March 06, 2015, 07:09:40 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 38
On my recent trip to Sweden I shot for two hours in the rain with my 5D Mk III and 24-105L. No problems at all.

I'm surprised to hear the 7D had water behind the LCD. What lens, if any, was mounted?

Roger at lens rentals has opinions on these lenses that you might find useful. Apparently both the Canon 1.2 and Sigma have AF quirks that fall into repeatable patterns.

See Roger's Take:

Canon 50mm 1.4 :
Canon 50mm 1.2L :
Sigma 50mm 1.4 :

I got a 5D Mark III last week and the first lens to undergo focus testing in my studio was that Sigma 50.  I was relieved to see that it now focuses faster and more consistently.  I think I dialed in +2 on the micro-adjust.  Images were pretty sharp wide open and extremely sharp at f2.0.

It's statements like this that make me wish I hadn't sold mine before my Mk III came. I really would like to see what difference the body made.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28-135 / EF-S 17-85 / EF-S 15-85
« on: October 02, 2012, 04:13:27 PM »
I've not used the 15-85, but wanted to give a strong endorsement for the Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS. I loved it when I had a 7D. My brother gets a lot of great shots with it now on his 60D. The image stabilization is nearly silent which is great for video. The corners are soft at 2.8, but the center is really sharp.

Read up:

This might be a good place for me to bring up something I have often wondered about. Do manufacturers ever slip in unannounced updates to lenses? I have to assume they do even if it's only firmware. Is there a way to tell? I like the idea of Sigma's newly announced usb dock lens cap for firmware updating lenses.

Any chance a brand new Sigma 50 would have more accurate or faster focusing than one from a few years ago?

I owned the Sigma and really liked it optically, but wasn't happy with the focusing speed (5D Mk II). I sold it for the Canon 1.4 and am very happy. Here's a shot taken with the Canon on my 5D MK III in natural light at f/2.

Lenses / Older L lens repair 400mm 2.8L II (non-IS)
« on: October 02, 2012, 01:41:28 PM »
I own the pre-IS 400mm f/2.8L II and see that it is not listed on the CPS repair eligible list. My lens is working great at the moment, but I am concerned that if the USM fails or something else goes wrong that I am going to have a very expensive paperweight. I am considering selling it while I can.

Does anyone know where I can get it serviced? Parts availability?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3 vs. Nikon D600
« on: October 01, 2012, 12:49:22 PM »
5dmk2 and d800 same exposure time, f-stop base iso
5dmk2 developed in camera raw and DPP and d800 in camera raw so that details/information can  be seen equally in the white  house wall and in the white  towel  in front of the garden house =high lights reproduction.
Then we look in the shadows, low levels , an area is selected in the low levels and auto contrast is laid, auto contrast are showing  levels , details, noise in the selected area , no personal influence , photoshop is calculating  the signal level from the pixels values. This is the  results of  2-3 extra stops DR  in low levels.  And how to use it- it is up to the photographer and  the skills to use photoshop
I have lent the  raw files to a number of talented members at dpreview , they  have  all checked  and verified the results by them selves.

Great comparison of noise at 100% scale vs. 66.7%!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Blown-out Highligts in Stage Lighting
« on: September 28, 2012, 11:37:00 AM »
I've seen good advice about what to try in the future, but regarding the photos you've taken...if you drop the exposure all the way on the RAW file is it possible to get the faces to look decent? If so, you might try double RAW processing the image in PhotoShop.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 27, 2012, 08:42:41 AM »

I think you just made a really good argument for leaving the camera set to sRGB. It's the smaller color space so if you don't see any clipping in the tiny, questionably precise histogram in sRGB, you damn well won't have any clipping in the image when processing the RAW file.

Nah it just means you crippled RAW even more than you had to (although if all you ever care about is final sRGB output I suppose not).

I don't see how this would cripple the RAW output. The setting only affects the preview, so at worst you take a picture, look at the sRGB based histogram and decide the exposure was good, when it might have been possible to push the exposure a little bit more.

Now look at the converse situation. You set the camera to AdobeRGB, take a picture, look at the histogram and see that it is at the very limit of the cameras dynamic range...any more exposure and you would have clipping. Now you import the RAW and when output to sRGB find that there is clipping.

Honestly, the margin we're talking about (if not imagined) must be tiny.

Others have pointed out similar predictions for a comet in 1973 that turned out to be much dimmer. I'm not an astronomer but look forward to taking an amateur's stab at it should the predictions prove accurate.

Canon General / New comet spotted. Will be visible to naked eye in late 2013
« on: September 26, 2012, 07:45:36 PM »
"...on 28 November 2013, current predictions are of an object that will dazzle the eye at up to magnitude —16. That's far brighter than the full Moon."

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 26, 2012, 05:50:24 PM »
You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...).  I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings do matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms.  So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter. 

I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?

I think you just made a really good argument for leaving the camera set to sRGB. It's the smaller color space so if you don't see any clipping in the tiny, questionably precise histogram in sRGB, you damn well won't have any clipping in the image when processing the RAW file.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L + 2x
« on: September 26, 2012, 10:33:26 AM »
No problem.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L + 2x
« on: September 24, 2012, 11:02:21 AM »
I do 99% of my RAW conversion with Aperture because it does a good job and is easy to use, however I keep DPP around because sometimes I can get a better result on a tricky image.

Also, don't forget to grab the update:

Choose Mac OS X and then OS X 10.7 (regardless which version  you are running)

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 38