October 23, 2014, 08:54:14 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 - drmikeinpdx

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 22
61
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f2.8L II Shutter Speeds
« on: April 05, 2014, 11:24:41 AM »
I have noticed the same thing over the last several years.  Back in my 35mm film days, I was proud of what slow shutter speeds I could get a way with.   Now I have to keep my shutter speed at 2X the focal length or faster.

I suppose some of this is attributable to age, but I agree with others that we are expecting a lot more sharpness from our modern digital cameras and lenses.

I am anxiously awaiting Canon's upcoming stabilized 50mm lens - when and if they ever release it.


62
I say publish ASAP.

63
You may be right, Neuro.  Perhaps the camera is looking for a thumbnail. 

64
OK, DPP works if I select a Canon RAW file, open it in the editor, then choose "convert and save" to the working folder on the CF card.  The camera will display the image on the LCD screen.  Yay!

It does not work if I import a Lightroom-created JPG into DPP, then select "convert and save" on the CF card.  Darn!

Very strange!

Most of my RAW images are actually saved as DNG files, so it appears that my options for this project are very limited.

65
I used Zoom Browser to transfer a JPG that was created with Lightroom and that didn't work.  I'll try DPP.

66
I want to be able to copy some JPG images onto my Compact Flash card, put it into my camera, and scroll through the images on the LCD screen, like I do with images I just shot.  It seems like a simple thing, but it's not happening.

Here's what I've been doing:

I put the CF card in the card reader and use Windows Explorer to transfer some JPG files from my hard drive to the active folder on the CF card.  In this case, the folder is named 100EOS7D.  When I try to view the JPGs on the camera screen, they aren't there.

Just for fun I tried this with a Canon RAW file and I was able to view it on the screen.  Tried again with a DNG image file and no luck.

Any ideas on how I can make this work?

Both my 5D3 and my 7D do the same thing.  It seems odd, since you can save your images as JPGs and view them easily, but when you copy in a JPG from your computer, it is not recognized by the camera.

Thanks in advance!

67
.
Nice work.

I'm a little surprised by the deep DOF at f/2.8 on the 40mm in the first two images. I find so much detail in the texture of the wall behind her a bit distracting.

Thanks.

I see what you mean about the wall texture.  I placed the focus on the model's face and she is very close to the wall.  If I had been thinking about the wall texture I could have placed the focus a bit closer to the camera.  However, keeping a clear face while blurring the wall would be tricky with anything wider than about 85mm, I'd guess.  Another option would be to move the model away from the wall. :)

At the time, I thought it would be fun to have her feet blurred, and in the next photo I wanted to blur the cat.

68
I thought my friends here at CR might enjoy reading about my recent Photoshoot with 40 pancake, 50 Sigma and a brolly box. 

I took the time to include the lens and ISO data for each shot.  Hope you find that interesting!  As usual, I am using my beloved 5D3, the camera that makes every lens look good.  (According to me, anyway!)

Oh, I also used my favorite lens, the Canon 85mm f/1.8.  You may notice that when photographing people, I tend to use my prime lenses between f/2 and f/2.8, that seems to be the sweet spot for me.

I am becoming quite a fan of what our Brit friends call a Brolly Box.  Basically it means an umbrella with translucent white fabric over the open side with a small hole for the light source.  In my case an Alien Bee 400 is located in the hole.  This makes a really nice soft box that is very compact to transport and very easy to set up.  It is so efficient that I sometimes end up using ISO 50 in order to use a large aperture with my prime lenses.  (Light source: Alien Bees 400)

Perhaps the best thing is that they can be made very cheaply, so if yours gets damaged (hasn't happened to mine yet), you just reach for a fresh one.  I bought mine at the link below.  They are so cheap they are sold in pairs to make a worthwhile sale.

http://www.skaeser.com/servlet/the-607/photo%2Cvideo%2Clight%2Clights%2Clighting%2Cumbrella%2Csoftbox%2Creflective%2Creflector/Detail

So if you would like to read my blog post, just go here:

Fair warning... after the first few photos it is rated NSFW.

http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog/2014/3/boudoir-photography-in-a-century-old-portland-home   

69
Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 07, 2014, 07:38:25 PM »
I always add some grain in Lightroom when I'm going for a Tri-X look.

You guys are making me rethink my vow to never go back in the darkroom!  ;D

70
Pricewatch Deals / Authorized Canon dealer?
« on: March 03, 2014, 12:33:50 AM »
Just wondering if you have to buy from an authorized Canon dealer to make use of the mail in rebates.  Anyone know for sure?

71
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: February 23, 2014, 10:34:22 PM »
Thanks Rienzphotoz!

72
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM "Pancake"
« on: February 23, 2014, 10:01:44 AM »
I've been using my 40 mostly as an indoor lens for people or things like museum exhibits.  I used it last week when I did a "house call" for my boudoir business.  Here is an example:


This is at F/2.8 which gives me the DOF I'm looking for.  This is with a 5D3.

If you would like to see more images from this shoot, you can go to my blog http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog/2014/2/beyond-boudoir-photo-makes-a-house-call

Be advised that the first four images are safe for work.  After that they are NSFW.  You have been warned. :)

73
Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?
« on: February 23, 2014, 09:24:27 AM »
I have some experience with anti-reflection coatings in the Ophthalmic (ie: eyeglasses) industry.

If anti-reflection coatings are not perfectly applied, they do indeed seem to peel off over time without the consumer doing anything wrong.  The companies that make lenses for eyeglasses have had a lot of problems with this ever since AR coatings became popular about 20 years ago.   I think this problem is pretty rare in cameras and other optical instruments, because I have never seen it, but it seems likely that a batch of front elements was not properly coated.

As far as I know, there is nothing the consumer can do to make the AR coat start peeling without doing something drastic that would damage other parts of the lens in some obvious way.  It certainly is not due to any kind of cleaning and it is not caused by scratches.  A defective coating is really easy for me to spot because I've seen hundreds, but a camera tech probably hasn't seen many.

My guess is that either the machine that applies the coating to a batch of lenses in a vacuum chamber was not operating properly or the lenses were not properly cleaned before the coating process.  No way for us to know how big a batch is or how many batches were affected.

I don't think it would be appropriate to recall every one of these lenses, since the number of lenses affected is probably small.  In my opinion, Canon should issue a warranty notice like they did for the improperly secured mirrors on the early 5D classic.  If somebody sends a lens in with a defective coating, it gets fixed for free regardless of warranty status.  This is clearly a manufacturing defect.  Technicians should be told what a defective coating looks like so that they don't blame the customer.  It is really easy to spot a defective coating, it's the one that looks like it is peeling off!

What Canon chooses to do about this will tell us a lot about their commitment to customer service.  It will either make them look good or it will make them look bad. 


74
EOS-M / How come DP Review never did a review?
« on: February 22, 2014, 11:21:13 PM »
How come DP Review never did a full review of a production model  EOS-M?   All they ever did was this preview back in July 2013:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/

It was not included in their mirrorless roundup published Nov 30, 2013:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9961962217/entry-level-mirrorless-camera-roundup-2013


I really like the interactive widget that DP Review uses to allow comparison of image quality at various ISOs with various cameras.  I would not buy a camera that they hadn't reviewed so that I can compare the IQ to cameras I already have.

Was the IQ of the EOS-M so bad that DP Review decided not to publish a review?


75
I could use one of those in a Rebel body.  It would have to come with accurate autofocus and micro adjust to use the prime lenses wide open.  Unfortunately that does not fit Canon's marketing pattern at all.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 22