February 26, 2015, 11:37:11 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 160 161 [162] 163 164 ... 394
2416
Software & Accessories / Re: software for correcting distortion
« on: November 13, 2013, 03:12:18 PM »
I presume you're referring to creating TIFF files as an output, but I generally convert to JPG, and even when I use a TIFF to move to CS6, I don't save the TIFF file itself (there's no need, since I have the RAW image and the sidecar file with the conversion settings).

Ok, that explains it - I'm always keeping the raw (dng with 20mb/picture or <10mb lossy dng) for keeping a raw only workflow, i.e. I only use the tools ACR provides - with this and a good deal of floating point tiff/exr and source files for focus stacking and so on my 2gb hd is now nearly full ... obviously I'm not very good at deleting old and mediocre pictures :-p

2417
Software & Accessories / Re: software for correcting distortion
« on: November 13, 2013, 11:37:10 AM »
If I understand you correctly,  DxO is used only when a picture needs certain treatments and is not used routinely in a workflow?

Of course you *can* convert every shot with DxO, but it's up to you to decide if the iq improvement makes sense vs. slower workflow and larger disk storage need.

For me as I shoot a lot ACR is more than enough, Adobe lens correction is fine unless it's a complex distortion. If you shoot low volume or are looking for the small edge vs. commercial competition, DxO might give you this advantage.

Last not least, if you produce HDR or panoramas, DxO is no disadvantage since these are assembled shots anyway and outside the raw workflow.

2418
Software & Accessories / Re: software for correcting distortion
« on: November 13, 2013, 11:16:50 AM »
Any current DxO users here?  How do you use it in conjunction with LR?

As neuro said, these don't integrate at all - you have to export a demosaiced tiff (or linear dng) from DxO to LR which means a 100mb instead of 20mb file and you don't automatically profit from future enhancements to the raw converter (DxO or LR), but have to manually repeat the procedure.

2419
Software & Accessories / Re: software for correcting distortion
« on: November 13, 2013, 10:35:10 AM »
My samyang 14mm is on its way.  I'm well aware that that there's massive complex distortion,  but based on nice review and excellent price I'm going to give it a try.

For complex distortions, DxO is hands down the best solution, check their site if your body/lens combination is supported (and by which version).

2420
Lenses / Re: 85mm
« on: November 13, 2013, 10:26:16 AM »
We do have a 100L at Building ~Panoramics but I haven't used it much, certainly not for shallow DOF shooting.

I'm using is a lot recently on ff because it's the only f2.8 lens I own, it has good/ok quality wide open, no CA and to mfd so it's very flexible... I know it cannot compete with real high-iq €2000+ primes, but on the other hand 85/135 sounds like a lot of duplication to me.

I believe the 85 1.8 was designed with little chromatic aberration correction to give a smooth out of focus blur, hence bad purple fringing, but in practice, as with so many other things I think you would be splitting hairs with the difference.

Hmmmyes, that's what I thought, and that's why I didn't buy it - thanks!

2421
Lenses / Re: 85mm
« on: November 13, 2013, 08:33:59 AM »
i took some samples between 1.8 and 2.8 a couple of months ago, but i don't remember if i kept it :(

That would be the ones I'm primarily interested in, though 1.8 vs. 4.0 is also worth a look - I wonder if buying the 85/1.8 would make any significant difference to my 100L, and then of course there's the CA issue which is really minor on the 100L (on ff, crop has a bit more of it).

2422
Lenses / Re: 85mm
« on: November 13, 2013, 07:57:23 AM »
But I don't shoot like that so sold my 135L but kept the 85 1.8. It's very good value and flexible, producing a pleasing bokeh that's on a par with the 135L IMO.

Thanks - can you (or anyone) tell me how the 85/1.8 bokeh compares to the 100L?

The bokeh of the 100L is very plain and even to the point of being boring which makes sense on a macro lens, quite unlike my 70-300L with a much more vivid but not disturbing bokeh, though it's radial on the edges on ff which would be due to the small lens diameter (67mm) and large zoom range.

i do have the 100L macro which doesn't suffer from CA but it doesn't melt the background like the 85 1.8 :(

Are there samples anywhere for the background blur difference in comparable/same images? Since my fastest lens around this focal length currently is f2.8 I have no idea how large the difference is.

2423
Comparing the two systems brings to a very disappointing conclusion: the 6D sports an AF sensor which is only marginally better than a 3 years old camera costing 1/4 of its price, and in some ways even less capable of the AF sensor built into an entry level dslr costing 1/3: the 650D sports 9 cross-type points up to f/5.6, sensitivity -0.5 to 18 EV.

I agree the 6d af system is mediocre esp. for the price, but you're forgetting two major points not in the specs you posted:

* precision: The 6d af is more precise than the 5d2, and way more precise than the older Rebels, meaning if you focus a couple of times on the same target you're more likely to get the same result with the 6d (see lensrentals on this). I know this issue from the 60d and am used to take a couple of shots for safety, but with the 6d the af ends up where it is supposed to be.

* af point size: This is not thanks to Canon, but anyway - the af points vs. sensor size are smaller on the 6d, which means it's easier to focus on small details with the 6d. The one crop camera that addresses this is the 7d with spot af, but alas, this feature has been removed on the 70d again.

2424
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II in 2014 [CR2]
« on: November 13, 2013, 03:53:39 AM »
1st half.......what first half, calendar or physical.  And will they deliver it before 2015?

"First half" means annoncement on May 31st, 23:59:59 :-> ... delivery will take quite a while looking at how many people are waiting for this.

The one question of course is the "new sensor", and looking at Canon's latest performance this doesn't mean much ... think of it: $2000 with all possible gimmicks and comforts Canon can add is still rather cheap if this would be a *real* challenge to 5d3/ff quality, so I don't expect this to be the famed "next sensor generation".

2425
Lenses / Re: 85mm
« on: November 13, 2013, 03:49:15 AM »
I'm talking about head portraits mostly. The 100L macro which i own, is fringless on that matter.

Um, this is a bit off topic (sorry), but I was wondering about getting the very reasonably priced 85/1.8 in combination to my 100L...

... but I somehow doubt this is really necessary, the aperture difference isn't that large and the 100L has IS. For which occasions do you find the 100L too long, or are you set upon getting an even shallower dof than f2.8?

2426
I've been testing a refurb 6d for a week now. The AF is abominable. AF misses plenty. This is both after focal calibration - twice - and tuning by hand.

With my f2.8 lens the 6D center af is not great because it sometimes misses, but certainly not that bad - I'd say the real failure rate is 1 in 25-50 shots. Otherwise the center af point is more precise than my 60D in stills shooting, so I'd say there's really something amiss with your copy.

Lastly, I'm pretty disappointed at the 6ds sharpness. Images - when accurate- are pretty soft out of camera. Not one image has any of the clarity from my t2i files. I'm not so sure it's the AF entirely, as I've been viewing raw files from around the net and they all show the same soft, oily looking effects.

In this case it isn't your af. First off, the 6d is tuned for high iso so files at low iso are somewhat less sharp than 5d3 which itself is less sharp than 5d2 - but to a degree that shouldn't matter much in real life shooting.

What you a experiencing is the "ff look" which can be a bit irritating when coming from crop - also the lenses look completely different on ff vs. crop (shallower dof, different bokeh and sharpness). The noisier crop images can be indeed be perceived as "crisp" was also my very first reaction with my new 6d - I got used to it and now use my 60d for macro where the "crop look" seems to be better, next to the deeper depth of field.

Last not least ff raw files need more postprocessing than crop, they look flat and blurrier than crop - this changes even after a very small degree of tuning, but if you're the sooc type this might be disappointing, in this case get a 70d and better lenses.

2427
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: A Pellicle Mirror by Canon
« on: November 12, 2013, 02:27:26 PM »
My concern is that someday EVFs will ultimately replace OVFs.

Rest assured: they will - ultimately ovf will be a niche product for folklore and history like steam engines  - and for special purposes of course if some can be found, but at a very high premium.

Personally, I'd switch to an evf if it doesn't draw too much power, is nearly indistinguishable from an ovf and provides superior functionality - namely focus peaking and zebras, next to tons of other useful hints you can add to an evf.

2428
My only worry is related to its outer AF points. Is it really that bad?Thanks for the feedback. What about the outer AF points? Have you tried to use them with a fast prime? Are they really that bad?

One slightly "bad" thing about the outer af points is that they only have f5.6 precision, so the faster your lens is the more slightly out of focus images you'll get - but with a really fast prime that probably also happen with the f2.8 center point so you should know something about manual focus. How much this hurts is very depending on what you do.

Two really "bad" things about the outer points are more severe though since you cannot work around these: They only work up to 0.5LV (like my 60d, and this means dim light = no more or incredibly slow af) and they are not cross so they'll often fail to focus on low-contrast surfaces, you still have to focus & recompose on something they can lock on - an then you can simply use the center point to begin with. In good light this often won't be a problem, but in dim light it adds up and the 6d is essentially a one point af camera.

2429
Lenses / Re: AFMA & distance?
« on: November 11, 2013, 07:23:37 AM »
Slightly off topic but related, is it worth having ones camera and lenses calibrated? In doing so canon would presumably set all the correct amfa values for the camera and lenses.

I guess it's worth it if there's a large difference between afma needed for near and far object distance because unlike Sigma Canon's current afma approach doesn't account for that, but Canon service might be able to do something about it.

2430
Lenses / Re: AFMA & distance?
« on: November 11, 2013, 06:09:06 AM »
Generally, a difference in AFMA of +/- 4 makes only a tiny difference in sharpness.

Thanks for the curves, now it's Marsu42 reporting back from afma adjustment outdoor test (if anyone ever reads this thread via search)...

... you're correct, the +5 of my 100L only makes a tiny difference @f2.8, but there it is, esp. at longer lens-object distance, so it was a good idea to adjust the lens. However, for my 60d w/o afma (thanks, Canon!) this +5 seems to be just outside the dof on crop as I never noticed any issues then, it's only on ff that the focus seems to be a little off wide open w/o adjustment.

Pages: 1 ... 160 161 [162] 163 164 ... 394