March 04, 2015, 03:28:13 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 - Louis

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
Lenses / Trouble with my Canon 24.1.4 ii lens at 1.4
« on: May 02, 2012, 11:33:02 AM »
Hello guys, I dont normally post here, but knowing you are all experts makes me want too,

Ive been having a problem with my new lens, I didn't think I had this problem so bad until recently, now it's maybe my own paranoia, or I do have a problem, i'm not sure what to think really, I own a 5D Mark2 and my lens a Canon 24 1.4 II L Lens, I'm finding at 1.4 I have to take 5 or 6 images to achieve focus that in the hope 1 will have achieved good focus, I understand 1.4 is so shallow its going to be tough anyway and on a poor AF camera as the 5D2 i'm going to have problems, but I think this is just 2 soft, and allot of the time, the camera misses completely, I just don't get it, after spending so much money, i'm getting a but sick of Canon, and I maybe to blame, Now I use a center spot focus and lock and recompose, and this may be a problem, or not, I do think the camera used to lock focus better, is it possible a camera over time, lose focus, I have tried front and back focus tests on a tape measure, and the focus seems fine, I know I should stop down the lens slightly, but I don't see why I can get a semi sharp image at the right distance on 1.4, for that money I think you should be able too, last week, I took a picture of a friend at the side of his hair just on a grey bit above his ear, and it missed so much and I achieved focus on his forehead, I did more tests and the camera could not focus on hair, even though it was a good contrast for the camera, so I though maybe there's certain things canon sensors have trouble with, so today, I went for a walk with mum, to a forest to see the bluebells, it was a bad day, and nothing great to photograph, so I took some pretty crappy shots of a bluebell and noticed a ladybird on it, so i though ok this could be nice, anyway, this ladybird was moving very slowly and I have 1/1250 shutter, the first 2 where so bad, I could hardly believe my eyes, you can see the images here,!i=1825217841&k=WqLhrhB

you can hit a large size to see close enough,

what are your thoughts, you can see 2 pictures out of the 4 that are slightly okish, and 2 so badly off,

please visit my website, to understand this isn't user error , or in fact it maybe I have no idea

what do you guys think,

for nearly 3500 pounds worth of kit, should I be getting results like this, Im so deeply unhappy, do i send my camera lens to canon to have a look, i'm not sure, or is this what u get for your money, I believe I would get a better result with a much cheaper micro 4/3rds camera,?

thanks for your time to any one who replies

Kindest regards


PS sorry for the typos im terrible at spelling 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon did everything it could in 5D3
« on: May 02, 2012, 10:14:18 AM »
Canon is the master of intensely annoying "market differentiation" - meaning crippling of camera features for pure marketing speculations, which most of the time turn out to be dead wrong and are costing them market share.

Why do people make statements like this?  What makes you think it is costing them market share, and more importantly, do you have any data to back that up?  The availbale data show that Canon's market share for dSLRs has been increasing for the past several years.  So by the relevant objective measure, Canon is doing things right, not 'dead wrong'.

market share data I know, shows the opposite. Nikon and SOny have taken a lot of DSLR-market away from Canon over the past 6-7 years.

Why is Canon dead wrong? They could have built on their early DSLR-dominance. You may remember, that once upon a time their CMOS sensors were way better, especially at hi-ISO than anything else on the market! They totally squandered that and are WORSE today than competitors.

Had they focused on selling the very best cameras in  every market segment - best sensor and all the best photographic features, no holds barred ... they would completely OWN the entire DSLR market by now and Nikon would be in bankrupcy by now!

Sepcifically, Canon F_____ up when they

* brought the measly 50D instead of the 7D  ... that would have killed Nikon's immense success with the D300
* brought the 5D2 with 1Ds III AF-system - that would have killed Nikons D700 immediately
* brought the 1D IV instead of the ill-fated 1D III ... that would have stopped the D3/s in its tracks
* sold the 1Ds III for a reasonable 4k ... that would have killed the D3x
* stuck their video crap into video cams  ... Cxxx cameras from 1k to 20 k ... all available with EF-mount. Those Video types did not buy the 5D2 and 7D BECAUSE of their love for vpoorly video-suited DSLRs. They bought them solely for one reason: because no similarly decent videcam [e.g. a C100 or whatever] @ 1k and 2.5 k USD was available on the market!

BUT ... what did Canon do? Eyery step of the way only the BARE MINIMUM, always TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. Always obsessed with "cannibalization" ... and ALWAYS full-bore marketing-differentiation, criplling "lowly" camera bodies and denying them readily available useful photographic features - irrespective of whether this would have helped them to capture market share from competitors. Always nickling and diming clients. Making them upgarde to a same-sensor camera just to get a decent  AF-system. Or charging them extra for hard to get lens shades instead of throwing those 1$ production cost items into the box like all reasonable competitors do!

All of this is why Nikon is back stronger than ever and why Canon has been losing market share all along.
All of this is why I more and more had it with Canon and will likely switch to Nikon once I move to FF.

so good, and so agree

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: May 01, 2012, 06:13:27 PM »
Because we all felt the 1dx sample shown from the original post were really soft!  So we jumped to the spftness issue from the 5dmkiii issue that was discussed before which were mostly driven by the dpp software.

...and apparently, soft RAW conversions is also an issue with LR.

I'm so glad the Lr problems have reach the surface and is spread all over now, only way to get the message across. Get it widely known!

I had no idea this was the case, I just imported a CR2 to DPP and then into Lightroom and exported both at 16 tiffs, the LR Tiff also lacked so much colour, plus the DPP looks sharper, anyone know how I can save over every RAW file in DPP with my small adjustments such as chromatic aberration etc,

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: April 29, 2012, 03:59:29 PM »
In terms of "softness" I had a Mark II for almost three years and now I have two Mark IIIs.  The Mark III is very sharp.  It is sharper than the Mark II and the IQ in terms of color and ISO are superior.  I can't imagine the the 1Dx having a "softness" issue if the Mark IIIs images are extremely sharp.   

Yeah? Could you post a couple of raw's, say of a barcode and small text, I can compare to mine with? because mine is def softer than my 5d2. Serioulsy different.

that would really help. at full resolution please, a RAW file would be perfect if possible

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: April 28, 2012, 10:23:29 AM »
I tried to reply on Jay Goodrich's post, and it wasn't posted as I said how terrible the images looked, it goes to show its all bullS___, monitoring what is posted about a camera because he has some sort of bond with Canon, I think you should be allowed to be heard, its only going to help Canon get better, not hide behind some S___ and post a blog about how great something is, when everyone knows there's some problem and it isn't so great, reviews from these people are meaningless if posts are monitored. shame shame shame.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: April 28, 2012, 10:18:25 AM »
This is so odd because we hear so much about some kind of softness in the mkiii image, which by the way i did experienced personally with my unit of the 5d mkiii i tried, and now we see lots of 1dx picture on the web with some kind of softness too.  Wondering if they changed something to their AA filter design that could cause this or maybe it is something else.   ???

JR I so agree its really worrying, I have no idea whats going on, I wanted to buy the 5D3 but was so concerned about the images being soft, is this something that can be fixed? who knows its really bad, I don't understand how this past a testing stage and was released like this,

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d X field test
« on: April 27, 2012, 11:08:49 AM »
those 1DX Crops are bloody terrible, im not even looking at the iso, the sharpness is appalling

EOS Bodies / Re: differences in color between Mark ii and Mark iii?
« on: April 25, 2012, 06:08:34 AM »
Firmware Version 1.1.2 incorporates the following improvements and fixes.

2. Fixes a phenomenon where a pink cast may develop over the image when the shutter is completely pressed with the camera’s power turned off (by the auto power off setting).

I know your camera is turned on, but you tried updating the firmware?

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 and Canon's Comeuppance
« on: April 22, 2012, 01:23:30 PM »
I haven't been the only one who has made the observation that Canon seems more intent upon maximizing profit and protecting market segments instead of making the most kick-ass camera that it can. There always seems to be something purposefully gimped or a decision that was made by the marketing department instead of the engineers. I own a 5D3 and a d800 and it really seems to me that the folks at Nikon really tried harder. I originally bought the d800 for a specific purpose but now I find myself using it with a nice prime that I also bought. I really don't get the feeling using it that anyone at Nikon said "we better not do X because it'll cut into our sales of Y." My only major complaint is that it has a slow FPS, but then again it's moving massive files around.

Using my 5D3 I don't get the impression that Canon tried as hard as it might have. It really reminds me of American car makers back in the day trying to focus as much as possible on maximizing profits and not making the best cars that it could. We all know how well that went.

So anyway, Canon. Try harder. You deserve all the sh*t people are giving you. The 5D3 is a solid machine, but it's not great. There were so many missed opportunities. You probably could have made something very similar in 2010 but didn't. Try to build the best stuff you can and price it aggressively. Thanks.

love what you wrote and totally agree

hey tasteofjace I really love your shots, and I'm really impressed with how sharp they are, can I ask, are you happy with the overall sharpness of the camera? Id be tempted to ask if it was ever possible for you to send me a couple of your RAW files so I can view at 100% I really want this camera, but whats holding me back has been the overall sharpness, and now im thinking its been user error when I look at your files,

here is my email if that would be possible, id be so grateful


EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: April 15, 2012, 06:06:04 PM »
I was going to buy a Mark3 untill I saw 100% crops and how soft the images are, yes I have seen a few that have been somewhat sharp, but I cant take the risk, I need the camera in my hands and my own memory card to come home with and look at the images, I am a Canon user with a 5D mark2 and is happy apart from the autofocas, I have seen how stupid sharp that D800 is and it does make me sad that my own brand who I really do love is making me worried, I even checked the 1DX samples, and wasnt so sure how many where tact sharp at 100% I am talking studio set up shots,

anyway, lets see

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5D Mark III Sharp??
« on: April 02, 2012, 06:04:40 AM »
that is soft to me at 100%

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?
« on: April 01, 2012, 06:47:40 PM »
The reason I don't "sell it all and buy another brand" is simply because when the Canon-gear does what it's suppose to, nothing comes even close. That's why I'm upset, because it (5d3) has the potential of being a truly remarkable camera that will live up to the legendary statur of the 5d and 5d2, I'm just not seeing that now with all the issues.

How would you feel if you bought a sweet Ferrari and it went pretty good, but the old one was faster and sharper around the cornes, does it help that a bunch of people on a forum said, Yeah they will fix it, we hope.... Neh.. It should work when you turn the key and go like nuts, why? Cuz that's why you paid 200.000 dollars and it says FERRARI on it......

Viggo I completely agree,

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?
« on: April 01, 2012, 06:33:52 PM »
Yes I like that...

In all the years me and a lot of other photographers were able to make TOP quality images with Canon equipment.

I have had it will all the complains about Canon.
Sell everything and buy another brand and see what happens then.

I really am thinking the same,

EOS Bodies / Re: Is 5DIII softer than 5DII?
« on: April 01, 2012, 06:31:54 PM »
I have to be honest, reading all these posts, I am so disappointed with Canon, it feels that the 5D mark 3 was a complete rush job, no way has that camera been developed over 4 years, I have been on this website/forum for the last 8 months waiting for news of this camera, and I am shocked at the quality of the images, mainly at how soft they were, I was super happy with the AF, and that's all I wanted, but not to be softer than the mark2, I dont know if this is peoples models or it can be fixed, but I am in no way buying this camera untill I see a fix,

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10