March 04, 2015, 11:42:01 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 - kbmelb

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9
I use to use the Nikon CoolScan 8000 and it did a great job but at a very slow rate. The best results were with multi-pass scanning, especially with 35mm. I found four passes worked best. Never used the 9000.

I think whatever scanner you choose check to see if it will do multi-pass scans. I imagine this is all software so you could check to see if Silverfast supports the scanner and buy their software to get multi-pass ability.

Lenses / Re: 50 mm 1.2 L or 1.4
« on: May 01, 2012, 12:19:27 PM »
IMO the 50 1.2 regardless of what f/stop makes a much, much nicer image. It may not be sharper but the images are superior in every other way. f/2.0 and wider are magical but even 5.6, while not at it's sharpest, still has a way of pulling the subject out and having a WOW! effect. It really exemplifies why we choose primes to me.

Justifying the cost is an individual thing. If all you seek is sharpness the 50L might let you down. But if you seek the WOW! effect it shouldn't let you down.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Techradar Test of the 5D MK3
« on: April 26, 2012, 01:18:33 AM »
Interesting. From the their Raw DR stats it appears ISO 200 is the native ISO and 100 is pull. Guessing since the DR is lower at 100.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Advice: On buying 5D3.
« on: April 25, 2012, 10:32:49 PM »
Posted this in another post yesterday.

I did this messing around with metering and decided this junk shot might be a good DR test. I don't have a D800 but I think this show Canon really did improve the DR in the mkIII over the mkII. I'm not taking much stock in DxO. I LIKE my mkIII.

Disregard the fact the files say they are both from mkIII, that is the way I cropped them in the same PS file together.
Both shots were identical exposures with the same lens at ISO 400 and in Aperture 3 the "Brightness" and "Shadows" sliders were pushed all the way equally. I'd say there is a stop or two DR improvement.



EOS Bodies / Re: Will Apple Preview support 5D Mark III RAW files?
« on: April 25, 2012, 12:25:21 AM »
Well, I just - in effect - paid $15 to upgrade Preview.  I never use iPhoto, but I paid the $15 to upgrade from iPhoto '09 (8.xx) to iPhoto '11 (9.xx), and then installed Digital Camera Raw Compatibility Update 3.12.  When I start iPhoto, it tells me that the photo library needs to be upgraded, and it will take a long time; since I don't use iPhoto, this is of no concern to me, so I press Quit.

And after all that, Preview finally supports 5D Mark III raw files.  I have to wonder if Apple will ever get around to adding a Preview upgrade that would make this iPhoto/Aperture upgrade unnecessary.  I just got tired of waiting.

After waiting for a non-Beta version of Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw and waiting for a defined solution to the light leak problem, I decided to work around the one minor but annoying issue which I could do something about.  Humph!!!

That's kind of bunk. That is where I was when the 5DmkII came out, Adobe wouldn't support it in CS3 because CS4 was just announced. So I jumped ship to Aperture. Now Apple does the same crap? At least it was only $15 compared to the several hundred to upgrade my CS design suite. Well at least I didn't have an issue this time around but I guess Aperture 2 user probably would. Even that is only an $80 upgrade.

My mkII and mkIII histograms for identical shots are almost identical. I have also noticed with this test mkIII's AWB is also more accurate. But I guess that is to be expected.

In post with all things were equal the MkII looked a little brighter in center and the histogram of the mkII was slightly more spread to the right, but spiked similarly, which I'm likening to dynamic range since the mkII filled in blacks and pushed whites more (see below). Both files were raw imported to Aperture so no lens corrections were on in either.

While I was there I pushed the shadow levels and brightness to the limits and noticed the 5DIII has substantially more DR and much better noise control. Both these are ISO 400 and pushed equally. I'm impressed. the mkIII may not be the 800 in DR but I'm happy.

Disregard the fact the files say they are both from mkIII, that is the way I cropped them in the same PS file together.



EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Firmware upgrade, missing step...
« on: April 24, 2012, 04:06:34 AM »
I am Mac user and I just downloaded the PC version and unzipped it. It is the same file once uncompressed. Then drag and drop it on the CF card and go as normal. Worked fine. I even had the SD card in too.

EOS Bodies / Re: The ultimate 5d3 poll - What's your take on the 5d3?
« on: April 23, 2012, 01:35:08 PM »
My take.  I would like to have one, but cannot justify purchase unless it would make me money

This actually touches upon my own sentiment about 5DMk3 (strictly business oriented) and it's something that I haven't read on this forum so far. A lot of people here who feel positive about their Mk3 purchase, upgraded from consumer models, and I'm sure it feels like the best thing since sliced bread. But really, even Mk2 would have felt like that going from 40D.

I do earn revenue with wedding photography, and I could easily get the Mk3, but it would be the dumbest business decision I could make (and I'm only talking about myself here - other people may have different needs). As long as Mk2 earns revenue, there is no reason what-so-ever for me to get the Mk3 because, for the sake of keeping it real -  it's not a game changer. Only game changers (or breakages) truly warrant an upgrade in my opinion.

Some people see auto focus as a game changer, but to be fair - I have no issues with Mk2 auto focus. As far as IQ goes, difference is minuscule, clients can't see it, I even can't see it unless I pixel peep, I don't shoot over 6400ISO (which I'll happily do with Mk2 and nicely clean up in LR), so unless this camera could magically allow me to raise package prices to pay for itself (which it unfortunately can't), I don't see how it could warrant a $3500 expenditure.

Anyway I just wanted to change the beat a little from the usual "I'm switching to D800" Mk3 bashing.

My income is solely based on my photographs, contrast to the above, which I totally understand and respect because I told myself the same thing for a couple weeks after the mkIII was made available. But I caved and can't say it was the best business move but I don't feel like it was a bad one. I doubt I will ever be able to quantify it but I spend less time fiddling with MF because there is AF point where I need it. I spend less time sorting through missed focus shots or sharpening missed focus shot. Less time cropping because I didn't have to settle on an AF point to get the shot. I just plain end up with shots the way I intended out of the camera. I for see the mkIII having a longer shutter life (time wise) since I am shooting less shots. It frees me up to just take the picture I find it very liberating.

I know a lot of the arguments are that people had no problem with AF of the 5DII. While styles are all different, my point here is I made the mkII work too but it was more work to get it right in the camera and it was sometimes more work in post. So to me the mkIII is same money earned but less time equals happier me. I don't think the mkIII is a game changer by any means (I'm not in a hurry to trade my mkII in for another mkIII) but it can be a difference maker to most.

I sold my 1DsmkII for $1500 after my mkIII purchase so I look at as only being $2k in the hole and I'm ok with that. Plus it helps me out with Uncle Sam next year.

EOS Bodies / Re: The ultimate 5d3 poll - What's your take on the 5d3?
« on: April 23, 2012, 01:01:08 PM »
To those with the Mark iii and 85L.

Is the AF more accurate / faster wide open ?

I haven't shot a whole lot with the combo but I would say it is definitely quicker and I never had too much issue with accuracy. If I missed the focus on a shot before I likened it to the AF didn't lock where I intended and the photo was snapped. When given the time the 85L has always been deadly accurate. All of my lenses seem zippier and lock focus faster. I have really noticed the difference with 50 1.2 in the accuracy dept.

I think the shortened shutter lag also makes it feel more accurate. It allows for less time for you to move from the time you compress the shutter button to when the image is actually captured. I did find this to be an issue shooting the mkII. With the shallow DOF at 1.2 this is a huge improvement also.

Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: April 23, 2012, 02:08:10 AM »
I owned the 24L mkI when all I had was a crop camera. When I went FF the 24 was too wide for me so I sold it. I bought the 35L and loved it but then I bought the 50L and loved it too. I found myself using the 50 more so I sold the 35 thinking they were to close in FL. Then I bought the 24L mkII and found 24 was still too wide for me and returned it. So I came to terms I need the 35 and 50 so I bought the 35L again and I am very happy now.

I love the 35L. The images from it are really have something different about them much in the way the 50L, 85L and 135L have something special about the images they produce. It might be the focal length but the neither the 24s images really rang my bell. Bokeh at 1.4 on the 24 just looks odd to me. The mkII is definitely sharper but the 35 is sharper.

I think the shooting with a zoom and checking FL of your shots is a great idea. I did this and the funny thing is most of my wider shots were at 30ish so I figure it is more complimentary to the subjects to shoot 35 and take a half step back then shooting 24 and taking a step in.

EOS Bodies / Re: The ultimate 5d3 poll - What's your take on the 5d3?
« on: April 22, 2012, 11:40:59 PM »
I'm not sure I understand the poll terms at all. I'm a pro, I own the 5DIII and I am happy with it. I've seen reviews that claim the ISO performance isn't any better than the markII but my unscientific observations are that it is at least a stop better. I'd almost say it's 2 stops due to the appearance of the noise. It doesn't band nearly as bad as the 5DII and what noise is there is not as ugly as the markII. I'd liken the noise pattern more like my 1DsII which I always like better than 5DII. The markIII definitely retains more detail at higher ISOs in my observations and I sure purely RAW. Dynamic range has never been an issue to me, my style of shooting is, if I can't get enough detail in shadows I put up a fill light.

The biggest thing for with the markIII is the AF. I shoot with 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L most (usually f/2 or less) and I find myself shooting faster and with fewer shots because the AF is so much more accurate and reliable.

With that said, with a stationary subject, well lit and properly metered shot (were I don't have to push exp), I could care less which camera I choose. If the markII has the lens I want already mounted to it I'll just grab it instead of taking time to switch lenses/bodies.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weird banding on new 5D Mark II
« on: April 08, 2012, 01:43:03 AM »
I had the same issue couple years ago with the same card. It was definitely the card. I had to return 3 different versions of the card. I no longer use sandisk.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 07, 2012, 04:32:10 PM »
I tested my 1Ds II and my 5DII and no changes in my exposures. My 5DIII definitely has this issue.

I'm at 413 shots with 13% left. Seems relatively low. I've only shot stills, no IS lenses. I have messed around in menus a bit though.

I've read to that batteries need to be conditioned by use. Meaning the charge will last longer after a couple charges. This was definitely the case with my Mini-Vagabond.

Lenses / Re: Your Most Used Lens!
« on: April 05, 2012, 11:38:12 PM »
50L here too. I use the 24-70 quite a bit but by far prefer the 50 and now with the super AF on the 5DmkIII I will really put the 50L to a lot more use.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9