January 30, 2015, 10:44:05 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 120 121 [122] 123 124 ... 372
1816
Lenses / Re: 6d/100L macro/Kenko 2X TC lockup
« on: December 25, 2013, 01:33:45 PM »
Just tried my Kenko 2x Pro300 with 100mmL lens on a 6d and it locks up the camera...can't shoot in any mode, auto or manual focus, etc. and when I shut off the camera, LCD continues to display. Remove Kenko, remove battery, restart and camera/lens works fine.

It's a known problem, Kenko even deprecates using the current extenders on 5d3/6d (I'm still hoping for a working update) ... disable autofocus micro adjustment and try again.

1817
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 25, 2013, 01:14:26 PM »
One thing I noticed with IS that is interesting...  Even with IS longer shutter speeds start to have a "mushy" look in my testing and often still end up blurry, even on the new 35mm w/ IS - a wide angle with latest generation IS.

Indeed, this is exactly my experience - IS doesn't replace fast shutter speeds, if I want crisp images @100% crop from my 70-300L I shoot with 1/500+ ... but IS is nice to stabilize the frame and terrific for low light.

Also, the autofocus is not as snappy as on the Canon.

+1, this is the decisive difference and it's up to everyone to decide if this is "worth" double the price esp. on systems with a mediocre af like the 6d.

There is also the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I am not convinced with a pretty terrible QC issue lens rentals ran into with the 2nd lens element falling off.  24-70 II has its own issues with some experiencing a noisy zoom barrel, but having a lens element fall off is a pretty catastrophic failure.

I'm not a Tamron press spokesperson, but I cannot help but to quote what lensrentals actually writes:

Quote
First and foremost, this is just a point of information  - something worth knowing about if you own this lens or are considering buying it. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is an excellent lens, but as with so many new products, early adopters are always serving the role of beta testers. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tamron hasn’t already fixed the problem quietly, but just in case it happens to some of you, we thought it worth posting.

1818
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 25, 2013, 12:19:48 PM »
Why would they get those complaints?  10/11 of the 6D's AF points are f/5.6 lines, which behave identically with every lens with a max aperture from f/1.0 to f/5.6.

... meaning you're getting worse results the faster your lens is. If you have a f4 lens, you won't notice the lack of precision say vs. the current Rebel/60d af systems, but with f2.8 you will. So I speculate that from Canon's point of view the ideal obfuscation of the mediocre af system is to let users shoot with f4 lenses, they even did the 6d samples with a 17-40L/4... the light loss is mostly compensated with the good iso capability of the 6d.

Since that point defaults to the f/5.6 cross if the f/2.8 line can't achieve focus, I doubt anyone not well-versed in the technical details of AF systems would even notice.

This is indeed the matter of discussion, and I have to admit reading a lot of users' posts you seem to be correct, people don't notice. On the other hand shooting with my 100L/2.8 I find it very hard not to notice that the 6d lacks af precision on low-contrast surfaces, but of course it's mostly noticeable at 100% crop and it very much depends on what you're shooting.

1819
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 25, 2013, 10:51:06 AM »
So, while it could be said that the f/2.8 lens on a 6D offers an AF benefit only in certain circumstances (reasonably common ones for most shooters, actually), I don't see when an f/4 lens is any better for AF (certainly not much better).

You're correct that f2.8 doesn't pose a liability on the 6d if shot @f4+ vs. a native f4 lens, that's why I'd get the Tamron f2.8 over the Canon f4 any day. I still don't quite know how often the +1ev af capability of f2.8 vs. f4 is really necessary, I guess it very much depends on personal circumstances.

What I originally intended to say, but failed to do :-) was that shooting with a f4 lens on the 6d gives you far less headaches and things to consider, and thus "works better" - that's from a naive usability, and not from a technical standpoint. So from Canon's point of view, packaging the 6d with a f4 lens or even designing one for it is a good business decision, avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.

1820
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 25, 2013, 05:41:10 AM »
There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.

... unless you try to shoot handhold with longer shutter times :-) in which case you should get familiar with PS' blur reduction filter. What I'm trying to say: For walkaround photography in verying light, IS does make sense, so there's no linear "better" or "worse".

First, AFAIK, all cameras benefit from the extra light gathering when it comes to focusing in the dark.  Cameras open the lenses up to their widest settings while focusing, and if the widest setting is wider, those AF sensors see more light, which means the camera is more likely to successfully focus when shooting in low light conditions.

Correct, your af capability will also drop one stop when using f4 vs f2.8 ... so in theory, there might be situations where you could shoot with the 24-105 using 3 stops of IS, but cannot focus anymore. However, I doubt this situation will occur very often as the newer 6d/5d3 are able to af in  very dim light, it might be more of an issue with older af systems like 5d2 or 60d that only focus up to +0.5LV.

Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.

Afaik you've got that wrong: If you're shooting with slower lenses, you most likely don't profit from the f2.8 precision as your dof is deeper, but the enhanced precision slows down the af.

Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore  just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the 24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.

1821
Technical Support / Re: X-Rite Colormunki and ColorChecker?
« on: December 24, 2013, 03:15:05 PM »
My monitor seems OK and white balance skills pretty good, but some have sworn by these items

Old thread, but if anyone searches for the products named in the thread title: I've bought both in a package as my x-mas present, and first was rather doubtful if €180 is "worth it" considering I could put this into the next lens...

... but I have to say I should have bought this much earlier, the Colormunki Display even adjusted my crappy laptop display just fine and is able to adjust a secondary monitor to match the first, plus it can adjust projectors which I will surely use in the future.

As for the Colorchecker, it's much sturdier and diverse than my previous cardboard color cards. In theory you can get the same results with any card and the DNG Profile Editor, but the Colorchecker adds quick wb targets which are nice for quick wb changes and and the fully automated integration into Lightroom is very nice. It's impractical for quickly changing outdoor light, but invaluable for indoors as tungsten lights are phased out and tricky lighting situations become more prominent.

1822
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 24, 2013, 01:45:59 PM »
In practice, that means that it never makes sense to buy any lens until it has been on the market for at least a year or two unless you're actively making a lot of money with your lenses, and it rarely makes sense even if you are.

I would like to offer an alternative assessment: If you know that the lens price will drop 1/3rd in the first year, you can simply decide if this "rent" to own this lens right now is "worth it" for whatever reasons.

There will be enough people who will pay, look at all the "I was happy to pay $3500 for my 5d3" posts around here... it doesn't matter if you try to evaluate your personal amateur fun value, or the professional return of invest. This cost is just another small part in the "total cost of ownership" for the gear that also includes insurance and repair costs.

Canon is not around to make friends but profit, and the current situation that you can re-sell an L lens at same or above value is a complete irregularity when it comes to technology products anyway, if you're looking for a steady investment with some recreational use look at buying a good oil painting :-)

1823
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What a waste of 1-serie camera
« on: December 22, 2013, 01:49:00 PM »
Maybe you are right though I doubt that such 'small camera' with smaller brandname will be visible on TV camera.

Most likely, "doubt" is not good enough as we're talking about multi-million advertising and sponsorship. In addition to that players often come very near photogs, so the "celebrating the goal of the century" shot that goes around the globe might very well include a tiny Canon label which Nikon might not find amusing if they paid for wall ads :-)

1824
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What a waste of 1-serie camera
« on: December 22, 2013, 01:10:18 PM »
Interesting is why the 1-serie camera, standing behind the goal, is taped. Is it a new 1-serie model or....just photographers habit....

Maybe it's stadium policy to obfuscate any non-licensed brand names that might appear on tv, and that would include photogs behind the goal? I couldn't imaging another reason for taping the Canon label and model type (the next Canon 1 will not be high fps, but high mp). For the rest it makes sense as replacing tape is probably easier than thoroughly cleaning the camera exterior.

1825
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 21, 2013, 01:26:49 PM »
I've heard the arguments that early adopters pay the premium.  Fine, but when a clear trend emerges that new products start well above market value and reach their true value in a year or less some light bulbs start going off, and that core, important audience starts closing their wallets and waiting.

Early adopters aren't naive - everybody buying smartphones, computers, cameras knows that they loose value very fast, but some people want to have it right now for whatever reason. The lenses are simply adapting to the rest of the product world.

The non-L primes were overpriced and Canon seems to have admitted this if the rumors are correct, but why should Canon throw away money for L lenses? The only consequence of people getting more cautious is that the lens "early adopters premium" will be lifted faster, but many will never buy 3rd party lenses and very few will switch to Nikon so it's still win-win for Canon.

1826
Lenses / Re: Two New 24-70's Coming in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 20, 2013, 04:26:59 PM »
My crystal ball is no better than anyone else's, but it's plausible that by the time a 24-70/2.8L IS hits the market, the price of the 24-70/2.8L II will have settled in somewhere around (or below) its current post-rebate sale price of $1700. Then the IS version could be priced at or near the same ($2300?) introductory price of the current vII.

I very much doubt that Canon will compromise on the iq for IS as this is a "flagship" product, they didn't stop tweaking 70-200L until the newest version was top notch. If there are people around that are able to afford and handle a 200-400L there's certainly a market for a 24-70IS for €3000+ if it "has it all" vs. Tamron:

* hybrid IS
* across the frame sharpness
* no vignetting wide open
* af speed
* af precision with newest Canon bodies
* cps

It still amazes me that a major camera manufacture does not offer a 50mm lens worth buying.  I'm not talking about the (front/back focus) 50L which is more of a specialty lens.   I'm not interested in the plastic 1.8 or weak USM 1.4 with choppy bokeh.

I tend to believe the rumors that Canon will release a 50/IS prime in early 2014, so that's covered.

1827
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 19, 2013, 06:47:35 PM »
The slight jitter that causes those misses is also present in the 7D's 19pt AF system...it just doesn't sit still between shots...even if the subject is already locked, there is pretty much ALWAYS movement, ever so slight, between every frame.

Of what mode are you talking about - servo af or one-shot with continuous fps?

What I experience on both the 6d and 60d with a thinner dof like on the 100L is that when you re-af at the same point w/o camera movement, the lens will often choose a slightly different focus... and lensrentals says it's even better to af somewhere completely else first as this gives more exact results than slight af corrections.

1828
Interesting, I've not noticed a two step process.

Compare it to a "closed loop" system like 1dx/5d3 if you have the opportunity, these don't need any further feedback from the lens and can tell it precisely where to focus in one step, while "open loop" systems use a second micro-step depending on circumstances. This is the big advantage of Canon's newest af system, though it only works in combination with the latest lenses.

1829
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DMkIII AF performance at f/8
« on: December 19, 2013, 02:41:18 AM »
I've never used an extender with my 100-400 before, but because I'll be losing the crop factor of the 7D, I am a little concerned re the impact on AF and image quality for those times I need the extended reach.

The sad truth about tele zooms + tc is that the tc multiplies the lens' weakness at the long end, this is reported to be even worse on the older 100-400L vs. the newer 70-300L ... you should consider if it's really worth the hassle.

For me a tc is "nice to have" for zooming in spectacular static sunsets, but for everything else the slower af performance and iq loss tells you the reason why there are fast tele primes around that are actually meant and designed to be used with a tc and don't just happen to work with it.

1830
I've still not fully explored the 70-300L's servo ability, but given its single shot performance, I have to conclude it also cannot do what the 70-200 f/4 could do.

I've already read multiple posts complaining about 6d+70-300L, but I have to say I can't see the problem - but maybe that's because I've only got "tricky" lenses to begin with and no good "standard" comparison. Unless I use multipoint-tracking in which the result is pitiful, the 70-300L is ok at single-point tracking, well, as ok as I'd expect the 6d to get at all.

The one issue I can see that the 70-300L exposes the 6d not to be a closed loop system. I just tested it in a dim room, it af's a first step, then thinks again for some microseconds, then af's a second step - just like the Tamron 24-70/2.8 does. I also just did a quick comparison on the 60d: the speed isn't a big difference, however the final 2nd af step seems to be bit faster on the 60d, but it's also there.

Pages: 1 ... 120 121 [122] 123 124 ... 372