April 20, 2014, 05:44:50 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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55 56 ... 74
796
EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: April 02, 2012, 05:39:08 PM »
Is this the one you are talking about:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/1dx_af_pts_article.shtml

edit: this is for the 1DX, but it is helpful as well:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/1dx_guidebook.shtml?categoryId=12

No it wasn't, I haven't seen that one, I'll have to have a read later in the week.

The article I was thinking of was actually for the 1D X, not the 5D MkIII and isn't specific, but it states that you shouldn't use single point spot for low light (which is irrelevant to this thread and obvious to most of us anyway) and that point expansion is to improve tracking. Reading between the lines, it suggests that point expansion shouldn't be used for slow moving/stationary targets. So while it isn't clear, it's suggestive that single point is the best option for low light. Of course, whether that makes it it any quicker isn't guaranteed.

That is helpful information. If you find the link back that would be sweet.
This link has good info at the Canon learning center.
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/dlc/search/search.spr?keyword=Rudy%20Winston&filterBy=Article

The AF system starts on page 4, with the bit I was referring to on page 5.

797
EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: April 02, 2012, 03:47:46 PM »
The article I was thinking of was actually for the 1D X, not the 5D MkIII and isn't specific, but it states that you shouldn't use single point spot for low light (which is irrelevant to this thread and obvious to most of us anyway) and that point expansion is to improve tracking. Reading between the lines, it suggests that point expansion shouldn't be used for slow moving/stationary targets. So while it isn't clear, it's suggestive that single point is the best option for low light. Of course, whether that makes it it any quicker isn't guaranteed.

798
EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: April 02, 2012, 03:31:46 PM »

You would think something like that would be mentioned in all those reviews, or in the documentation, but I haven't seen anything like that.

The problem is, most of the reviews spend all their time shooting still life setups in their studio, instead of using the camera in real life situations. They simply don't spend the time getting to grips with things like the AF system, so can't really give a good indication of what it is like, let alone getting the best out of it in various situations.
I'll try to find the CPS article on the MkIII AF to see if it sheds any light.

799
So, Canon's iFCL metering system sees color in the same way as a dog or an old-world monkey sees color - a dichromatic system, not a trichromatic system like the 1D X and us humans use...
Does this distinction have any real-world implications in the accuracy and/or quality of the AF system?
Not in the old world :P.

800

I'd say that a firmware fix would not work for reliable f/8 AF, a new sensor design would be needed, but some combinations of taped TC's and lenses might just work.
 
That mirror's the opinion of the CPS rep at Focus a few weeks ago. He didn't know, but based on how the system had been explained to him, his feeling was that a firmware update wouldn't fix it, as he thought it was due to the larger sensors in the new system, preventing any room for f/8 sensor points.

801
Two points.
The article that appeared on the CPN Europe site actually stated that the filter has been reduced in strength. Unfortunately, I can't find the link at the moment.
When the 7D first came out, Adobe RAW produced very soft images which improved once it had been refined with a couple of updates. I wouldn't make too many critical comparisons at the moment with what using what is little more than beta versions of software. The difference when the 7D came out, there wasn't the same issue with DPP.

802
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?
« on: April 01, 2012, 03:40:42 PM »
Two points.
The article that appeared on the CPN Europe site actually stated that the filter has been reduced in strength. Unfortunately, I can't find the link at the moment.
When the 7D first came out, Adobe RAW produced very soft images which improved once it had been refined with a couple of updates. I wouldn't make too many critical comparisons at the moment with what using what is little more than beta versions of software. The difference when the 7D came out, there wasn't the same issue with DPP.

803
Software & Accessories / Re: What kind of filter to get?
« on: April 01, 2012, 07:38:08 AM »
You might want to read through this about Cokin filters. As I said, the adaptors are fine, but I would advise against the filters. You don't have to use Cokin filters with the adaptors and the price differential between Cokin and Hi-Tech filters is small.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=141957

804
Software & Accessories / Re: What kind of filter to get?
« on: April 01, 2012, 06:59:53 AM »
The most useful ND graduated filter is a 3 stop, a 1 stop is pretty limited on it's own. However, I would recommend a full set of 1,2 and 3 stop. If you shoot a lot of mountain or hill scenes (or cityscapes), then a set of soft grads would probably be best, but for coastal a set of hard grads would probably be more suitable. I would also avoid the Cokin filters, although their adaptors are fine. For a similar price range, I would go for Hi-Tech filters instead, as they don't have the noticeable colour cast that the Cokin filters have. I don't know if they're available in all countries though.
UV filters are pretty useless on digital cameras, beyond protection for the lens. If you have a filter set on the lens, you don't want an extra layer of glass in the form of a UV filter. However, a polarising filter would be useful, but be careful with it on wideangle lenses, as you can get uneven polarisation, plus for ultrawides, you can get vignetting or even see the filter edge in frame if you start stacking the filters.

805
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MKIII Auto Focus Question
« on: April 01, 2012, 06:46:11 AM »
One review of the MkIII commented that the MkII would often indicate focus lock in low light/contrast situations incorrectly, I would imagine it's the same with the 60D, whereas the MkIII would only indicate focus lock when it was actually achieved. I think that not locking focus is better than focusing incorrectly.

806
Another good example, not too far from my stomping grounds on the Black Isle!
Excuse my ignorance but I've never understood why higher MP would cause softness in the image unless you were to zoom in and crop the image etc, i.e. highlight any deficiencies in lens / technique? At the same reproduction size from the full frame, wouldn't the sharpness remain constant, or if anything, improve?
There are a number of factors. The obvious is increased diffraction, but also, higher resolution will increase detail, which will have the side effect of magnifying any lens deficiencies. I usually look at an image at 50% magnification to check whether it is sharp enough; this is a fairly close representation of how it will look in print. Obviously with a 36 MP sensor, you are looking at a larger magnification doing this and for smaller prints (I don't print larger than A3 normally) increased diffraction would matter less. For fairness, I looked at the D800 and D800E sample images at 25% and they still looked soft in the corners. It was probably emphasised more, because of the high level of detail in the centre. It also didn't help because they were taken at f/8, so there was insufficient depth of field. However, if you need to print large (which realistically is the only reason you would need 36 MP), then looking at 50% becomes more relevant again. With the 17-40, the corners already look soft on the 5D MkII, so if Canon produced a 36+ MP sensor, then that lens would be useless, as would the 24-105.

807
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 29, 2012, 05:40:38 PM »
I think part of the problems is a combination of the JPEGs that Canon posted and the use of JPEGs without turning off the noise reduction by most of the reviewers. All that succeeded in doing, was producing images devoid of any detail. That would have been fine, but many people then took them as representative of the best the camera could achieve and consequently slagging off the poor image quality. The first thing I did when I fired off a test image at Focus on Imaging, was to switch off the noise reduction to do a very rough comparison on the LCD with my 5D MkII in the same lighting conditions. Sharpness was good, despite the lack of care on my part to avoid camera shake. My main aim was to look at the amount of noise, so ultimate sharpness wasn't something I was aiming for, but it was still alot better than most of the crappy sample images that have been floating around. It was good to see some good examples in the MkIII forum here (even if they weren't all as helpful as they could have been).

808
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM
« on: March 29, 2012, 05:11:50 PM »
Ive been dreaming about a 24 1.4 II lens for a looong time. The thing is i'd like to see the output from shooting weddings, any ideas on how to search that? I have done image searches on 24mm and Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II L USM and such but only a small handfull of wedding picks that i found. I know its used a lot more just need some help. Also any opinions would be of great value!
Thanks!

You'll probably still need to pick and choose, but try this Google search.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&biw=1266&bih=861&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=canon+24mm+1.4+ii+wedding&oq=canon+24mm+1.4+ii+wedding&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=img.3...4472l6991l0l7647l8l8l0l7l7l0l375l375l3-1l1l0.frgbld.

809
I strongly disagree that ND grads are a waste of time, in fact a few months ago, I gave a talk to our local camera club in an attempt to persuade them that there is an alternative to spending hours in Photoshop. While the grad tool in LR is pretty good, it can't recover detail that isn't there. If areas of the sky have blown out, then that detail is lost. Typically, there are up to 5 stops difference between the sky and a roughly mid-tone area in the foreground. If you have significant shadow areas, then it is even more. There is no way that LR or any other RAW editor can cope with that. I often use a 2 and a 3 stop grad filter on the sky and sometimes two 3 stop filters and I sometimes still need to recover detail in LR. Without grads, it would simply be impossible, short of using HDR or some other blending technique. Not only do I not like HDR in general (although it can be  a useful tool sometimes), I also don't like spending hours trying to correct something I could have done in camera, with some thought and consideration. To me, that is what photography is all about, using your skill and technique to create an artistic image (or a basic record if that is what you want/need to achieve). While I have nothing against those who want to do alot of processing work, when you start to blur the lines of reality, to my mind you are crossing over into digital art, which is fine if that is what you want, but not for me. It's really a matter of whether you want to develop/demonstrate your skill using aperture and shutterspeeds (not to mention angles and composition) or in post processing. Some will want or enjoy developing their skills in editong and processing, while others will just want to enhance an image with basic processing workflows. It depends on which of those two groups you fall, as to whether ND grads are useful.
I haven't got any comparisons, but this image demonstrates the problem. Due to the wideangle, I couldn't add grad filters, so added a gradient in LR. The clouds don't really look right though and there is a big patch that is completely blown.

Tarbat Ness Rockpool by Kernuak, on Flickr
In terms of whether the 5D MkIII is a landscape camera, I think with current lenses, it is the better option, as I think 36 MP is pushing the limits of most currently available lenses. While I have one or two which would be ok, I don't really want to start replacing expensive lenses because they are now producing soft images on a 36 MP body, particularly when it would be certain areas of the image. If the image was softened all over, it would be less noticeable.

810
Extension tubes become less useful, the longer the focal length. At 200mm, they will only have minimal effect, less so than the extender in terms of increased magnification. A combination of the extender and extension tubes could result in lower magnification, although I haven't done any calculations. Something like a 500D closeup lens would have more effect. In contrast, if I add a full Kenko set (68mm in total) of extension tubes to my 100mm macro, I am getting close to 2x magnification (although vignetting is quite impressive :P). Adding a 1.4x extender gives me less with the extension tubes added as well.

Pages: 1 ... 52 53 [54] 55 56 ... 74