April 16, 2014, 04:24:34 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 - Viggo

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 113
871
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: September 24, 2012, 02:59:07 PM »
For me it isn't about LOW ambient light, it's about HIGH ambient outside i want to underexpose and let my flash work my main subject. And optimal with a 2,8 or faster aperture for shallow dof. I use 2x 580's at near full power and going from 250 to 300th of a second and into highspeed makes it look like my flashes didn't even fire. THAT'S the problem. That and the fact that with sync you can freeze quite a bit of fast action at 300th syncspeed, but very little with 200th.

872
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: September 24, 2012, 11:08:24 AM »
I think we very safely can say it's both those reasons.

873
EOS Bodies / Re: Why are flash sync shutter speeds getting worse?
« on: September 24, 2012, 09:49:55 AM »
Bigger sensors means the curtain must travel further.

874
The metering difference I don't get why people are using as an argument when it comes to iso evaluation.

Because the amount of light that gets on the sensor affects the noise level. The ISO doesn't change the amount of light that gets on the sensor. Therefore, identical optical exposures are mandatory. For a scientific test, the ISO has to be changed so that the brightness of the images from both sensors is the same, which means that the displayed ISO value may be different.

Yeah, for a scientific test point. But when metering and shooting a scene it doesn't matter. Less light more noise, but if one camera always meter under it creates noise. And when things happen fast and the metering is off, like with all three 5d's, that underexposes the problem isn't the displayed iso's. The difference is lab tests and how the camera creates the picture.

875
Guess my reply was censored, well that pretty much sums it up...

876
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX question
« on: September 23, 2012, 03:14:19 AM »
I guess that's customfunction (C1) and it's settings are stored from P-mode. I have removed everything else but Av, M, C1 and C2. One set for video and one for bracketing.

877
The metering difference I don't get why people are using as an argument when it comes to iso evaluation. First off, which metering is more accurate? Absolutely no contest ... and in the X you can offset your 0 ev, mine is at +5/8. I've shot 20k shots on the 5d3 and 11k on the 1d X and the difference is huge in metering precision and noiseperformance. I always need to to adjust the metering back and forth on the 5d to get what I want which really slows down shooting, is very annoying and makes me miss moments. The 1d is consistent no matter what light it's crazy, i hardly ever touch the ev scale.  I guess all the 5d owners don't know or don't want to know and needs to defend their purchase. I too defend the 1d X over the 5d, and i have used them both to the limits. And it just isn't right the difference is minor and not worth the price. It might not be worth it to some people, but the 1d is twice the camera.

878
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX VS 5D MKIII Cameras
« on: September 22, 2012, 05:07:11 AM »
Yeah, totally agree, the 5d3 is very good, but I felt it lacking in af speed , so many pictures that weren't focused that I should have been. When I got the 1d I felt straight away the mindblowing power of it, and I'm not using the term loosely... i bet i could throw it to someone's head and it will deliver eyeball-sharp worldclass action shots. No, really!!

If you're worried about weight, use a black rapid strap and hang it just below your belt. It doesn't even feel like you're carrying a camera. And btw, this doesn't work to do with the 5d as it jumps around much more.

879
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: September 22, 2012, 04:55:43 AM »
Not a word anymore about the 35 L II?

I think Sigma has that covered  ;)
Hey! It is a Canon site  :)

Yeah, I actually thought the new Siggy looked cool, they've taken a big step, by the looks of it at least. I couldn't really locate if it was weathersealed or not.

What you guys think, does it top the current 35 L? Af and wideopen performance are my biggest points.
The point for me is not whether it is a little better or worse than its Canon equivalent. It is a matter of future compatibility. I have a Tokina ATX28-70 f/2.8 and a Sigma 14mm that are nice paper weights.
They cannot be upgraded for the digital Canons. The Sigma works only fully open which is next to useless and the Tokina had ceased working since the advent of Canon 50E  !!! (It works though with my EOS1n camera!).
Both companies responded that they cannot upgrade their lenses. Now, my version 1 Canon EF50mm 1.8 still works!
There is a single exception to

I thought that was the idea with new firmware docking... but I can't say it is a compatibility problem that 30 year old lenses from thirdparty doesn't work with digital. It's not that long ago Canon's own flashes bought can't be used with digital.

880
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: September 21, 2012, 02:14:36 PM »
Not a word anymore about the 35 L II?

I think Sigma has that covered  ;)
Hey! It is a Canon site  :)

Yeah, I actually thought the new Siggy looked cool, they've taken a big step, by the looks of it at least. I couldn't really locate if it was weathersealed or not.

What you guys think, does it top the current 35 L? Af and wideopen performance are my biggest points.

881
When people like this exist you can charge whatever for whatever...

First Look: iPhone 5 Small | Large

882
Lenses / Re: List of rumored lenses
« on: September 21, 2012, 05:28:34 AM »
Not a word anymore about the 35 L II?


883
Lenses / Re: Quality control issues with the 24-70 L II?
« on: September 21, 2012, 03:58:53 AM »
You'll see MUCH bigger variation out in the field when you're using phase-AF, and even then you'll probably hardly ever notice it in a real shooting situation.

Besides, apertures can vary alot, and there is VERY few lenses that follow the "soft open, better one stop, very good two stop down and diffraction softens at f22"- curve. For example the 50 L is sharper at 1,8 than at 2,2.

And the 24-70 mk2 is no different and it still is the best zoom ever, but it's when a test charts shows you a slight difference it's a bad copy and it sucks and Canon should burn in hell.

I like my lenses to be optimized as well, and I have had several copies of every lens (never saw a difference) and I adjust them with AFMA, now lately, with the best method, FoCal. They are adjusted as good as they can be on the best AF-body ever made, and that's good enough for me.

Perfect phase-AF is a myth.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy

884
20k on a single job?? Did you have ten batteries then? Wow! I can't really see why it would be wrong, it seems dead on to me.

885
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 20, 2012, 09:30:48 AM »

Define capable, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.   :o

Noooo? Are you kidding? Really, lower for the mk2? LOOOOL . That adds to the credibillity.... ::)

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 113