November 23, 2014, 08:49:48 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 - markko

Pages: [1] 2
1
Photography Technique / Re: Tethered Shooting with 5D III & Microsoft Pro 3
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:50:57 PM »
Hi all
I am looking for a setup to do tethered shooting for Architecture/Property interior & exterior shoots & was thinking of using the new SP3.
Has anyone any experience with the SP3 for shooting or post production in LR5 and if so could you please share with me the specs of your SP3 and your thoughts on it's suitability including screen colour accuracy.
The SP3 was only released in Australia Monday so its just showing up in stores now.
Any thoughts appreciated.
Michael

I use the SP2 with i5 and 8GB of RAM as my working machine and happily use Photoshop CC and Premiere CC; as these run fine for me, I think LR5 would also run fine.

I agree with FEBS that 8GB RAM is really useful/required, but the i7 model is not the only one with 8GB. There is also an i5 model with 8GB RAM and 256 SSD, selling for 1,319 euro (here in the Netherlands).

The SP2 screen is even smaller than the SP3, but if you're close enough to the screen it's really OK to work with.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII dual cards
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:28:14 PM »
3kramd5 - I shoot JPEG with the various adjustments and RAW in the hope that I've got something to work with if I cock up.  Also, as you are probably aware, the SD card slot is crippled and it's faster to save JPEGs to SD.

I used to have the same thought, but you might want to test if "it" is really true. With "it" I mean: is the JPEG-conversion plus writing to SD card really faster than writing a larger RAW file away to the SD card?

I did this test a long time ago, but I think writing RAW files to the SD card was faster, because the camera doesn't need to convert to JPEG.

However, I still use the SD card as the place to store the JPEGs and the CF for the RAWs. Not only for backup reasons, but also to have the JPEGs immediately available for easy sharing to others and I also really like the quality of the in-camera processing.

Cheers,

Mark.

3
Lenses / Re: Rubber covering loose on zoom of 24-70 II - advice?
« on: August 22, 2014, 06:58:19 PM »
Colleagues:
The rubber grip or cover that fits on the zoom ring on my 24-70 II has come loose and become very slightly stretched out. At this point it is a minor annoyance, not a disaster, though I am going overseas next week and don't like surprises. Any suggestions for managing this problem? Or should I send it back to CPS (after I return) and get it replaced? Thank you for your time.

I have the exact same problem. As I don't want the hassle of shipping it, I just ordered a new ring yesterday. Apparently it's quite easy to change the rubber yourself... :)

In a thread on dpreview.com I encountered the part number: YB2-3754-000 . If you google something like "canon zoom ring YB2-3754-000" I'm sure you will find some useful references to where you can buy it.

The thread on dpreview is this one: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52949053

Cheers,

Mark.

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 19, 2014, 05:06:56 PM »
Apparently the D610, Df, and D810 aren't enough in the $2-3000 range.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/08/08/another-full-frame-nikon-dslr-camera-coming-for-phiotokina.aspx/

I gotta say, I'm glad Canon isn't getting into this silliness.

Looking at the link below, I think they'll announce the D820...  ;D

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3182497502/nikon-announces-service-advisory-for-d810-bright-spots

5
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: June 29, 2014, 10:38:17 AM »
Yesterday I went out with four wide-angles:
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II
  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4
  • Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II

For people that like to see pictures of walls: I took a few shots with each lens at the same piece of wall. The RAW files of these pictures and some additional pictures can be found in this ZIP file (contains 54 RAW files; 1.7GB large):

http://markkoenen.nl/downloads/2014-06-28-4-wide-angles-RAWs.zip

You can judge on the image quality yourself. Handling of the lens is as you would expect for this type of L-lens except for one thing: in case the image stabilization is turned on, the lens makes a weird noise occasionally. Not while you're focussing, but especially during moments that you point the camera at something else.

I thought this was an error in the specific lens that I got, so I went back to the shop and tried another copy of the 16-35mm f/4 and it had the exact same noise. It annoyed me this much that I turned off the stabilization  ;)

Cheers,

Mark.

The four lenses:


The wall:


One of the other random pictures:

6
Today I went out with four wide-angles:
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II
  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4
  • Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II

For people that like to see pictures of walls: I took a few shots with each lens at the same piece of wall. The RAW files of these pictures and some additional pictures can be found in this ZIP file:

http://markkoenen.nl/downloads/2014-06-28-4-wide-angles-RAWs.zip

You can judge on the image quality yourself. Handling of the lens is as you would expect for this type of L-lens except for one thing: in case the image stabilization is turned on, the lens makes a weird noise occasionally. Not while you're focussing, but especially during moments that you point the camera at something else.

I thought this was an error in the specific lens that I got, so I went back to the shop and tried another copy of the 16-35mm f/4 and it had the exact same noise. It annoyed me this much that I turned off the stabilization  ;)

Cheers,

Mark.

The four lenses:


The wall:


One of the other random pictures:

7
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 17, 2014, 06:12:52 PM »
They published those photos a few days ago in the Netherlands by Canon. But, small size. Seems marketing wise not consistent.

A link to the above mentioned Dutch page with a gallery on the right:

http://www.canon.nl/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Wide_zoom/EF_16-35mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.aspx

8
Lenses / Re: If you could only have three lenses...
« on: June 03, 2013, 04:33:43 PM »
Currently I carry these three with me all the time:
  • 17-40mm 4.0
  • 24-70mm 2.8 II
  • 70-200mm 2.8 II

As you can expect I'm very in love with the 24-70 and the 70-200. I had the 16-35 2.8 II, but I didn't like it's fuzzy borders on a full frame, so I replaced it with the 17-40.

Here is hoping for a new super wide-angle @ f/2.8.

Cheers,

Mark.

9
Lenses / Re: Why pick 16-35 f2.8 over 17-40 f4
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:45:53 PM »
If anyone of you used 16-35 or have both lenses that can share some of your experiences and benefits of have 16-35 over 17-40 aside from aperture because i always have it on f8-f11.

I used the 16-35 many years with great pleasure on my 1.3-crop-1Dmk3. After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with the full frame 5Dmk3 I started to notice the softness of the 16-35 at the borders of the image.

After I went to a camera-shop and shot some test photos with the 16-35, 17-40 and the 24-105, I bought the 17-40 as it performed much better on the 5Dmk3 (sharper). The 16-35 is catching dust right now...  :(

Cheers,

Mark.

10
Lenses / Re: New Wide Angle Zoom Discussion & Opinion
« on: August 15, 2012, 01:16:25 PM »
I own a 16-35mkII and it worked perfectly with the 1Dmk3 I had.

After I replaced the 1Dmk3 with a 5Dmk3 the 16-35mkII wasn't good enough anymore: the off-center unsharpness is just too visible. I bought the 17-40 which is a lot sharper (but obviously lacks the F/2.8).

I really like the 16/17 to 35/40mm focal range, so I'm really hoping they are going to release a sharp 16-35mm F2.8. The 14-24mm F2.8 sounds as a nice addition to the 24-70mm, but for the type of photography I'm doing I'd rather use a 16-35 + 70-200mm combo.

Just my 2 cents.

Mark.

11
So is it only in AI-Servo mode it goes black?  Does the Single Shot still glow red?

Yes, if you set it to always illuminate.

What option on my 5Dmk3 am I missing to make this happen? I always shoot Single Shot and never see the focus points red (except for when they gained focus).

There is not much to complain about with the 5Dmk3, but missing the red focus point(s) is by far my number one complaint about the camera.

12
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Rebates & BG-E11 Shipping Updates
« on: June 06, 2012, 07:34:36 AM »
Regarding Dutch availability: I just received my battery grip and GPS receiver for the 5Dmk3 from Foto Konijnenberg ( http://www.fotokonijnenberg.nl/ ).

I've been using a 1Dmk3 for the past 4 years, so I'm crying tears of joy now, that I can finally attach the battery grip to the 5D!  :)

13
The single genuine disappointment for me is the viewfinder issues with the red not being visible in good light and the dark points not being visible in poor light. That's nearly at the point of inexcusable. But I'm so happy with the camera that I'll put up with it :)

Exactly the same here :) That's why I was pleased to hear/see Chuck Westfall mention that they might address the issue in a future firmware. Check out his quote in this video (at 8m20s):

Canon's Chuck Westfall speaks with planet5D at NAB 2012

14
Thank you very much markko, I think that answers our question!

Welcome  :)

One question remains unanswered, though: how do you pick the right value for adjustment!?  :-\

I have the Lens Align tool, but still: I just used it by night in the living room and the difference in the values is so little... I think I have to use it at daylight, so that I'm really really really sure that I see the red dot through the center hole (and the lens is aligned properly with the tool).

The odd thing happened that the tool suggested an adjustment that I would expect the opposite when I was looking at real world pictures.

15
Thanks!  How finely?  For example, what do 85mm and 200mm look like on the 28-300mm?

I don't have a 28-300m, but I did some tests with my 70-200mm II and 100-400mm:

Pages: [1] 2