February 27, 2015, 01:34:06 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 - tgara

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
EOS-M / Re: Hands-on with the Canon EOS M3
« on: February 26, 2015, 09:05:47 AM »
Glad to have these insights.  Still on the fence between adopting the M3 or abandoning the M system to get a xxxD second body.  If Canon would release a down-scaled 17-55mm f/2.8 for M, or a couple more small, fast primes, that might make the biggest difference.  Or a compact macro.  Much as I like the 22mm, the 18-55 is just too slow; the 11-22 is too pricey; and the 55-200 is physically too long and way too slow (and just about useless unless AF really is worlds faster on M3).

With a tiny body that lacks a truly substantial grip, the handling of any zoom lens (other than maybe a theoretical power zoom) is going to be dicey because the torque applied to the zoom ring can be enough to destabilize your grip on the camera body--particularly when holding the camera out from your body to compose on an LCD.  A stiff ring like on the Tamron 24-70mm VC makes it useless in combination with the M.  Primes just handle better.

I think I may be convincing myself to bag it and just go with a Rebel T6s (760D).

Not trying to hijack this thread, but have you considered the Canon SL1/100D?  That's what I use as a smaller, lighter alternative to my 5D3.  For me, the SL1 had more advantages and was a better fit than the EOS M.  All my L lenses fit on it, no adapter needed (although I have the 18-55 and 55-250 lenses as well).  Handling is very good, much like a regular SLR.  Image quality is superb.  And the whole kit fits into a small Crumpler bag that is easy and light to tote around.

To me, if you already own a larger Canon camera and accessories, the SL1 is a perfect addition if you are looking for something smaller and lighter.

It also makes a great easy-to-use camera for a wife or girlfriend.  ;)

2
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon Pro-1 Question
« on: February 24, 2015, 11:40:11 AM »
Your dark prints are likely due to your monitor being too bright.  I had the same issue.  Like tolusina said, calibrate your monitor and do it at about 50% brightness level.  When you edit or print, remember to set the brightness at 50% (or whatever level you calibrated your monitor on) so you get a more accurate representation of what your print will look like.  Also, remember that the monitor is projecting light from behind and through a screen, while a print is relying essentially on reflected ambient light.  Those differences in the simple physics of how you view the images will result in differences in how the image is portrayed.   

Here's a good resource describing the problem and some solutions:

 http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html

Regarding your question on art paper, I've been using Red River paper for a couple months.  Great stuff, recommended!  They have a list of recommended papers for the Pro-1.  The fine art papers are at the bottom of the page.

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/sbprinter/best-inkjet-photo-papers-for-canon-pro-1-printer/

As for the ink levels, it's probably a plot to get you to buy more ink earlier.   ;D

3
Lenses / Re: 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
« on: February 19, 2015, 09:05:45 PM »
My copy is outstanding.....




4
Photography Technique / Re: The Southwest
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:02:27 AM »
HI,
Preparing for a photography visit to UT/AZ in August this year. Questions:

1) I am told that there is a lot of sand/dust suspended and dropping in the slot canyons. What would you suggest for simple, cheap camera covers to slip on inside the canyons. Obviously I am planning not to change lenses in there.


I went to the slot canyons in 2011 (Antelope Canyon).  There is a lot of dust and debris from the moment you get there.  The canyons we went to are on the Navajo Indian reservation, and they take you in in the back of a pickup truck.  Lots of dust just from that trip.  Once you are in the canyons, the debris falls from above, and you WILL need some kind of cover.  I know this from experience because both my 7D and 17-40 lens got grit inside and had to be sent to Canon for cleaning and repair.

I would strongly suggest you get a rain cover and use it when you're in the canyons.  I've been using these from Op/Tech:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469774-REG/OP_TECH_USA_9001132_18_Rainsleeve_Set_of.html

They're cheap, easy to transport, and effective for the dust you will encounter.

5
Lenses / Re: 70-200 2.8L IS - making noises when IS on
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:45:52 AM »
My 70-200 IS (mark I) has started making lightly funny noises with the IS on.  Like a sort of moving part and then clicking into place noise.  Everything still works fine but I'm concerned there could be trouble on the horizon.  With the IS disabled the noise obviously isn't there.  Is this a common issue anyone else has had?  I bought it right when they came out and have probably taken 30,000 pictures with it.

That's the IS working.  It's normal to hear a whirring and then a light clunk sound.

6
Lenses / Re: 17-40 ---> 16-35 f4
« on: February 01, 2015, 09:43:18 AM »

However that brings me to a problem that is becoming more common as my lens collection improves and expands: How to distance myself of lenses that I truly love but which I have effectively replaced? This is what's likely to happen to the 17-40L. Because it has served me so well and it is the single best handling lens on a gripless 5D* body that I use for travel.... I think I would be really sad to see it go.

You're thinking about this too hard.  I did the 17-40 to 16-35 upgrade and have not missed the 17-40 one bit.  Once you see the vast improvement in image quality and performance enhancements that the 16-35 gives compared to the 17-40, you won't think twice about the 17-40.

7
I'm guessing it still doesn't read in the recipe from the previous version. Still, at least it's actually usable now since it's compatible with the 5D Mark II now.

It was always "usable" despite only now being available for the 5D2.  ::)

I'm glad more of the recent crop sensor cameras are being made compatible with DPP 4.  I have both a 5D3 and an SL1/100D, so it will be nice to use this software for both cameras.  Goodbye Aperture!

8
If you like to hike and you are in Albuquerque, take the tram up to Sandia Peak.  Great views.



As someone else mentioned, Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe is a must see, especially the Miraculous Staircase.  My late mother attended Loretto Academy when it was a girls school in the 1940s.


9
I'm using an iMac with Yosemite as well.  I'm using DPP 4.1.1 and it does not exhibit any freezing with Quickcheck, flagging, rating, or any other DPP function.

Which camera are you using?  Maybe you can update to DPP 4?

I am using a Canon 7D and shoot mainly in RAW. It turns out DPP 4 doesn't even show up on Canon's site as a software option for the 7D. But I was able to download it by telling the site I was using a different camera. The problem is that DPP 4 must not support RAW files from the 7D! When I view my RAW photos, I can't magnify them or do any corrections to them. When I try to view them in Quick Check mode to see which ones I want to delete, they just show up postage stamp size - too small to really see details. So I guess I have no good option from Canon to view my photos with OS X Yosemite, at least as of right now.  >:(

No, DPP 4 currently doesn't work with the 7D.  Canon is quite explicit about this, it only works with the current full frame cameras (5D3, 6D, 1Dx, etc.) and the 7DII.  Canon may update DPP 4 to work with older models, but for now you're stuck with DPP 3.xxx.

Of course, you might consider asking the elves if Santa could bring you a 7DII.  :)

10
I'm using an iMac with Yosemite as well.  I'm using DPP 4.1.1 and it does not exhibit any freezing with Quickcheck, flagging, rating, or any other DPP function.

Which camera are you using?  Maybe you can update to DPP 4?

11
Post Processing / Re: POLL: What picture styles do you use?
« on: November 11, 2014, 05:47:23 PM »
Even when shooting raw, the picstyle determines the preview result...

I never realised this. Do you know if this have an impact on the highlight warning and histogram? If so then I imagine one should use neutral to get the most accurate preview of exposure since the other styles presumably apply a tone curve which could alter the clipping.

I've always just left it in standard as I shoot RAW exclusively.

Yes, the choice of Picture Style will have an impact on the histogram because it affects contrast, etc.  If you are shooting RAW, the image you see on the LCD screen is actually a JPG with the picture style applied.  In order to "see" the most accurate representation of the RAW image on the LCD screen, select Faithful or Neutral for your picture style.

Mine is a custom setting starting with Standard, then increasing sharpening to +6 and saturation to +1.  This makes RAW files look really nice.  Also, keep in mind, if you use DPP for processing, it's easy to change or remove Picture Styles with a click on both RAW and JPG images.

12
Completely useless software.  How does one use it?  All I see are tiny thumbnails of my raw images, and I cannot edit them  Help?  A simple tutorial anyone?
Hi tgara
Chances are, you are looking at images that are not created on a 5DII or 1DX, or any of the other qualified cameras that this software is specifically targeted at. From what I see, that's what this software release is specifically targeted at.
My 5DIII raw files work just fine. My 50D ones don't.
Just as advertised.

Cheers

Yep, I'm a dope.  I was trying to look at RAWs made with my SL1, and of course the do not show.  RAWs from my 5D3 work fine.

13
Completely useless software.  How does one use it?  All I see are tiny thumbnails of my raw images, and I cannot edit them  Help?  A simple tutorial anyone?

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 28, 2014, 10:13:45 AM »
However, I do think that Canon could sell quite a lot of mirrorless system cameras if they designed a good one.  They have a large base of users that appreciates the EOS system, but sometimes wants something smaller and lighter.

Absolutely.  That's why many of us have chosen the Rebel SL1!  It's not mirrorless, but it is certainly smaller and lighter than my 5D3 (hence the SL name).  It also works with nearly all my other Canon gear, including my EX270II flash and the GP-E2 GPS unit. 

15
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images
« on: May 18, 2014, 09:09:31 AM »
Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on:  (点击此处查看大图)  located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.
Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

Those are VERY complex angled scenes and who knows where they placed the focus (which matters a LOT for scenes like that).

I imported the stairs photo into Aperture and turned on the focus point overlay.  Looks pretty good to me.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4