September 02, 2014, 10:20:07 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 - Marsu42

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 295
Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: September 01, 2014, 08:18:48 AM »
can you program the rate button to activate AEB like a 1D does with its button press?

I'd say yes, the RATE button can be intercepted by ML (see /platform/5D3.113/gui.h) and any other possible function can be performed. This includes simulating other keys or directly accessing Canon DryOS functions that have been discovered. Activating Canon AEB (and setting it to different spacings/settings on consecutive keypresses if you want it) should be among them.

If you want this implemented and cannot hack together a module yourself after looking at the sample code, do a detailed feature request in the ML forum and explain why this is important to a broader userbase. It should be pretty easy to do, I  changed several buttons on my personal 6d ML build. ML is nearly feature-overloaded as it is so adding yet another one might need some persuasion: your request is rather specific and the ML guys prefer their own bracketing over Canon's version.

ML badly needs a button manager for these things, but it's a lot of gui work so no one has had the enthusiasm yet. You also might get the reply that this isn't something to be added in C code, but by user scripting - but afaik this is wip and doesn't work atm (yeah, 3 internet geek abbreviations in one sentence :->).

Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:43:24 AM »
It puzzles me why Canon won't out a customizable button a little further down.  It would things a lot easier...

With Magic Lantern, you could switch keys and put the SET function on AF-ON and vice versa. If you use BBF a lot, SET might be easier to reach, at least on some camera bodies. It's not included in the standard ML distribution, but there are other key swtiching/simulation functions already there and you'd only have to copy/paste the code.

Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:17:54 AM »
Ah, got it. Thanks!

Thanks all for explaining :-). Indeed I do ec correction with the back dial all the time, and even change af points even with the 6d - so my thumb is allocated elsewhere. That's also the reason why I use expo lock (hold) on the * key. BBF would be overkill since I af 95% of the time for wildlife.

Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: August 30, 2014, 04:03:42 AM »
If I need to decouple focus from the shutter button for any reason, I'm much more likely these days to switch to manual focus.

Inspired by a post in this forum, I recently changed my cameras to use "af off" on the "AF-ON" button. It needs holding down while focusing, but is quicker than to reach for the af/mf lens switch. Pity there is no "af off (hold)" option.

Software & Accessories / Re: Problem with Canon Tripod Mount C (70-300L)
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:58:53 AM »
Well, I bought the tripod collar for my 70-300L and after 1 week of use the velcro inside chafed itself, which led to not being able to turn the lens around, because that material is so sticky. I sent it to Canon and they sent me a new one, same problem again.

Sorry to hear this problem, Canon won't produce them themselves but buy them from changing manufacturers. For that price and the fact that it isn't included in a €1300 package, you can try sending it back until they give you an acceptable one if you insist other people got a version that doesn't need tampering with.

Personally, I bought a ~$10 Chinese rip-off version of this thing, which (sorry to add insult to injury) is just fine and lets the lens turn if you don't fasten it as far as it goes. The Chinese version doesn't match the lens' color 100% though :-p

Lenses / Re: Will we see a refresh for the Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro?
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:49:12 AM »
And I'm glad I'm not alone thinking that with IS and bringing the speed to at least half a stop faster, this lens would make a great dual purpose lens (although I would primarily use it for macro).

Apart from wishful thinking, I doubt it though that with IS it will be faster. Much more likely it'll be f4 because the IS mechanism takes space and you'll end up with a even heavier lens with a large front diameter. Last not least, newer lenses seem to be designed for high mp cameras, so adding up this would be a 200L-like price tag.

Canon has shown on their latest IS releases that they think with the extended iso capability of newer cameras, f2.8 or even faster is not really necessary for the wide market. And for macro, I agree - f2.8 on the 100L on ff is so thin it's only good for effect shots.

Lenses / Re: Will we see a refresh for the Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro?
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:35:17 AM »
same build and reliability

Not exactly, the 70-300L is an external zoom which makes it less reliable - no matter the build quality, you keep pumping air (and humidity and dust) into the lens. That's why I'd favor primes like a 180L which would still be lighter and probably shorter than the 70-200L. With Canon's hybrid IS and L sealing it would be an instant classic.

Ot, Canon also didn't grace the 70-300(!)L with a focus limiter switch the 70-200(!)L has ... thanks, Canon :-p. Imho a seldom mentioned, but important real difference is that the 70-300L has a "radial" and less smooth bokeh because the front opening is only 67mm vs. 77mm on the 70-200L ... and this shows no matter how stopped down it is.

Lenses / Re: Will we see a refresh for the Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro?
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:56:13 AM »
because I hate the weight of my 70-200/2.8L II (basically the only thing I dislike about that lens :) ).

This is 1/3rd of the reason why I didn't buy it (the others length & $$$). A camera+70-300L+flash is about the max. weight I'm willing to lug around all day outdoors. More weight would mean completely different handling, at least for me.

There is always also faster 200/2.8L, which is optically awesome, but lack IS just as the 180/3.5L, but also cost a fraction of the venerable 200/2L IS :)

One thing I've learned from using my 70-300L is that IS is invaluable at these focal lengths - not for reducing shutter speed alone, but for stabilizing the frame = less safety margin = more usable resolution / more sharpness. Of course IS doesn't matter at macro distance, handheld or not, but if you don't get Canon's great IS system you can go for a 3rd party manufacturer right away.

Lenses / Re: Will we see a refresh for the Canon 180mm f/3.5L USM Macro?
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:33:35 AM »
'm surprised though.  It came out in 1996.  It's been 18 years.

Doesn't mean anything with Canon, look at the 50/1.8 lens they're still producing.

I'd very much like to see an IS version of the 180mm macro because the working distance of the 100L is rather short on full frame and a good ~200mm prime would be a terrific dual-use lens for wildlife with IS and today's cameras iso capabilities. Alas, this might be just the reason they *don't* release it: The current 180L is 1500€, the (admittedly faster) 200L 6000€. Go figure.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D MKII
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:38:19 PM »
It is particularly baffling as interchangeable focus screens is a more "pro" feature yet only the entry level 6D and top of the line 1DX current Canon FFs have it, the midrange 5D3 lacking oddly.

Not really, the 6d is a copy of the 5d2 which had this feature. Canon obviously just chose to separate the 1dx from the 5d3 here, though there seem to be (expensive) 3rd party options available for the 5d3. Given the bad af performance I reckon a 6d with a mf screen is a "backup" body for most, probably just what Canon calculated it should be.

ISO noise I can understand as the 6D is newer and has a newer sensor, but it is still something to consider if buying now... I would not buy a 5D3, but if Canon fixes these things in a 5D4 I'd buy it.

The 6d's advantage is less vertical banding which only matters if you raise the shadows a *lot*. It does matter though in combination with the higher dr and Magic Lantern's dual_iso module to give the 6d a higher boosted dr than the 5d3.

As for pure iso snr, don't forget the 5d3 has a bit higher resolution so downsampled it's wash. Maybe, just maybe you could argue for 1/3ev less noise, but that's barely noticeable.

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D MKII
« on: August 26, 2014, 02:29:49 PM »
It would be a much more attractive option if it had the joystick for focus point selection. I honestly like a lot of what the current 6D offers.

Personally, I'd say a joystick for 11 af points (10 non-crosspoint, one only crosspoint at f4+) is overkill - these few points are selected quickly with the multicontroller. Coming from the 60d, I feel very at home with the right-hand only layout of the 6d.

EOS Bodies / Re: Exmor vs DualISO
« on: August 26, 2014, 05:31:37 AM »
The last thing I want to show is that there is another type of artifacting that can occur in situations where you push the secondary ISO very high, for this example 3200, and you have thin lines (i.e. small branches or wires) running almost parallel to the sensor rows.

In theory, this can happen at any iso combination. The way the cr2hdr postprocessing utility works, it tries to interpolate the scanlines and reconstruct missing data in the the shadows and highlights that is only available in one half-picture. Well, if detail happens to be just in one scanline and is clipped, that's that. But Alex (the lead ML programmer) might refine cr2hdr even more to minimize the inherent problems.

But compared to the difference between a vanilla 5D3 and the A7 and this becomes a pretty amazing result.

Thanks for the comparison! Fyi, the 6d works even better with dual iso since the dynamic range is a bit higher and it has less banding noise when pulling the shadows. I use dual_iso more and more at iso 100/800 these days, gaining +2.5ev dynamic range with nearly no iq drawback on the 6d.

Unfortunately, in real life you cannot reduce the comparison to tech aspects. The workflow problems of dual_iso vs. a native high dr sensor are in my experience:
  • it's harder to check for focus in camera because the image is interlaced
  • it's impossible to check for colors because they are screwed before processing with cr2hdr
  • postprocessing hassle, esp. time required for cr2hdr processing
  • dual file storage because you want to keep around the original cr2 in case cr2hdr receives further improvements
  • results usually needs manual wb (esp. tint) setting even though cr2hdr tries to autodetect it

Software & Accessories / Re: CR2 files corrupted
« on: August 26, 2014, 05:15:14 AM »
i've also used the transcend recover x software successfully after reformating a card after a wedding ceremony... now THAT was a sphinter twitching moment....

LOL, I guess we all can vividly imagine like *that* felt :-> ... this is one of the reasons I'd really rather have a dual-slot 5d3 than a single-slot 6d, Murphy's Law dictates that the card will wait to fail until a critical moment :-o

Software & Accessories / Re: CR2 files corrupted
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:09:56 AM »
I soon realised what I'd done, and managed to recover a load of CR2 files with the correct dates and times taken on (using Stellar recovery software), but it seems as though they are all corrupt. The file sizes look like other CR2's I've had before - 22 - 24Mb.

A similar disaster happened to me just the day before yesterday, for the first time I have to day. The first recovery (usually very good) software I tried was unsuccessful and the cr2 files just contained garbage data - sd cards seem to need different handling than hard disks.

I then succeeded with "Raise Data Recovery" for fat, after a deep scan of the sd card it managed to save all cr2 files intact. If you didn't write to the card after formatting it might very well for you the same way. Good luck!

Edit: Unlike other first-time posters writing about data recovery software, this post is not spam :->

Software & Accessories / Re: Jpeg image sizes?
« on: August 26, 2014, 03:52:51 AM »
DPI does not affect jpeg file size. Number of pixels does, as does content (more detail bigger files), noise, iso (because of the noise), quality setting etc.
Makes sense, I have no excuse for my senility ;)

But I can understand the notion because pixel processing software like LR seems to make makes a large fuss about dpi settings, but it only matters for import into desktop publishing and is irrelevant for other print/screen purposes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 295