Messages

241

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony RX1 Full Frame sensor Compact leaked photos / rumor

« on: September 09, 2012, 09:54:18 PM »

This is what i would have liked canon to have offered us with their mirrorless design. Honestly, i don't even remember anything about what they did offer or if it's since been released. Yeah, the spec sheet must have got me very excited. it must have been a "me too" product.

242

Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?

« on: September 09, 2012, 08:38:55 PM »

not that i'm discounting your searching, i have no idea why i didn't do it myself(sometimes i do forget the near limitless info i can get from my keyboard). Maybe i'm just being a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but i'm not buying it. Or perhaps i am, nikon/canon a force behind that international prohibition? I mean, besides canon/nikon who are the big guns? They all happen to be from where? Or, where aren't they from(japan)?    now i'm getting all x-files...  makes sense to me, but then so does making your own yogurt in your slow cooker.

243

Lenses / Re: Upgrading a 300 f2.8

« on: September 09, 2012, 08:11:23 PM »

i do believe that the 300mm 2.8 IS V1 is also tripod sensing so leaving IS on is just fine. better than fine, it's good, as it'll reduce the chances of vibration from the mirror or whatever else. that''s the way mine works anyway. BTW- i'd agree with everyone here. I'm sure that the latest has better IQ but when you are talking about a Canon 300mm f2.8, there wasn't a whole lot of room for improvement at any cost. Weight reduction would be welcomed, but i can hack it. now if i shot a 400mm f2.8, the V2's weight reduction would be very important to me.

244

EOS Bodies / Re: Firmware update for 5D3 Problem? Black halos around stars in RAW

« on: September 09, 2012, 02:01:40 PM »

didn't that fuji 1x100 have this same problem, and a firmware tweak helped. Actually, the first thing i thought when i saw it was that someone had cranked the "velocity modulation scanning" . it's a hold over from when i did ISF calibrations on monitors. but it still makes me wonder if they are doing something like that in firmware with these images.

245

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Second Curtain Sync - Design Flaw?

« on: September 08, 2012, 08:23:44 PM »

i do off camera lighting all the time. I didn't know there was a workaround to not having the option of rear curtain synch, but honestly i've never needed it. how is it that you know in advance that you are going to be needing to fire two off camera flashes with rear curtain synch? i'm not trying to be a smart ass, i'm rather good at that says the wife, i've just honestly shot lots of weddings and other events and this has never been an issue. probably just shooting shooting something cool with movement that i haven't. also i think i use the same triggers that you are using, but i've gotten to the point where i really only use them for triggering the shutter, and i use the PITA Canon light based master/slave system. I know, it sucks, but i've gotten rather good at operating it quickly and it's nice to have such fine(1/3 stop) adjustments. i'm currently looking at another system...

246

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Problem black halos around stars in RAW files...hmm

« on: September 08, 2012, 02:25:35 PM »

I can't say but what about the fact that your points of light are ovals? I thought i'd see batwings but they all look like uniform ovals. seems weird to me, but i don't have much exp with astro work, and i usually don't do much pixel peeping. esp when it come to my astro stuff, as it's just a mess to begin with. I tend to throw standards out the window, and just hope i can get something interesting, leaving the technically awesome stuff for nasa. But there are some guys on here that are fairly heavy into this, hopefully your get some info from them. Did you use long exposure NR?

247

Lenses / Re: 400, 200 or...?

« on: September 07, 2012, 03:29:48 PM »

i vote for the 400mm2.8.

248

Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?

« on: September 07, 2012, 09:50:13 AM »

it's my understanding that Ziess worked with Canon for it's EOS mount lenses. That is Canon offerred support. Maybe Canon is unwilling to offer aid if Ziess starts rolling out AF lenses.  I don't believe the other 3rd party guys had this sort of deal with Canon. They just reverse engineer things until it works out. I don't really put them at the same level.

249

Lenses / Re: The First Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review

« on: September 07, 2012, 09:42:16 AM »

as for the v2 having a warmer image, couldn't that just be from AWB just grabbing a different value? I don't think he mentioned anything about locking that variable down. just saying. Also, in his tree/water/sun flare shot i see better performance from the v2, and he seems to see that the other way around.

250

Lenses / Re: new ziess 55mm, redefining?

« on: September 07, 2012, 08:22:26 AM »

Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF?  Always wondered.

I've never heard anything definitive about that either. I just assumed that Sony won't allow them to do it. MF fine, AF no.

251

Lenses / new ziess 55mm, redefining?

« on: September 06, 2012, 09:12:09 PM »

http://thedigitalpicture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Zeiss-News


"A must-see attraction is a high-performance, full-format SLR camera lens with manual focus. With a focal length of 55 mm and aperture of f/1.4, this lens is the first model of a new product family designed for demanding users. Thanks to a newly developed optical design, this lens is superior to conventional full-frame lenses, and it achieves with powerful full-frame, full-format cameras an image performance that until now has only been seen with medium-format systems."

real deal of fluff?  cost estimates? Am i reading the lens correctly? 82mm filter on a 55mm 1.4? 

252

EOS Bodies / Re: A question about dust...

« on: September 06, 2012, 08:45:54 PM »

I also bought a 5d just a couple months before the mk2 came out, and I preordered the 5dmk3. I use them a pretty good amount yet i've never cleaned either of them.

253

EOS Bodies / Re: Pre digital days, please shed some light for me

« on: September 06, 2012, 08:36:38 PM »

so now we are suggesting that they should all have the same sensor? damn, i had been lamenting how they(other than the 5d/1d series) all did seem to have the same (7d) sensor. No, i hear what you are saying. other than costs involved in sensor sizes, and i don't doubt they are real differences, you are just paying for things like metering, build, whatever,whatever. they, the camera makers, just found themselves with another thing, sensors, they can use to their advantage to mix up the line-up. i don't dislike them for it. if they all waited until "full frame" sensors hit low costs instead of making up the little crop sensors cameras, us nonrich guys would still be only dreaming of shooting digital.

254

Lighting / Re: TTL + remote simultaneously?

« on: September 05, 2012, 10:07:58 PM »

the pockect wizard's can do this, but it gets pricey, quickly.

255

Lenses / Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here

« on: September 05, 2012, 10:06:43 PM »

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...