October 02, 2014, 06:29:00 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 - tron

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 123
46
EOS Bodies / Re: here we come, 6d AF problems
« on: August 07, 2014, 08:29:13 AM »
...I felt it would be too much trouble to get the targets printed at various sizes, hanged 100% vertically and use proper lighting (which I do not have).

Just to point out…if you test at a distance that's a fixed multiple of focal length (I use 25x and 50x), the target is always the same relative size.  Personally, I just use an inkjet print of the target on letter-sized heavy matte paper for all my testing.  Also, it does not need to be hung perfectly vertical, as long as you have a ballhead it's easy to align the camera to the target at a slight angle, and the software guides you through that.
Thanks for that. So I guess this leaves only the lighting not being correct. As for distance, I have 14mm to 500mm but up to 200mm I sometimes shoot from not too far away (especially for 85m 1.2) so I guess I can make a compromise and test shoot from a little closer than 25X. But even so when I use the 85 the lighting is even less than my living room's so maybe the lighting is of no issue (it is incandescent type by the way so at least it is the correct type).

47
Canon General / Re: Which Lens to Take
« on: August 07, 2014, 08:21:30 AM »
Provided weight is a concern I'd take the 5D III, 24-105 and the nifty fifty.

Also, above, plus if you think you'll need longer reach and have funds available, consider getting a 70-200 f4 IS (that can be sold when you get back)
+1 It seems a nice compromise. Plus the 70-200 f4 IS is light.

48
EOS Bodies / Re: here we come, 6d AF problems
« on: August 07, 2014, 08:14:48 AM »
A few of my lenses looked like rubbish or made the camera seem so until I microadjusted them. I did not even use focal.
A trial and error AFMA for my 85mm 1.2, 135 2 and 35 1.4 worked miracles on all my cameras.

Now something funny:
5DMkII No1:  85 1.2L II +10
5DMkII No2:  85 1.2L II +10

5DMkII No1:  35 1.4L +10
5DMkII No2:  35 1.4L     0    !!!

I think that your trial and error method has something to do with this point. I first tried trial and error, then dot-tune but was never satisfied about the results. The tolerance was there. Focal, which uses statistics behind the screens, is taking care of that error. Focal really looks for the top sharpness. I also think that a 34 1.4 is less sensitive to afma then a 85 1.2. I see that more or less also on my 24 1.4. The longer the lens the more critical. The wide angles have a much wider DOF, so simply by trial and error finding the top level of sharpness doesn't seem simple to me.
I would buy FoCal (if you have a lot of gear it is value for money anyway) but I felt it would be too much trouble to get the targets printed at various sizes, hanged 100% vertically and use proper lighting (which I do not have). So I used trial and error and I am satisfied.

Plus a correction: My two cameras are 5DMkIII not II (but the principle is the same).

49
EOS Bodies / Re: Plan B
« on: August 07, 2014, 07:57:35 AM »
i don´t care much about aps-c.

im only interested in the 7D MK2 because i want to see what canon does and if there will be an improvement in sensor technology.

Seeing the 7D mainly as a tele/action/sports camera probably something along the lines of a good phase detection AF + improved DualPixel technology. Maybe QuadPixels. Possibly initial focus acquired by the dedicated AF sensor, then handing off to Sensor focus to follow the objects and shoot at a high frame rate without moving the mirror. This would require a hybrid viewfinder.

So for sensor technology this doesn't mean necessarily mean very much improvement in regards to quality of low ISO still images. I wouldn't expect too much in this regard.

the rumor mill says there will be new sensor technology: "As well as some revolutionary sensor technology".

together with the hype around "canon will do something historical" or  "a big change in canons history" (as mentioned a few times at CR).... i would be disappointed by only a updated dualpixel technology.
+1 Exactly! Dual/Quad/Whatever pixel technology is nothing compared to a much improved sensor.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: here we come, 6d AF problems
« on: August 06, 2014, 06:49:38 PM »
A few of my lenses looked like rubbish or made the camera seem so until I microadjusted them. I did not even use focal.
A trial and error AFMA for my 85mm 1.2, 135 2 and 35 1.4 worked miracles on all my cameras.

Now something funny:
5DMkIII No1:  85 1.2L II +10
5DMkIII No2:  85 1.2L II +10

5DMkIII No1:  35 1.4L +10
5DMkIII No2:  35 1.4L     0    !!!
 

51
I got a TG-3 and quite enjoyed it. It was used mostly at the surface though and anyway not deeper than 1 meter.

52
And I would love a f/1.4 lens wider than 24mm with very good edges/corners and no coma (for obvious reasons  :) )

53
Lenses / Re: 50mm Coma Sigma Art vs Regular Sigma F1.4
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:53:29 AM »
@extremeinstability: thanks for this and generally for all your coma tests. They are very useful.

Still looking for a very wide, very bright lens with not much coma.

I know that you  would suggest the Samyang 14 2.8 but I had found a used (but excellent) Canon 14mm 2.8 II for about 1000 Euros less than the street price. After getting rid of old gear I didn't want I paid about half of the used selling price. So I took it and left happy  :)

True there is a little coma at the corners but nothing serious like my now sold 16-35mm 2.8 (version 1).

54
Lenses / Re: Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:42:39 AM »
Changed my mind. Not selling any of them. At least for now.
Hmmm, you sound like ... myself  ;D

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 31, 2014, 09:51:08 AM »
Big splash could be the sound of a new big zoom waterproof camera dropping into the water  ;D

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:20:37 PM »
Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L.  Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use.  The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel.  When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II. 

But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.

The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

What if most of what the 1D X they put in the 7DII is retail cost?   :o  ;)
;D ;D ;D Now, I believe they can also increase the fps a little (say 9 or 10) and use a similar to 1Dx AF system. I believe they will use dual digic just like in their 7D so this is doable.
If the 7D2 will indeed include a revolutionary sensor then I guess it will be a very high quality ... teleconverter itself :)

57
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:58:45 AM »
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS.  Now, I look for reasons to use it.  I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep.  It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way.  I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them.  Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter.  2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists.  Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A
+1 too. A 16-35 2.8 with sharp corners and no coma would be even more useful than my 14 2.8 II for astrophotography since there are cases where I could do with the more protective hood of 16-35 vs the small built in hood in 14 2.8 II combined with a bulbuous front element which makes it prone to flare from sideways light.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:51:36 AM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

Exactly! I don't understand not having EC when one is still relying on the camera to calculate exposure. Especially since Canon tends to underexpose in my experience, this would be quite useful. I'm almost always in one of two modes: Av, or M with auto ISO. It's that latter one I'm in a lot and wish I could often bias the exposure a bit brighter.
Exactly, this feature is maybe the only one missing from 5D3. Since it can be done in firmware it is a pity that it is missing  :(

59
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:36:41 AM »
I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too.  :-[
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.
They'll probably announce it at Photokina, just to be cruel...
Very cruel considering I have just bought the f/4 IS version. Add to that the fact that  bought 16-35 2.8L a few months/one year before the 16-35 2.8L II and you have the complete picture!  ;D

60
Lenses / Re: New Canon L Primes, but Not Until 2015 [CR2)
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:28:06 PM »
A new 50 L that's "a lot smaller" ?? Makes no sense whatsoever ..
Maybe it will be a 50mm 1.8L IS with the size of  50mm 1.4 and the price of 50 1.2L  ;D ;D ;D

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 123