August 23, 2014, 07:59:35 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.

Topics - K-amps

Pages: 1 [2] 3
I was told both lenses at 400mm f5.6 pitted against each other, the 100-400L would smoke the 70-200mk.ii + 2x iii combo. So far this one test shot shows both very close, I am preferring the 70-200+2x due to better shadow detail: 100-400 has more contrast though... Open both files and pixel peep please.

Looking at the thumbnails the 100-400 looks better, but at pixel peeping levels the 70-200 2x looks better.

Both are 100% crops taken on a rainy evening under high ISO.

NO pp was done to the RAW before converting to jpeg in CS5.

Lenses / 5D iii AFing with F11 lens.... on Liveview. Normal?
« on: April 20, 2012, 06:48:33 PM »
I put a 2x iii on my 100-400L (making it F11 @800mm) and the sucker was auto focussing. Very slowly, about 4-5 secs round trip, but it nailed the AF (with some AFMA help). Is this even possible Given Canon denying supporting AF over F5.6? Are we getting a freebie?

I have never connected the Cam via Cable to any PC, so nothing was updated. Original Firmware... etc

Second discovery. My 70-200mk.II with 2x @400mm F5.6, is clearly sharper than the standalone 100-400L @400mm F5.6. I thought the 100-400 would be better than the 2x + 70-200mk.ii combo.

With Mixed feelings...

5D MK III Sample Images / MF with 180mm F3.5L
« on: April 06, 2012, 11:59:14 AM »
Many people ask about Canon Macro lenses... all are pretty good. My fav is the 180mm. This image was focus stacked manually via layers and brush deletions....  shows the potential of what the 5d3 and 180mm L can do.

This was a quick a dirty job... so please tread softly...  :)

EOS Bodies / Can AFMA be used with non-Canon lenses? on a 5d mk.iii ?
« on: March 25, 2012, 07:33:27 AM »
Never had / used AFMA before the 5D iii so insights would be helpful.

There are 2 modes of  AFMA, overall for all lenses and for specific lenses. When I use a Sigma lens, it will let me chnag ethe AFMA values but at the menu level disables AFMA. However I am wondering if it will apply AFMA if I chose first option of setting for "All Lenses"...

Anyone have thoughts on this?


EOS Bodies / Weird Banding on shots....
« on: March 20, 2012, 09:32:28 PM »
Whats happening to my shiny new 5d3?

Burst shot at 1/1000th sec, F/2.8 @ 70mm 12,800 ISO (was set to Auto)

I was at a local Church shooting some guys playing badminton at high ISO (12,800) and I saw some yellow banding across the shots. First I was not sure if it was random lighting issues or what, then I started to take burst shots, and the banding appeared moving across each frame... What the heck is it?

EDIT: Issue exists behind the Camera it seems.  :-[

EOS Bodies / 5d3 + 70-200mk. II ISO test shots
« on: March 20, 2012, 05:12:50 PM »
Sorry of you have seen many of these... I can add more on request, but these are the first test shots of the 5d3 I got today.

ISO test from 800 all the way to 25,600. In Cam NR = Standard.

No NR applied in PP.

100% crops

Last shot, Used LR4 to apply NR on 25,600 shot only.  Hope you guys get yours soon.

Canon General / How many of use self standing Monopods?
« on: February 29, 2012, 10:21:41 AM »
I have a Manfrotto Rig, thats capable for a reasonable price, but on hikes it's a chore to lug around. I am thinking of getting one of these and seems like a great price : It has a adjustable head that uses the same base plate as my current tripod, so I am already bought into the product line...

Have any of you use these free standing monopods? What are your experiences?

I plan to use it as a hiking aid as well as for self portraits while hiking.

Thanks in advance.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Noise on a 5D vs T2i
« on: February 28, 2012, 10:24:31 AM »
I own a 5D and like it.

A friend of mine has a T2i, and I was trying to explain to him how a FF sensor has less noise etc… we then conducted a test. I shot the same framing on ISO 3200.

Both Cameras had a 50mm f1.8mk.ii snapped on. (however the T2i had a Canon calibrated one on it): For some reason I had my EV set at +2, not sure how much it affected the noise level. (Maybe I need to re-take the test)

Both were shot in RAW; converted in LR4 with standard settings, no PP except cropping.

From the results… it seems both Sensors seem to show similar or comparable levels of noise. The AWB is a bit off but that should not affect Noise grain…

What do you guys think?

Lenses / What will the new mk. IV Canon Extenders have
« on: February 08, 2012, 01:52:57 PM »
This is no rumor on extenders but... what would you like to see?

Some of Canon's new lenses are internal focussing, so that their rear elements move. E.G the 70-300L is not compatible with the 2x 1.4x mk.III's since the rear element comes out a bit and can hit the moving element of the lens that is mounted.

Will Canon fix this and increase extender compatibility? Or will they not increase barrel length since it makes long lenses heavier and longer yet  ? I am asking since I want the 2x with my 70-300L, but they are not "compatible" under AF.

Lenses / Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II
« on: February 08, 2012, 10:53:27 AM »
Everyone has 3 votes: You get this the first time!

EOS Bodies / How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 07, 2012, 02:50:59 PM »

So now that Nikon has owned up and announced the fabled D800, and we all kept saying that Canon will respond Fire with Fire…

What do you guys think Canon will do now? Match Nikon on features (since they probably need a high MP body anyway now that the 1dx is the high DR body) or will they go their own route (22mp but better AF etc).

Also on Price, since the $3900 non-AA version did not happen, does that mean Canon with a 22mp body will try and keep it in the 2500 range?

Third Party Manufacturers / Is this a Pre-announcement leak for the D800?
« on: February 06, 2012, 04:30:50 PM »
Got it from Nikon Rumors: Brazilian sites leakes official D800 pics:

Native ISO of 6400
4/6FPS (Native/Battery Grip)

The "D" on the D800 font looks a bit weird... maybe it's just the angle of the body that make it look so.

Lenses / What UWA options do I have with 77mm Filter size?
« on: February 06, 2012, 12:22:21 PM »
Guys what UWA lens options do I have; if I want to stay with a 77mm Filter size?

FF compatible.  I already have the 24-105mm so something "noticeably" wider.

Would prefer f2.8 but can work with f4 +IS as a compromise.

I do not mind getting used gear.. so older lenses are game (as long as they are AF).

Would prefer the price to remain under $900. Appreciate the experiences of others on this.


Canon General / Canon Inc. DSLR Mkt Share in 2011
« on: January 31, 2012, 11:32:50 AM »

BNC released their annual electronics company rankings: Not sure how they get their data, but the criteria seems to be market share:  Looks like Canon is doing great in DSLR and Lens categories trouncing Nikon again. What I got a kick out of was in Lenses, Tamron beat out Nikon for second place.  ;D

On the negative side: If the Canon bosses feel they are doing so great... they wont be pushed to announce the 5Diii   :-\

Canon General / Sensor Saturation/ DR
« on: January 23, 2012, 02:25:37 PM »
 I like the idea of the equipment getting smarter, in this case, can it avoid burning up highlights or unduly darkening shadows due to the limited DR of the sensor. While advanced in lithography are the current roadblock, there needs to be a rethink of the way Sensor data is recorded and handled.

Could they develop local dimming on the sensor (or local illuminating):

So lets say you are shooting a scenery of the sea with horizon in the middle. If you expose for water, Sky is over exposed and if you expose for sky, the sea is underexposed etc. (Yes there are Grads but I don't want to carry them everywhere).

What if the sensor can locally dim the sky to bring it down to levels that do not distort (burn out). This will definitely need a faster data processor, but similar things have been done in the Audio with Dynamic range compression/ expansion. The concept is the same. Get the signal past the limitations of the equipment and then later if need be, restored to it's original glory if the right displays are available (with High DR).

So there are 2 concepts to think about:

1) Reduction of DR to fit the sensor's capabilities (sort of what HDR does but without taking multiple exposures)
2) Restoration of DR under right conditions (so that the exposure is not permanently captured in reduced DR but can be rendered however which way).

In some ways this is similar to the inability of LCD displays to show absolute blacks, so manufacturers came up with local dimming schemes. In the good old days of Audio cassettes, the issue of limited Dynamic range also existed and there came along dbx...

Once the information is captured in this compressed format, PP can be used to render it anywhich way the user desires.  Current technology renders each photosite anyway, they would just need a pre-layer to determine exposure levels before bayer demosaicing etc. It will take a lot redesigning, including perhaps a new RAW like format to handle this variable DR and decoders to process it..

This could be revolutionary if implemented correctly.

Pages: 1 [2] 3