May 25, 2013, 03:56:50 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 - wockawocka

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 23
46
For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.

The 24mm TS-E is now three years old. The Mk1 of the 24-70 is what? 10 years old?

These are results perfectly in line with expectations. The 70-200 MkII for example is prime sharp as well. So I expected the 24-70 MkII to be as good if not better as a result.

Do you guys remember just how bad the 24mm TS-E mk1 was? That is a prime but even a kit zoom lens is sharper than that.

47
Lenses / Re: Roger at LensRentals impression of 24-70 II
« on: September 11, 2012, 06:01:00 PM »
What I'd like to know is the results across all 7 Mkii's tested. Was there much variation between them?

48
I'll say it again, why would I want this when I have a 5D3 and a 40mm pancake?

Yes it's smaller but I'd be giving up my viewfinder and the ability to change lenses.

Overall, if you drew a line between each corner it isn't much smaller either.

Will I have to use Sony's proprietry hotshoe and memory card format too?

How much is it again?  ::)

49
Just get a 5D3 with the 40mm Pancake.

It's a bit bigger but miles better.

50
Lenses / Re: Any Wedding Lens Advice?
« on: September 10, 2012, 03:33:15 AM »
Yes, you are lacking a lot of glass.

The 5DII:
24-70
70-200
85 1.8

The 60D:
24-105
50 1.4

You guys can share the 100mm Macro and the 60D needs a proper flash.

This is minimum kit.

51
Yeah lightroom has default sharpening at +25

52
Looks like blown highlights to me. The light on the shiny point of her lip and the sequin of her veil catching it in exactly the wrong position.
Well sure it got blown in those tiny spots but being outlined in black is an artifact, un-natural to what an eye would see.

Could you send me the RAW file if I sent you my details?
I could, just pm me. It is jpeg.

Ah, will need the RAW file. Jpeg compression does all kinds of crap to the file, not to mention any adjustments Canon decides to apply (even with everything switched off in camera)....which I'm sure they do.

53
Looks like blown highlights to me. The light on the shiny point of her lip and the sequin of her veil catching it in exactly the wrong position.
Well sure it got blown in those tiny spots but being outlined in black is an artifact, un-natural to what an eye would see.

Could you send me the RAW file if I sent you my details?

54
Looks like blown highlights to me. The light on the shiny point of her lip and the sequin of her veil catching it in exactly the wrong position.
It looks quite poor for ISO1600 too, (is this part of a larger image or have you pulled the exposure)?

55
What you're ambient temperature too.

A sensors at 15 degrees will take longer to heat up than one at 30 degrees etc.

Just keep experimenting!

56
One thing to remember with any long exposure is the sensor will get hot.

Hot sensor = not good for IQ.

If this 25 second exposure was one of several you can expect to see distortions like this. Often.
The 1Ds3 did similar if you did several in a row but the distortions were red.

Try it again but give a few minutes between each. There's a very good reason why the worlds leading telescopes are supercooled with liquid nitrogen....

At ISO6400 you are pushing the sensor 6 stops harder than it's native ISO, thus 6 times the amplification, which is driven by electricity. In an enclosed space. You should really be saying 'look at how much clarity there is' rather than 'I need a firmware fix'.

Also, turn all sharpening off in camera and selectively do it instead as ANY sharpening will enhance the distortion.

There's a fine line on the 5D3 where the heat will build quicker than it will dissipate. I wouldn't go above ISO1600. Just because you have it on your camera doesn't mean to say you should be using it.

57
Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2
« on: September 01, 2012, 04:48:25 AM »
I never used my 135L when I had it. Too long, even on full frame.

The 85L is more versatile and as you say the 135L is cheaper....so get the 85L and buy the 135 later.

The 85L is one of my most used lenses, for portraits it's almost exclusive (Other than the Hasselblad 100mm + 1.7x TC). Consider the 85mm 1.8 though, seriously consider it.

You can't really tell the difference between the two, it focuses quicker and is much lighter (and cheaper).

Then you can buy both.

58
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing
« on: August 30, 2012, 11:49:41 AM »
So only a few months after the D800 and D4 are released Nikon releases a FF camera with 16bit processing?

That's going to piss people off.

59
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Structural Weakness
« on: August 26, 2012, 02:42:21 AM »
Despite the main frame of the body being one piece, multiple cast pieces are bolted on. It looks like the top cover, which is easily replaced.

60
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 1DX vs. EOS 5D MARK III for Weddings,
« on: August 23, 2012, 04:01:20 AM »
1DX - To keep all the 7D wannabe's at bay.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 23