Messages

31

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 14, 2013, 03:23:55 AM »

Well, if ML is doing a clean room reverse engineer of the camera, that should be perfectly legal. He isn't doing anything that helps 'circumvent' safe guards....like people have come down on gaming mods for. This hack doesn't allow you to circumvent copyrighted material.

Nope, the contract for a fw upgrade  (the current cannot be extracted out of the camera) it says you mustn't reverse engineer it at all.

32

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 06:25:49 PM »

A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

Great, I'll certainly quote that when I meet the "a really good photog doesn't need expensive equipment" mob again, some are out to get me because sometimes even I with my midrange 60d+70-300L seem to look like a rich snob :-) ... well, unless you look at my clothes after crawling through the woods for half a day.

33

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:54:09 PM »

This is worrisome, if the only way they could get one that met specs was to get it from Tamron.  My dealer told me to avoid it, apparently his customers had similar issues.

Thanks for the link - I recently saw even Amazon Germany temporarily stopped delivering this lens since "the product didn't meet the specs" (whatever this means...).

I'm still planing to get this lens since I don't use servo af a lot, but only from a brick and mortar store where I can replace it until I end up with a good copy... as did the reviewer, maybe a "golden sample"?

In the mid focal lengths at f/2.8, the Canon 24-70 L II has the image quality edge over the Tamron 24-70 VC, but the differences are not dramatic. At f/4, those differences become harder to see. The Canon has less barrel distortion at 24mm and has better bokeh. The Tamron has slightly less flare at the long end of the focal length range. The Tamron has more CA at 24mm, but less at 70mm.

I also disagree with the reviewer predicting "You are probably buying an f/2.8 lens to use at f/2.8 a considerable percentage of the time." - it's for use when you need it, for other shots more dof is a good thing.

34

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Announcement Tonight

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:44:37 PM »

Oh no, really releasing this lens will deprive any rumors site of 1/3rd of its content - Canon, save CR, please quickly pre-announce some other gear, maybe something I'd care about: 35L2, 50L2, 440ex :-)

35

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 13, 2013, 05:36:40 PM »

I keep seeing occasional posts about how Canon should put these guys on the payroll.

Canon fw and Magic Lantern have completely different approaches (market stratification & ultra-conservative stable fw vs. customization, features & backports). Any of the ml devs would probably go crazy after working one month for Canon :-) so let's hope that Canon at least stays out of ml's way if they decided not to help.

36

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 13, 2013, 03:11:41 PM »

The only reason ML doesn't release for the 1Dx is because Canon have made a very bold, public statement, that if any third party modifies any camera in the EOS 1 line at a software level then they will feel the might of Canon's entire legal team

Completely wrong, while Canon gave ml a "hint" there was really no pressure needed. The (afaik majority of the) ml devs feel that backporting the 4k feature would be stealing from Canon since this cuts away the main feature of the 1dc, and Canon is free to set up their camera line as they want it.

As for the 1d line: "Magic Lantern is a community project aimed to enhance the low- to midrange DSLR cameras, not to save money for rich people. We only want to make our great cameras even better - and share these modifications with you."

... but of course since ml is open code other people might grab it and port it to the 1d, but the current ml team won't.

For those of us who still shoot stills, wonder if they can do anything to improve the camera.  Like bracketing focus for focus stacking, ...

Focus bracketing is available in the dev/nightly builds (actually I added the original version myself to ml since I wanted it that badly) :-)

37

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III with Continuous RAW Video Recording

« on: May 13, 2013, 01:00:03 PM »

I am always hesitant to post new ML features from the dev stage here because general users aren't advised to use the stuff yet - but since the news ended up here anyway:

Another great feature of this discovery is the raw histogram which will let you actually see if anything is under- or overexposed in raw and not just in jpeg like with the vanilla Canon fw.

38

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 13, 2013, 12:52:46 PM »

It's when you start adding elements not in the original capture, It's no longer photography.

1. I'm rather late to this thread (but it hasn't reached the flamewar stage yet :-)), but I agree with the "adding elements" argument from RLPhoto.

The reverse means that any global adjustments and even local adjustments via ACR are ok, so if the sky from the original image of the op would have been overexposed it'd been ok to pull it down with a grad filter in LR.

One thing I'm note sure about is "repairing" small flaws in the background with ACR, it really depends on how large the impact on the general picture is - and even small layer operations like removing closed eyes of one person from a group shot with the equal part of another shot directly afterwards might be ok.

2. One argument I didn't find here is from an ad with Julia Roberts that was forced to be withdrawn because it was so heavily "beautified" that it wasn't Julia Roberts anymore, and I think in France it was feared that this is what shifts the view of what a woman is supposed to look like to an unhealthy stage.

Imho the same applies images: If everybody does it, even near-perfect "conventional" photos will look crappy - so personally I never do masks in photoshop or add foreign elements, or I wouldn't consider it an old-school "photo" anymore.

39

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 13, 2013, 10:46:06 AM »

and when we look at the big MP camera that canon will release, better UWW are desperately needed

This is most likely the driving force between lots of lens updates, including the 24-70/2.8 mk2...

In Europe (Netherlands at least) it's currentlty part of a cash-back rebate action. This would counter the idea of this lens being discontinued.

The fact that there is a prototype means nothing - FIRST they have to put it in the production queue to make it mass-produceable, THEN they need to fix a price considering production costs and marketing, THEN they need time to stockpile, THEN you have to wait half a year for the early adopter's release price to drop to a reasonable level.

40

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:43:59 AM »

Since a year a 17-40 L replacement is out for testing but nothing hit the market until today. The days of the original 17-40 L are count. But we will see a replacement.

Interesting to know (and contradicts my speculation :-p) ... though I'm not unhappy to have gotten the "old" 17-40L with a rebate because the new one will surely be a lot more expensive, and in addition a prototype doesn't mean anything with Canon concerning a timely release.

41

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 12, 2013, 06:39:50 AM »

Canon can keep the current 17-40/4L as a budget lens, and still have a sharp (more expensive) 17-40/4L (or 16-35/4L) as they do with the 70-200/4L and 70-200/4L IS, I think that is exist a demand for both of them...

The reason for the non-IS tele lenses being still produced imho is that for sports IS is useless, esp. when using a monopod - so there's a "legitimate" demand here.

For other, shorter lenses I doubt if Canon would want to expand their lens zoo, they'd rater make a superior version and discontinue the old one - or they could have also kept the much less expensive 24-70/2.8 mk1 when the mk2 was out.

Meaning: I doubt they'd keep two 17-40L around, and more expensive would run into marketing problems, so I doubt they'll discontinue the current 17-40L (thread title), but they'll surely add a premium 14-24L and might even do a 16-35L mk3 with IS sometime if Nikon has it.

42

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 10, 2013, 03:57:52 PM »

the 16-35 is sure faster.... optical better... not really.

It is if at least some corner sharpness on widest setting & ff is important to you w/o stopping down too much - but certainly not enough for me to pay double the price and carry more weight and bulk...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

43

Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

« on: May 10, 2013, 03:50:31 PM »

Absolutely.  According to my dof calculator, the DOF at 300mm f/5.6 at or close to minimum focus distance is about .22 inches (5.5 milimeters).  That is actually a smaller DOF than my 135L f/2 wide open at the same distance (.39 inches or 9.79mm)

Thanks for the calculation, that's really interesting. I recently discovered the severity of the "small dof effect" when I was wondering why so many of my images are just slightly out of focus - and atm I think the reason is that focus & recompose simply doesn't work reliably anymore.

At the moment I have to take multiple shots and then select the sharp(est) one, but I'd be grateful for any hints for circumventing this problem w/o purchasing a 5d3...

44

Reviews / Re: Review - The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:03:06 AM »

I needed the extra DOF to make sure the whole primary leaf was in focus.

+1 - in my observation people seem to underestimate how very thin the dof is for 70mm@f4 or 300mm@f5.6 if the subject is near - and I'm even on crop with a larger dof at same object size. What I usually want is a nice bokeh with overlapping light circles and not a smaller dof, and the 70-300L is able to deliver this if the background is a bit away.

45

Lenses / Re: 17-40 f4 L discontinued???????

« on: May 10, 2013, 10:58:46 AM »

I would also like to see an updated 17-40/4L (or a 16-35/4L), hopefully with IS, but most imported with high optical quality.

IS versions usually require a larger filter size (front element), that's supposedly why the 24-70/4 has IS and the 24-70/2.8 hasn't. For the 17-40L with 77mm now this might still work, but for the 82mm 16-35L it could be tricky.

In any case if the corner iq is also improved you'd probably see more weight and certainly a massively "improved" price tag. The question is if the 17-40L mk2 could still be the L budget choice - and if you want heavier and better, you can get the current 16-35L right now.