October 21, 2014, 10:26:47 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 ... 16
1
Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: October 18, 2014, 02:10:31 PM »
I'm grateful my Paul C Buff CyberCommander has a built-in accurate flash meter.  For studio lights, having the flash meter saves a tremendous amount of time.

For the life of me, I can't see the point of a meter if flash/strobe is not involved.  My 5D3, and for that matter, 60D do such a great job.  In M mode, I always use Center Weighted, as suggested by a friend, and get consistently excellent exposures.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 03:49:59 PM »
Eldar, thanks again for your logical, thorough approach to evaluating your copies of the 50mm Art.  You were one of the first members to post about your experiences.

At this point, we've pretty much come to the end of what can be done with the current version of the firmware.  Either there is a problem with QC of the Sigma, or there is some elusive variable within Canon bodies, especially, it seems, the 5DIII.

Sigma has released some firmware updates this month, and from what I remember, the 35mm Art got its firmware update within about the same amount of time after release as we are in now for the 50mm Art.

So, my hope is eternal and my fingers are crossed.  Lets see what the update brings.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 10:16:41 AM »
My first copy was BAD. Totally psycho. All over the place with the auto focus. I spent the better part of a day trying to calibrate it with the the dock, then thought, "why am I doing someone else's job???". LOL!

The lens was so incredible when actually focused, that I HAD to give it another shot. (B&H is very understanding of this issue.) I sent the first one back and tried another. Glad I did. Out of the box it was a completely different experience. Very slight tweaking on the dock.  I left the focus adjustments on my 5DIII on zero.

The whole experience is a bit ridiculous for a $950 lens..but it does WOW me. :-)

Glad to hear this additional case of success on a second try.  I will definitely buy a new one when the firmware update is announced.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 16, 2014, 05:44:53 AM »
Please pay attention:  The AF problems popping up on the Sigma 50mm ART are not AFMA related.  It is some kind of firmware issue or other problem that causes certain cameras, such as the 5D3, to not be able to use the outer cross-type points at all, or the inner points reliably.

Apparently massive numbers of owners are NOT having this problem, but I had it, as have others seeking answers in this forum.

So, take a deep breath, and stifle that urge to defend a brand without hearing what the problem is.  And I will repeat:  The 35 ART is one of my favorite lenses ever, as is my Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye!

5
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 15, 2014, 12:21:09 PM »
Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.

I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->
Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?

Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?

Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW.  Comments like these don't make sense at all.

You mean the 60D had no MFA.  Feature returned in the 70D!  (pg 377, user manual)

6
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
« on: October 14, 2014, 10:05:22 AM »
I thought from the first that the crippled AF of the 6D made it a misfire.  Despite the chorus of defenders, Canon agrees!  Its AF was inferior to that of the 60D, for cryin' out loud.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 13, 2014, 01:39:08 PM »
Budget is the only reason to go with cropped.

Except maybe for the amazingly spec'd 7DII.

8
Lenses / Re: Thoughts on Having a 35 and a 50 on Crop?
« on: October 13, 2014, 07:15:46 AM »
Neil Van Niekerk, great photographer and teacher, has an excellent discussion:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/full-frame-vs-crop-sensor-cameras-comparison-depth-of-field/

9
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 01:45:11 PM »
I wouldn't give it a second glance at f/4.  At f/2.8, it would work great at low light events wide open, as I'd be able to zoom to 24mm for small groups, creative portraits, details...And it would work great wide for small to medium tents to bring in lots of environment, energy.

But I would want the f/2.8 ability to reduce ISO a stop and get faster shutter speeds.

It would be a shame if Canon couldn't come up with a great fast UWA, suggesting that the company's innovative days are tapped out, or they're having internal battles about shrugging of the professional dSLR market.


10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Woe and Pathos in the Sigma 50 Art?
« on: October 06, 2014, 02:54:48 PM »
I think is the perfect example of why the Sigma AF issues are so bloated and exaggerated. Those shots are absolutely fine and usable. It's posts like these (though usually without sample photos) that infect others with paranoia, causing them to be hypersensitive to their Sigma AF. Then they go out and do all these repeated, silly tests looking and looking to find that issue and what do you know - they find one. Hmm, think their drive and determination to find a problem might have resulted in a false-positive? Every lens has AF that varies a bit, but the problem is most don't scrutinize their other glass to the same degree, leading them to the erroneous conclusion that it's a uniquely Sigma or third-party lens issue, when in reality most of their glass would perform similarly under the same inspection. While of course there are very valid issues with the occasional lens, the Sigma "AF epidemic" is hardly what online camera communities make it out to be.

Did I mention those sample shots are fine and usable? Maybe a lil AFMA and you're good. Seriously.



I had a bad one.  Outer AF useless on two 5D3's, center point erratic.  Otoh, my 35 Art was great after typical AFMA in-camera.

Sent it back for a refund, but won't try again til firmware update.

Why bash customers who have had bad luck?

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Long exposure questions on 5D MK3
« on: October 05, 2014, 06:43:14 AM »
Brian, I'm glad you asked about the High ISO NR, as I hadn't thought much about it since buying my 5DIII almost two years ago.  Rather than summarizing an excellent article on the subject, I'd refer you to this post on Canon USA's website: 

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/high_iso_noise_reduction_article.shtml

The key word in this article might be "experiment." 

As for question number two, I'd be very interested to hear what some of the more engineering-minded regulars of CR have to say, but from my own experience, in the lower ISO values (400 and below), factors like wind or the steps of a passerby or the passing of something in front of the field of view are much more important than a little difference in noise.  That said, even a normal exposure (eg 1/200th) is going to reveal a little more noise at ISO 400 than at ISO 100, so starting out lower seems pretty sensible when possible.  But you do raise a good question about length of sensor operation effecting noise more than ISO value.

But if you are seeing "very noisy" at ISO 100, I wonder if you are trying to boost the shadows too much in post processing?

Question 3...The longest lens I have with IS is the 70-200mm 2.8 II.  In my experience, turning IS off on the tripod is a must, no matter how long my exposure.  Page 10 of the user manual suggests turning IS off for long exposures, otherwise "the stabilizer function may introduce errors."  From my undertstanding, I don't think IS gives any real benefit once the shutter speed is below 1/15th of a second or so for a still shot.

Question 4 is probably another candidate for experimenting, especially with Milky Way type shots, but page 145 of the 5DIII manual, referring to Long Exposure NR, does state:  "Images taken at ISO 1600 or higher may look grainier with the [Enable] setting than with the [Disable] and [Auto] settings." 

This seems to be suggesting a ballpark answer.

I'm going to go back and experiment more with High ISO NR.  I've had very good luck with cityscapes at night with Long Exposure NR, but I turned off High ISO NR two years ago and left it off, depending on Lightroom and sometimes Photoshop to deal with noise.

Here's a link, also to Canon USA, that puts a lot of nighttime exposure advice in one place, with a good reminder about mirror lockup:  http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/long_exposure_landscapes.shtml

Also explains Long Exposure NR a bit.

12
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II pricing and feedback
« on: September 29, 2014, 06:18:50 PM »
A lot of ridiculous threads of late.

13
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 01:13:27 PM »
Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.

Great catch!

14
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:01:33 AM »
Fake.  F/4 makes no sense.

Makes perfectly sense... People photogs (the only ones that need 2.8) would never use 11mm, because it distorts the image too much. For them, a new 16-35/2.8 is much better, which this lens would leave space for. Then Canon would have three wide angles to choose from, but to have all FL's and apertures covered, you gotta at least buy two of them... ;)
Besides, I don't think you could do 11mm/2.8 that easy. But looks like a nice supplement for the already great lens lineup! :D

Hmm...Reasonable. I was thinking too little differentiation after release of newest 16-35 f4, and Nikon has done so well with its 14-24mm...And you know Canon wants another $2500 L in the lineup.

I still say the image is a fake.  Too ugly.

Plus the website OP says this is "listed" on looks like a shady electronics dumping ground.

15
Lenses / Re: EF11-24mm F4L listed on a Japanese site
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:56:32 AM »
Fake.  F/4 makes no sense.

The image is good PS, but still looks like PS.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16