1381
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot SX40 HS
« on: September 15, 2011, 01:47:40 PM »
10+fps?
The 5D3 better be impressive....
The 5D3 better be impressive....
May 22, 2013, 10:45:15 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.
1382
EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV & 5D Mark III [CR0.5]
« on: September 15, 2011, 09:04:34 AM »
The specs on the 5D3 seem more plausible then the 1Ds, especially the MP's. If indeed true, the 1Ds could top out to $9-10k. It needs a lot more feastures to justify a 2-3x price premium. If the 5D3 does not have better Dynamic range then the 5D2... the used prices for the 5D2 are not coming down as fast as some people are hoping.
Canon pls release a 70-400mm f3.5 L for $2k
That would be money better spent then a new body with 10% more mp ...
Canon pls release a 70-400mm f3.5 L for $2k
That would be money better spent then a new body with 10% more mp ...
1383
EOS Bodies / Re: Your wishlist for your next body...
« on: September 13, 2011, 01:09:42 PM »
More than 3 AEB's and from 1/3 to 3EV stops for each bracket. (Like they have in the 1D bodies)
If Canon wants to have this option in their better bodies then just do this:
xxxD = 3AEB
xxD = 5AEB
xD = 7AEB
1D = 9 or custom level AEB
Ability for the Camera to Digital zoom in-camera i.e. be able to set custom crops.
Circumvent the AA and Bayer filters somehow and give us more sharpness... Maybe create a 60mp sensor, with 20MP's dedicated to each primary color, with processed image at 20mp all colors combined digitally... Kind of like Foveon but done right! Maybe this one is for the 1D bodies... this will help them separate them from the other FF bodies in the line up.
If Canon wants to have this option in their better bodies then just do this:
xxxD = 3AEB
xxD = 5AEB
xD = 7AEB
1D = 9 or custom level AEB
Ability for the Camera to Digital zoom in-camera i.e. be able to set custom crops.
Circumvent the AA and Bayer filters somehow and give us more sharpness... Maybe create a 60mp sensor, with 20MP's dedicated to each primary color, with processed image at 20mp all colors combined digitally... Kind of like Foveon but done right! Maybe this one is for the 1D bodies... this will help them separate them from the other FF bodies in the line up.
1384
Software & Accessories / Re: To HDR or Not To HDR
« on: September 13, 2011, 09:35:26 AM »I usually expose for the highlights and then use an exposure brush on a RAW file to brush back detail in the shadows. That provides a much more natural 'true to the eye' look than any plug in can achieve.
I used this effect a lot in this series of photos where the sky would have otherwise been totally blown out:-
http://alipaul.com/misc/gower/
Would be great if dynamic range of full frame sensors would improve a bit sometime soon...
Otherwise I pretty much hate photomatix with a passion.
Very nice pics and a great idea, it has potential.
The only thing I would do is try and reduce the grain/ noise visible in the clouds, it's a bit distracting for me.
1385
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 11:02:03 AM »
More resolution is more resolution... Kinda like how a photoshop file built to minimum standards of 5x7 will look ok/good but a photoshop 8x10 downsized to 5x7 printed will have that little bit extra...
Yes, but we cannot get 8mp resolution out of a 2mp monitor... so perhaps it is not about the absolute number pixels.
So perhaps there are other factors to be considered, for example, if the effect of AA and bayer filters less of an issue with higher resolution shots proportionally? I would think yes and that would probably explain some of the difference we are witnessing... What else should we consider?
1386
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 09:26:36 AM »Was "Jurg Ammon" from the still photography or camcorder side of the house? The trend in the last generation of Canon prosumer camcorders was to have future pixels. 1080P video is only about 2MP.
Thats what I tell whoever asks me "how many megapixels does your camera have"... but guys the truth is, that an 8mp image shown on a 1080p TV/monitor looks much better than a 2mp image... why?
1387
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 03:04:52 PM »
This one was taken from 2 meters, shows bokeh and focus at 400mm.
1388
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 02:37:23 PM »
I wouldn't mind the weight of the lens, but how do you think does the 70-300 compare image wise against the 100-400?
Sample shot both at 400mm to help you decide. I had to aggressively crop them due to file size limit.
Both were handheld. The Hydrant was 18 meters away and the weed about 2 meters or less away. Both f/5.6 shutter was 1/320 and 1/400. It was a bit windy. High ISO's were used due to available lighting... (cloudy day)
1389
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 09, 2011, 10:19:57 AM »I'd say 2 L macros... sell the Sigmas :-) Keep the 50mm 1.8 so 3 primes and whole lotta sharpness..
Why would I do that? The quality of both those lenses is absolutely stellar, not to mention that the 85mm is a pretty fast lens with it's 1.4 aperture. The 100 2.8 doesn't even come close to that and the 180mm 3.5 might be a great lens but is somewhat short for what I am looking for.
I just picked up the 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS yesterday, this copy is sharper than the 70-200mm f4L IS I returned. So I know it's sharp and lighter than the 100-400 which is a beast extended. It is also relatively affordable, a newer lens design as some of the other guys have posted.
It has nice reviews and maybe that might be up your alley.
1390
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 09, 2011, 12:49:53 AM »
Returned the 17-40L, and the 70-200L f4, got the 24-105 f4L and the 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS. And they are both noticeably sharper than the ones I returned...
2 chart crops. All settings default Camera raw for these. (just did auto exposure/ tone to get some contrast) all other settings of Adobe camera raw = default.
2 chart crops. All settings default Camera raw for these. (just did auto exposure/ tone to get some contrast) all other settings of Adobe camera raw = default.
1391
Macro / Re: Canon 100mm IS USM L Macro Photos
« on: September 08, 2011, 04:01:47 PM »
Canon 100mm usm not(IS) sorry can't afford one!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaredvs/sets/72157622383982672/with/4731866369/
Wow! How did you get that level of magnification? very nice pic.
PS: I tried both the L and non-L versions. Both very sharp... but my non-L version seemed sharper.
1392
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 08, 2011, 03:21:51 PM »here's an out of the box recommendation.
Get 2 macro primes,
100mm L F/2.8 Macro or the non-L version is just as sharp for 50% of the price.
180mm L f/3.5 Macro
Ok, but the OP stated:Currently I have the 7D with Canon's 24-70 2.8, and the 50mm 1.8 plus Sigma's 85mm 1.4 and 150mm macro 2.8 OS.
So, how many macro lenses does one really need?
I'd say 2 L macros... sell the Sigmas :-) Keep the 50mm 1.8 so 3 primes and whole lotta sharpness..
**************
By the way, I returned my 17-40mm and the 70-200mm... I was not very happy with those copies. The 70-200mm tests were on par with my older 28-135mm IS zoom... infact in MF, the 28-135 was sharper, and I know normally the 70-200's are very sharp.
I replaced the 17-40 with a 24-105L F4 and the 70-200 with an 70-300 IS. I will test them and let you know.
Thanks,
K
1393
Lenses / Re: Good yet affordable telephoto lens?
« on: September 08, 2011, 02:12:08 PM »
I know you asked for Zoom and not knowing how flexible you are on getting a zoom or 2 primes; vs sharpness you'd like, here's an out of the box recommendation.
Get 2 macro primes, they are the sharpest lens Canon has and would run you about $2200 plus you can do Macro and the worst one is f3.5 but has a very nice bokeh (both of them do) the range covered is not far form one 70-200mm, but if you want ultimate sharpness this is it.
100mm L F/2.8 Macro or the non-L version is just as sharp for 50% of the price.
180mm L f/3.5 Macro
They are both great for portraits. Check their reviews on Fred Miranda.
I know they are not zoom :-)
Get 2 macro primes, they are the sharpest lens Canon has and would run you about $2200 plus you can do Macro and the worst one is f3.5 but has a very nice bokeh (both of them do) the range covered is not far form one 70-200mm, but if you want ultimate sharpness this is it.
100mm L F/2.8 Macro or the non-L version is just as sharp for 50% of the price.
180mm L f/3.5 Macro
They are both great for portraits. Check their reviews on Fred Miranda.
I know they are not zoom :-)
1394
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 09:22:11 PM »
Guys: Can you please look at these pics I took for my 4 lenses (File names tell you what lens and settings they were shot at):
All were manually focussed
ALl on tripod
IS disabled where applicable
100mm did not have a UV filter attached, rest did
Which one looks good?
17-40mm L F4
28-135mm IS
70-200mm L IS F4
100mm L Macro F2.8
All were manually focussed
ALl on tripod
IS disabled where applicable
100mm did not have a UV filter attached, rest did
Which one looks good?
17-40mm L F4
28-135mm IS
70-200mm L IS F4
100mm L Macro F2.8
1395
Lenses / Re: 17-40L bad copy?
« on: September 07, 2011, 09:13:46 PM »Looks fine to me. Are all these shots with AF? If so, it might just be your choice of what to focus on (some image features are problematic for AF points with particular geometries, but focus targets are usually designed to activate any type of AF point.
As you asked, they are MF.
Maybe you are learning to use this lens more efficiently!
Some guy said make sure the AF slider is revved back and forth a few times for a new lens... did that... maybe that worked?