91
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-3D Surfaces Again [CR1]
« on: May 15, 2012, 03:18:29 PM »
I'm really hoping this is the case, this if true and all seems OK, will be my next upgrade, I'm skipping the 5D3!! fingers crossed!
May 18, 2013, 02:00:49 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.
92
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III error 80 and failure to release shutter
« on: May 05, 2012, 06:12:53 PM »
I know that you will get the error if your using slow cards, it happened to me on the shop, so I had to run back home and get atleast a 60mbs/sec write speed card
93
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon owns Canon - in TV commercials
« on: May 05, 2012, 03:11:18 PM »
Love that , thanks 
94
Lenses / Re: Trouble with my Canon 24.1.4 ii lens at 1.4
« on: May 03, 2012, 04:56:05 PM »
So bp you noticed that also on your 5D2? thats so interesting, its pushing me to invest in the 3 100%
95
Lenses / Re: Trouble with my Canon 24.1.4 ii lens at 1.4
« on: May 03, 2012, 04:18:43 PM »
Hey Guys,
I just want to say how much I am grateful for your replies, its a horrible thing when you feel you have something going wrong, i'm still at a slight cross roads as of what to do 100% but I did go after reading all your comments, down to my local Calumet photographic store and ask to do some tests with my 24mm on a 5D Mark3, here are the shots i took, please don't think you'll see anything interesting here only pieces of focus etc,
(please note the amount of images of the same thing is to prove consistency, I took these very fast recomposing and refocusing, giving the camera a chance to screw up, I did not use continuous drive at all,
(All shots are full resolution, and have been untouched and exported from Lightroom.
http://louis-amore.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-Mark3-with-24-14-TEST/22779891_vhDpHL#!i=1827270507&k=DND5ffK
as you can see the first shots of the case, the camera came in, I focused at the hoop and then the corner, i'm impressed, I always focused and then recomposed to put pressure on to the test, next you see my own camera, I focused on the focus diameter, as you can see, spot on as good as it gets i'm assuming, (Id also like to say, I used center spot focus and one shot for everything I took today, Next you see the poor girl assistant who was great while I took some frames of her eye, again, im impressed as most are spot on, even her lashes are crisp in some, most of these shots of the girl all landed focus, only about 2 where slight soft around the eye, but she did move sometimes and so did i, the next as of the shop itself, not at 1.4 of course, the small black chair was my focus point at first, then the guy walked in and the last shot I focused on him high iso at the end, 2000 iso to get at least a 60th to hold, my tests where also to find if this camera is soft, not at all, in my eyes, and I am very fussy,
back to some corners of plastic and most are spot on, again framing to an extreme edge of frame, results were good,
back to the girl, about 2 feet away, I didn't expect these to be good at 1.4 I would assume this is what I get at that distance, its a shame they cant be sharper, this is a great distance to try and be shallow at, I have to say, even though this whole post is about a 1.4 aperture, I never shoot like this, but I may want too, and this is my argument,
moving on to the assistants hands/nails, even 1.4 from that distance was great, for every picture I dialed up the aperture, as you can see if you take the time, the main finger will get sharper and sharper,
so my test proves what, hmm I believe you need good auto focus for fast lenses, and when I say good, I mean pro auto focus, this cameras AF rarely missed at 1.4, of course the distance has to be fairly near to be sharp of course, but with my 5D Mark2 i would of liked to see how many of the same shots I would of missed,
This has been interesting, the very bad soft images of the 5D3 at the launch of the camera, has now been cleared, was that happening with early prototype models, i will never know, but this camera I had, was as sharp as my 5D2 and that's what I always wanted,
and of course the lens test, AF, is very very nice, I felt confidant with this camera, and if I had to take a fast shot at 1.4 i walk off knowing if got decent focus, with my 5D2 id have to take 5 minimum,
thanks again for all your help,
comments are welcome
Louis
I just want to say how much I am grateful for your replies, its a horrible thing when you feel you have something going wrong, i'm still at a slight cross roads as of what to do 100% but I did go after reading all your comments, down to my local Calumet photographic store and ask to do some tests with my 24mm on a 5D Mark3, here are the shots i took, please don't think you'll see anything interesting here only pieces of focus etc,
(please note the amount of images of the same thing is to prove consistency, I took these very fast recomposing and refocusing, giving the camera a chance to screw up, I did not use continuous drive at all,
(All shots are full resolution, and have been untouched and exported from Lightroom.
http://louis-amore.smugmug.com/Other/Canon-Mark3-with-24-14-TEST/22779891_vhDpHL#!i=1827270507&k=DND5ffK
as you can see the first shots of the case, the camera came in, I focused at the hoop and then the corner, i'm impressed, I always focused and then recomposed to put pressure on to the test, next you see my own camera, I focused on the focus diameter, as you can see, spot on as good as it gets i'm assuming, (Id also like to say, I used center spot focus and one shot for everything I took today, Next you see the poor girl assistant who was great while I took some frames of her eye, again, im impressed as most are spot on, even her lashes are crisp in some, most of these shots of the girl all landed focus, only about 2 where slight soft around the eye, but she did move sometimes and so did i, the next as of the shop itself, not at 1.4 of course, the small black chair was my focus point at first, then the guy walked in and the last shot I focused on him high iso at the end, 2000 iso to get at least a 60th to hold, my tests where also to find if this camera is soft, not at all, in my eyes, and I am very fussy,
back to some corners of plastic and most are spot on, again framing to an extreme edge of frame, results were good,
back to the girl, about 2 feet away, I didn't expect these to be good at 1.4 I would assume this is what I get at that distance, its a shame they cant be sharper, this is a great distance to try and be shallow at, I have to say, even though this whole post is about a 1.4 aperture, I never shoot like this, but I may want too, and this is my argument,
moving on to the assistants hands/nails, even 1.4 from that distance was great, for every picture I dialed up the aperture, as you can see if you take the time, the main finger will get sharper and sharper,
so my test proves what, hmm I believe you need good auto focus for fast lenses, and when I say good, I mean pro auto focus, this cameras AF rarely missed at 1.4, of course the distance has to be fairly near to be sharp of course, but with my 5D Mark2 i would of liked to see how many of the same shots I would of missed,
This has been interesting, the very bad soft images of the 5D3 at the launch of the camera, has now been cleared, was that happening with early prototype models, i will never know, but this camera I had, was as sharp as my 5D2 and that's what I always wanted,
and of course the lens test, AF, is very very nice, I felt confidant with this camera, and if I had to take a fast shot at 1.4 i walk off knowing if got decent focus, with my 5D2 id have to take 5 minimum,
thanks again for all your help,
comments are welcome
Louis
96
Lenses / Re: Trouble with my Canon 24.1.4 ii lens at 1.4
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:52:22 PM »I had two copies and a customer at my shop tried two copies of the 24 L II that had "random focus". There was a batch that had focus problems.
The issue was as follows; camera tripodmounted, focused with One Shot, and it changed distance dramtically (a couple of feet) from one image to another. Completely at random. Out of 10 images I could have two, one or none sharp, I'm talking WAY off...
My third copy , once adjusted, have been just as stable as my other lenses.
Viggo what did you use to adjust?
97
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon fixed 5DIII light leak with tape
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:48:09 PM »
fix or not that is shoddy
shod·dy (shd)
adj. shod·di·er, shod·di·est
1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2.
a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: shoddy business practices.
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.
n. pl. shod·dies
1.
a. Woolen yarn made from scraps or used clothing, with some new wool added.
b. Cloth made from or containing such yarn.
2. Something of inferior quality; a cheap imitation.
shod·dy (shd)
adj. shod·di·er, shod·di·est
1. Made of or containing inferior material.
2.
a. Of poor quality or craft.
b. Rundown; shabby.
3. Dishonest or reprehensible: shoddy business practices.
4. Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.
n. pl. shod·dies
1.
a. Woolen yarn made from scraps or used clothing, with some new wool added.
b. Cloth made from or containing such yarn.
2. Something of inferior quality; a cheap imitation.
98
Lenses / Re: Trouble with my Canon 24.1.4 ii lens at 1.4
« on: May 02, 2012, 12:29:23 PM »
Thanks for your replies guys, would Reikan FoCal. be a good option to buy now? Im not sure how about these things, I've never used them, also, I take allot of landscape, but if Im going to go shallow, I will come in close, I don't want to adjust anything if it means Im going to mess with focus for far away subjects?
regards
regards
99
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,
http://louis-amore.smugmug.com/Other/Test1/22755782_HxNbF7#!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
www.louisamore.com
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
Louis
PS sorry for the typos im terrible at spelling
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,
http://louis-amore.smugmug.com/Other/Test1/22755782_HxNbF7#!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
www.louisamore.com
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
Louis
PS sorry for the typos im terrible at spelling
100
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
101
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,
102
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
103
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 bullshit, 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.
104
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,
105
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