March 04, 2015, 03:24:31 PM

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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 634
EOS Bodies / Re: Check your 11-24L for decentering!
« on: Today at 12:33:30 PM »
I'll test my copy soon, but I saw this on Dpreview yesterday have two notes on this - #1, this photo is from 2/14, so it's likely to be a prototype/pre-production model, and #2, the photo is not of a flat surface and the subject distance in the two lower corners is not the same.  I'm not saying it isn't decentered, but this isn't a very good photo to determine whether it is or isn't decentered.

Also, Johan, that's a nice page on your site.  I'll have to check it out when I have more time.

I also noted that this is not the best photo to test decentering.  I'd suggest that anyone checking a lens for decentering to look at Roger Cicala's article.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 50L on crop vs 85 F1.8 on FF at F2 ??
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:51:23 PM »
The 50mmL is a special lens, I'd never put one on a crop myself.  It is not a general purpose lens, so you need to appreciate the Bokeh for portrait use.

The 85mm f/1.8 is going to be sharper, but that's not always what you want in a portrait. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Upcoming Sigma "trifocal" lens?
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:24:49 PM »
That's a really old interview from last fall.  They are just dredging up stuff to improve their search engine rank.

Lenses / Re: TC generation / lens matching
« on: March 03, 2015, 05:26:55 PM »

It's certainly up to what I need for video and the three times a year I shoot action stills.   I always have some form of camera support (video background) so I never bothered with the IS route, when at the time the only IS version (1) was consistently regarded as the very slightly weaker lens.

I was happy with it until I read that it was lower end and not a serious lens, this morning.  Might bin it now.

Some posters like to belittle others.  They are often the ones who don't show their superior photos. ;)

Ignore them.


If Sony would sell their sensor business, Canon might be interested, but for now, that's almost all
Sony has that's worth anything.

I know you know Mt Spokane, but Sony is an insurance company and that is how the group manages to keep all the diverse and costly arms going. Sensors make money now, but nowhere near as much as the financial division and the investment has been stratospheric.

Their Financial Services is definitely a Cash Cow, but it looks so good because their Mobile Communications and everything else is so bad.  If they dumped the dogs, then they might actually make a decent profit.  Their last statement had gigantic write offs from failed and failing sectors. The Devices sector is looking much better now, and its likely that most of that is sensors.

If someone bought them, those bad sectors would be gone tomorrow.  They should break out the Financial into a separate company so its profit would not be diluted.  I'd bet share holders would like that.  They could dump everything but the financial shares.

Lenses / Re: TC generation / lens matching
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:55:42 PM »
A TC magnifies and flaws in the image imparted by the lens.  The 1.4X TC I ans 1.4X TC II are optically the same, while the ver III does have less distortions added.

I've found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS does take a TC pretty well when compared to the IS ver I lens.  However a 2X TC is noticeably worse.  It all depends on your tolerance for magnified flaws.  Most prints won't show any difference.

Sorry Mt. could you clarify...  do you mean non-iS or did you mean isii compared to ISv1?  Do you have any images you could show of non-is with & without TC?

A TYPO, I don't know what happened to the NON IS I intended to insert.

The NON IS version is really excellent, and overlooked by many.

Lenses / Re: Can someone please school me on Reikan FoCal??
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:51:34 PM »
60W are  equivalent to incandescent.
Going outdoors- I'm worried if I will have enough time to do calibration As I live in Middle East and Sunrise and Sunset is much  shorter here than in other part of the world
I saw on DP AFMA tips where Neuroanatomist was using 3 lamps each 150W  for the LensAlign MkII or the DataColor   SpyderLensCal . I cannot find lamps  which are able to accept more powerful bulb.
How about 500W

500 might do it, but be sure to get a 5500K bulb.

I have a Tota light that is 750 watts and heats up the room as well as giving out a lot of light.  The color corrected bulbs were expensive.

I just bought two inexpensive 32 watt LED work lights to try for photography.  They were rated at 2000 lumens.   I put them with two 85 watt CFL bulbs that put out 4250 lumens each, but the light output of the two alone is marginal.  I just installed them, and have yet to test them for actual photography.

They were on sale for $35 each.  They will at least make fill lights to ease shadows.

2000 lumens is about equivalent to a 200 watt incandescent lamp.

You might also check out the large CFL bulbs, They come from china and are cheap.  They need a light modifier or reflector, or at least, put them sideways to the subject.  Pointing them at the subject without a reflector won't work.

How much is Sony?

They want to purchase a business that is bring in profit by the truckloads.  The Axis purchase is expensive, but it will pay for its self in three years.  In three years, a Sony purchase might end up a net loss.

If Sony would sell their sensor business, Canon might be interested, but for now, that's almost all
Sony has that's worth anything.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Poor video quality or normal?
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:25:21 PM »

Afaik all photosites are used for image capture, but then the resolution is immediately reduced in the image pipeline? This would be the reason why a camera that uses "pixel binning" like the 5d3 has much better video quality than for example the 6d that has to apply an awkward downscaling algorithm.

Marsu, you are the expert on this.

Does the M use full sensor readout?  I know the 5D MK III does.  I thought the "M" used line skipping.

I run a non photography business, and am willing to offer it at a expensive price.  That must mean it qualifies ;D

EOS-M / Re: EOS-M And EFM22mm Low Light and Portability?
« on: March 03, 2015, 03:42:48 PM »
My GiX works well in low light (It doesn't compete with FF), and has a Zoom that handles wider angles than the 22mm.  The lens retracts to make it reasonably small, and AF is quite fast for a large sensor camera.

I don't claim its better than a "M", but it is a option to consider if you need a zoom that can do wide angles. 

EOS-M / Re: Question on USM speed on M/M3 with L lenses
« on: March 03, 2015, 03:33:05 PM »
The EOS M Cameras use contrast detection for autofocus.  Contrast detect works by moving focusing elements inside the lens back and forth to determine the best focus based on image contrast.

Large lenses have heavier and more complex glass focusing groups than the smaller and lighter weight consumer lenses.  They also use more powerful motors to move those elements.  All of this tends to slow down contrast detect autofocus for lenses with large and heavy glass elements.

This is one reason behind the patent for a EOS-M camera to lens adapter recently posted on CR.  The adapter has a small light weight lens element that can move very fast and then send the correct focus information to the attached lens, which then moves straight to the in focus position.  The processes decreases time for autofocus.  It may never actually happen, but the write up in the patent gives a good insight into the reasons for slow autofocus of the big "L" lenses when used with a contrast detect AF system.

I won't buy a "M" until they add phase detect AF or another technology that is equivalent.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Firmware update??
« on: March 03, 2015, 03:20:12 PM »
Every time a new higher MP camera arrives, we see posts about poor resolution.  In some cases, the cameras will have issues, and in some cases, its a learning curve.

I've taken to making my first shots with a new camera using a tripod and carefully controlled conditions so that I can see what performance and sharpness the camera is capable of getting.  I learned to do this many years back when I bought one of the first 7D's.  My first shots were awful, so I spent a few hours reading and taking controlled shots, then went back to the same location the following week, and images were suddenly great.

So, first use a tripod, turn off IS, have good lighting and take some shots using live view and live autofocus of a object 7-15 ft away using a 30mm more or less focal length.

If the images are sharp then vary the settings one thing at a time.   If not, I'd send the camera back for a exchange.

Assuming the image is sharp,  turn off liveview, but leave the camera on the tripod with the same settings and compare.  If images are poorer, than you need to use AFMA. 

You can keep changing settings until you understand what is the cause of your issue.

In most, but not all, its just a matter of learning to use a new camera with much more complex options.

I have purchased many used DSLR's that were virtually unused from locals who switched from P&S bodies to DSLR and expected images to be perfectly in focus at all distances just like their old camera.  They said the camera image is not sharp!

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Poor video quality or normal?
« on: March 03, 2015, 02:33:14 PM »

I have an EOS M and I like it very much for photos but as I tried the video mode I was a bit disappointed.

It looks less sharp und less detailed. If I capture a still image ("Photo in Movie") in the 2 MP mode (In the menu the option "Image quality" and then "S2" and "Aspect Ratio" 16:9) I will get a much better quality. Here are two samples, one with the 2 MP Still-Photo-Mode und the other a Screenshot from the video-file:

2 MP Still-Photo-Mode:

As you can see, the "normal" Photo is much better, better colors, better sharpness, details, etc.
Both were shot at the same time ("Photo in Movie") with the EF-M 18-55mm IS STM, 18 mm, ISO 125, Av 9.0, Tv 1/40.

What I also noticed is, that shadows in the videos are more darker.

So is this normal or does the camera have a defect?

Thank you very much in advance and I look forward to your reply.

Best regards

You are misunderstanding what you are seeing.

In your example of the "Photo in movie" image, the camera stopped taking a video momentarily, and took a full resolution photo and then reduced it to the "S2" size.  You did not take a 2MP photo, you took a 18mp photo and reduced it.  Reducing a 18mp photo to a small size will result in a much better photo than a 2K video grab.

Video does not work the same way.  About 1/9 of the photosites are used to capture the image, so you get a much poorer quality when you look at one frame.  Video works by showing the frames at a high speed, and your eye / brain averages what you are seeing to make it look much sharper than a single frame.

So, your camera is working fine, you are comparing two very different things.  If you had set the image quality to "High", you would have a much better still image, but the video would not change.  That's because the image quality settings only apply to still photos.  As we move to 4K videos, the individual frames will be about 8mb and a single frame will look much better.

Does this help?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 634