wait is likely to be longer.


1) A minor issue is that there is no such thing as a "perfect" UWA zoom; the UWA designs are typically a jumble of compromises... and there *will be* no such perfection in the new Canon designs over and above the current UWA offerings. They may get it to be marginally better but they will face the same corner issues and will have to make compromises on distortion and vignetting and perhaps curved focal planes. So they won't be in a hurry to introduce yet another UWA zoom that comes up short…as it invariably will be given the high expectations.

2) Second problem is Canon's current line up on the WA and UWA end and its marketing strategy. The existence of a patent does not mean a product will be forthcoming soon.  They introduced relatively in quick succession  (not including the 17 TSE, and the 17-40L), the 16-35 II, and 14L II, and 24L II...and note all these are version II “updates”!  A high quality 14-24 zoom that goes across all these will be an issue. Especially with the 17-40 and relatively young 16-35II already in the lineup.

3) And above all, the worst assumption is that Canon will "have" to somehow match and compete with Nikon lenses on the EF mount! On camera bodies, yes, as Nikon can pull away new comers not attached to a brand by providing cheaper, better bodies. But on the high end EF lenses ...not so much.

Once you are in the lens kennel tied to the EF mount with multiple lenses in your collection, you are like fish in a barrel for Canon. And let’s face it, for a high priced UWA zoom, we are talking well-heeled folks who are unlikely to be newbies to the Canon Brand.

As the dominant dog in the kennel with a lens branding that is highly regarded ...Canon has less incentive to "match" anything that Nikon does.  Regardless of how stellar they are, the Nikon mount lenses do NOT compete directly with the Canon EF mount.

Yes, the whimpering from the impotent Canonites that they will switch to Nikon if Canon doesn't introduce this that or the other will continue...switch due to what? A single UWA lens while giving up the whole Canon platform? Laughable! And Canon knows this well. They can drag this out for long and still keep you guessing.

So yeah... sorry to rain on the parade, but I am just not convinced that 14-24 zoom is coming anytime soon. If it does, I will genuinely be happy for ya. :)

Lenses / January 8th Lens release rumor... a dud or a ruse?
« on: January 07, 2013, 07:24:52 PM »
For those of you still waiting for the Jan 8 rumored major EF lens releases based on the CR post, good luck…For the rest, ie, the sane and the disappointed…let’s face it …there ain’t gonna be no 35L II or 14-24L that’s about to be released imminently.

The CR post that got a lot of mileage and bazillion clicks here for CR, was a big dud… and hopefully was not a willful ruse by Canon or its panderers.

If it was a willful ruse, then it moved the focus from Sigma 35 to the purported "imminent” release of Canon's version of 35L II. It kept folks like us participating and clicking kazillion times on this site acting like the release is imminent, it has to be cuz, hey, it has been on the waiting list for so long...

As for some who think they are getting this 50mm whatever.... *chuckle*.

Jan 8th is here and I don’t think ANY major EF lens of any consequence is coming... (No, can't count the 200-400 1.4X which is a ~2 year old promise yet to be handled by the regular folks with multiple announcements and delays). This is a lame lame game that has been played before with the never coming 100-400L. String people along.
As it was a CR1, may be it is ok to say almost anything perhaps?  One has to wonder how CR ranks these so called “sources” with bad track records when they come up in future with an equally lame whopper. Hope the CR guy calls this "CR1" source on this and says..."look  f**kwad...what was this you said about two..."maybe" three lenses coming'?" ...and not put up anything from this source in future? …would CR post it anyway cuz …let’s face it… its slow going some months?

Instead of blaming Canon, perhaps one has to recognize the pathetic lameness in relying on games played by venues like this....then posting our “deep thoughts” (scoff!) like "I want my next lens to be gold plated and doing a jig" kinda says more about us...yes me included.

Ok…I’ll get off my soapbox! :P

The question is phrased with few options on purpose. Did you use a UV/haze protective filter on your EF 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its most recent use?

The aim here is to assess filter use among a narrowly defined group. I have avoided asking do you "generally" use filters as this can lead to subjective "calibration" of the response to suit attitudes that are deeply held but not practiced.

Because ultimately, actions speak louder than well thought out intentions. We all know the usual arguments for and against using UV filters that proponents use to support claims. Some fall back on specific lenses, where IQ may suffer vs. need to protect the front element, and needing it to complete weather sealing etc is frequently a slew of compromise explanations.

Let us try and gauge what we actually do in practice by taking a lens owned by good many, granted not all; and of 'relatively' decent $ value; with consensus on high IQ (that could arguably be degraded by a haze filter). To increase the sample size, either of the 2.8L IS versions are ok. This lens choice also hopefully ensures we aren't sampling exorbitant superteles or the lower price range lenses; but, something narrowly defined, commonly possessed, yet valuable.

In voting, please let only your actions speak. No "oh I could have" or "oh I wish I had" answers... No fudging...simple question: did you have it on during its most recent use?

EOS Bodies / Your thoughts on M-RAW vs RAW in 1DX vs 5D3
« on: December 07, 2012, 10:24:56 AM »
Would like your thoughts on how IQ compares between the two RAW formats particularly in 1DX, but perhaps it is equally interesting to hear from 5D3 and other users given the difference in sensor pixel density.

Do we have a "firm" sense of what canon is doing in downsampling or could that information be gleaned from real world testing some may have done? The general idea may be the same between the bodies but if they are binning (whatever the nuances), does this predict diminishing returns or even adverse returns with larger and larger pixels? Obviously 1DX and 5D3 are very different animals and several significant parameters other than just pixel density differ between the two and I realize this is a caveat.

EOS Bodies / Iconic photographs
« on: October 18, 2012, 11:32:22 PM »
As we all compare and complain about sensors, about softness of our lenses at the corners, about color accuracy, dynamic range and that pesky high ISO noise; I realized that a lot of iconic pictures were taken with more basic equipment, with a lot more blemishes and lot less detail…yet with a lot more staying power.  A photograph is more than just high resolution or that mark II lens we stuff our bags with. Sorry pixel peepers, I know the pics  I include are low res pulled off the net...but I am sure they are more recognizable than the ones we are all waiting to take with that future 1DX mark IV and that yet to arrive 24-70mm Mark VIII.   The gear we have now is awesome be it Nikon or Canon… so just enjoy the shooting! P.S.  This is just my short-lived reflective moment… I am sure soon I will be back to drooling over that 420MP Hassy they will be making in 2025. ;)

EOS Bodies / The Mirrorless Future
« on: August 19, 2012, 01:04:22 PM »
I was away from the site for a while and I see my profile, comments, and “karma” (good move CR) are all gone.

I saw the Canon product road map and chuckled a bit. Yes, Canon will put out more of the single reflex systems with hefty prisms, slap-down mirrors that “lock up”….with incremental tweaks to what is essentially last century ideas…to squeeze out profits with what they already have to the very last, wheezing, painful, breath. This is how companies work; this is how Canon will work, as long as they possibly can.

They will tease; introduce smaller mirrorless “systems”, just to keep a Canon-head like myself from jumping ship to a full frame competitor with less-storied lenses. We complain, we moan, write long comments on blogs for other Canon-heads, but at the end,  we are like those vacant-eyed calves they put on the conveyer belt… helplessly, meekly, bleating, we go down the “road map” to become yummy veal for Canon ;) 

But the future is now… some of what Canon does will depend on what the competitors do and what the market demands. I say “some” as one can never underestimate the sheer optimism (naïveté?)  of a diehard fan who will hang on tooth and nail even if the platform is being overtaken, not in steps, but in bounds.

I am happy with my Canon gear for now, as with everything, it is a balance; no one is perfect.  I am sure Miss America has one tit smaller than the other if you look hard enough ;) Only a pedantic fool will expect his Canon SLR to bring his beer in high resolution at 90 fps with a DR of 2 million ;). For the size of the sensor, the resolution, the quality of lenses, and the “I am used to it” factor… Canon is good. They are delivering at a slow, steady, dollar-squeezing pace. 

But to get back to the product road map, some of this will be dictated by the market forces.  Full frame mirrorless in a decent form-factor will have to come at a faster pace than I glean from that road map picture CR posted. And I predict it will … it has to.

Because, as with everything, there is an end to even the mindless optimism and naïveté of the diehard fan.  Canon is likely to drag it out for another 4 to 5 years… with “almost there” teases to keep you buying… we will have to wait and see.

But here is a sacred promise I make in the presence of other vacant-eyed calves on the conveyer belt… ID-X is my last miorred SLR… I do not plan on buying anymore “intermediate”…incremental flagships.
Enjoy your veal! ;)

Pages: [1]