July 24, 2014, 12:26:06 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 - Frodo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
I tried a slide adaptor in my reasonably good Canon scanner - results were pathetic.
I then made an adaptor that screws on the front of my EF 50mm macro with extension tube.  This tube holds the slide at just the right distance for 1:1 (actually a little less so I crop slightly when processing) and a bit further back is a diffuser made out of a plastic ice-cream container lid that was neutral in colour.  I can take a photo of the adaptor if people are interested.
I then use a flash on a TTL cord to illuminate the slide.  Use auto exposure but found I need to give about +1/2 - 1 stop to get the best image.
I clean dust off the slides reasonably well, but find that the last spots are much easier to remove in Lightroom.
I found that using the medium RAW file on my 5DII was about right - the full resolution file is more than the original slide and is wasted resolution.
I have a preset for processing the slides.  I find that I can "improve" the slides significantly by filling in the shadows yet retain highlights, as well as correct colour balance, and remove dust and fungus (lots of fungus on my Kodachromes, but at least they retained colour well). 
I produce two jpgs: a full resolution (of the medium RAW file) and one that will fit within a 1920x1080 full HD TV screen. Then I delete the RAW file.  Once the images are backed up I through away the slides. 
This works well and the sharpness is great.  The most time is spent in processing the image in Lightroom, but I think that this is a part of the process that makes a huge difference.
I ended up doing over 10,000 slides this way.

I have one of these lenses.
The focusing ring is very smooth and there is no backlash.  I think you would feel backlash when twisting the focus ring back and forth.
It is true that there is variability with the position of the distance scale in relation to the actual focus.  My first lens was about 1cm off along the distance scale.  The focus ring seized and I got a new one under warranty - this one is spot on.
I suspect the issue is the huge depth of field.  I would not rely on differences on the screen even at 10x.  Take a photo where you see "critical focus" when focusing at 10x from the minimum point and another focusing from infinity and a third in between.  Then examine the images on screen (or print).  That is the critical test.  I suspect that there will be little difference between the three images.

Canon has deliberately locked me, as an owner of a 5DII and 7D, out of its own software.  I can't imagine that there are specific firmware features of the new cameras that would rely on a specific version of DPP.  Even if this were the case, other processing software provides updates for specific cameras.

This is clearly a deliberate decision, probably by the marketing team.

In any case, I have Lightroom, which I've had since day one (actually before then, with Raw Shooter).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Auto ISO
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:12:45 PM »
I know this thread is about the 5D3, but on the 5D2, auto-ISO is useless.  On Av mode, which I use most, the shutter speed is 1/focal length.  I have steady hands but this often does not produce critically sharp images.  And on manual, Auto-ISO sets at 400.
Well, the Canon marketing gurus know their stuff - this is one of the reasons I'm considering upgrading.

Taken with my good old 17-40 and 50D.
Nice photo.
How did you get close enough?

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 06, 2014, 02:24:01 PM »
Yes, I like Dustin's reviews - thanks Dustin.
And yes, I like this lens - thanks Canon.
I bought it for the small size, the sharpness and relatively small depth of field wide open, and for the IS.
Its weakness is bad coma wide open - I've posted elsewhere on this site about that.

I possibly don't understand your problem.  I also produce different aspect ratios, e.g 16:9 for screen, etc.  Lightroom allows for the simple selection of aspect ratios in the crop function ("r").
If you want to expect a range of aspect ratios with one button click, I would never do that.  One of the most important parts of my work flow is cropping for composition and usually crops are not centred on the image.  16:9 will often be lower or higher to get more or less sky.  4:3 will be to the left or right (or more frequently up or down in portrait format).
I would never want a plug-in to crop automatically.

Lenses / Re: 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?
« on: February 19, 2014, 01:05:51 PM »
Quote from: Frodo link=topic=19640.msg370447#msg370447 date
However, coma is an issue.  I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.
Is it possible for you to post this picture? I took a look at lenstip.com but I'm interested in a real life example of this coma issue at F2.0. That would really help in the decision I want to make.

Here you are.  I took this quickly off a table top tripod.  Details 5DmkII, 35mmf/2IS, 15 sec @ f2, ISO 1600.  The max aperture of f/2 allowed me to shoot at 15 seconds avoiding star trails.  However, you can see the coma in the lights on the bottom left and stars in the top.  Stars are sharp and coma free in the centre of the photo.

Lenses / Re: 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?
« on: February 19, 2014, 04:31:15 AM »
I bought the 35 f/2 IS a month ago and used it with success in DC.  It is very sharp wide open and I have no hesitation shooting at f/2 for a nice shallow depth of field.  The Sigma would be better, but that lens is much larger and heavier.  It is much smaller and lighter and less conspicuous than the 24-105 and I find walking around with the 35mm to be a revelation and this is a big plus when travelling.  I'm considering getting an 85mm f/1.8 to match it.  The IS seems better than on the 24-105, but I haven't tested it.  I took some nice longish exposures of waves handheld, so its also a good waterscape lens.  However, coma is an issue.  I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.  My Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is much, much better.  If you need night lights near the edge of the frame and are critical, then this lens is not for you.
But I'm very happy with my purchase.

Canon EF-S and EF-M Lenses / Re: Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
« on: December 25, 2013, 01:33:33 PM »
I love your photos, their composition and lighting.
You have the 6D / EF 35/2 and the EF-M 22/2.  How do you find the two compare in terms of facilitating creativity?  How often would you just take the EF-M out?  Is the combo suitable for reasonably large prints?
I'm looking at getting at EF 35/2 IS as a walk-around lens that is smaller than my 24-105 - also when I go hiking.  But this thread has got me thinking...

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f/5.6 L
« on: December 12, 2013, 04:09:11 AM »
I've had my 400/5.6 since the days of film.  I have had this lens for the longest of all my gear.  There is a reason for this.  It is sharp wide open and small.  I shot some wonderful seabird shots with my 7D on a trip in the Southern Ocean last year.
Three tips: (1) Shoot wide open unless you need the extra depth of field.  Quality does improve on stopping down, but not much.
(2) set up your autofocus properly (AF acquisition speed etc) on a 7D (and presumably 5DIII), as well as AFMA.  Even at 5.6 depth of field is shallow, so the AF system needs to work. 
(3) you should use 1/750th when shooting even on full frame - a 1/1000th on crop.   I have steady hands but I need these speeds to have reliably sharp photos not only to stop camera movement, but also the movement of birds.  A monopod is very helpful for e.g. windsurfing photos

Reviews / Re: Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Review
« on: October 01, 2013, 02:05:33 PM »
Right before I published I went trolling and read quite a few of other reviews on the net.  I was really surprised to find a mixed bag out there.  I was primarily surprised to hear some people claiming that it wasn't very sharp at all.  That sounded really weird to me, as some of the most reputable sources (and my own experience) told a very different story.  It left me asking if either there was that much sample variation (which I haven't really heard) or, perhaps, user error?

There was an earlier version with similar specs but different optically that apparently wasn't as sharp.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is it flare, internal reflections or a ghost
« on: September 23, 2013, 09:11:03 PM »
These are reflections, could be internal...


Great Engineer's Thinking, Dear Arjay
In my Idea, and It happend to me long time ago.  just 1 small reflective dust on the  front of UV. filter, that create the UFOs  on the dark sky for me. I hope that are the real UFOs, that I can sell to the Newspaper for millions Us Dollars.----Ha, Ha, Ha.

Dust on the filter would not cause "UFOs".  More likely dust on the sensor.  A filter will increase the chance of ghosts, a dirty filter will increase the chance of veiling (a lack of contrast).

Lenses / Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« on: September 23, 2013, 06:03:44 PM »
Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much.  Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?

Two photos attached:
Strong points
- Sharpness (especially no coma (important for star shots) and little CA) - apparently best in class
- Silky focusing

Weak points:
- Manual everything (but you knew that)
- Not sure how robust it is, e.g. mount attached by just three screws.  My focusing ring partially seized on me during a trip to Europe, effectively making the lens unusuable other than at infinity.  I don'tknow what happened, i.e. I didn't drop it.  It was replaced under warranty.

- Distortion.  Quite a few gripes about distortion but I find that LR correction to be excellent with little loss of image area.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5.2 Available
« on: September 21, 2013, 06:37:54 PM »
I was disappointed with the additional features from 4.X to 5, and then to 5.2.  But I did upgrade.  The improvement in the autotone function has made the upgrade worthwhile.  I often process a large number of images and an autotone function is a way to get a quick overview of the images.  Previously autotone was quite unreliable, getting sufficiently close in only about 10% of my images.  Now it is good enough for over 90%.  Of course, final images need more work, but this has made a big difference for me.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5