December 19, 2014, 04:27:13 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 - VelocideX

Pages: [1] 2
I would be most interested in:
1) Removal of low-ISO banding
2) Improved high ISO performance
3) Greater DR

Even an improvement of 1/2 a stop in terms of ISO noise performance is pretty significant - it can be the difference between an unusable and usable image.  ISO 12800 is still usable in many circumstances (ISO 25600 only with super aggressive). 

Other sensors have improved noise characteristics compared to the 5D3 in some respects, so clearly this is possible.

The usability issues are pretty minor for me. 

Lenses / Re: Questions on EF 24-70mm II on 5D Mk3 vs EF-S 17-55mm on 7D
« on: November 06, 2013, 10:40:15 PM »
I had a 600D / 17-55 and upgraded to a 5D3 / 24-105 and 24-70 II.

The 24-70 II blows the 17-55 away.

  • It is much sharper. f/2.8 is outrageously sharp
  • I find the colours much more appealing.  The saturation is much higher, almost so much that I have to desaturate photos sometimes.  On the 17-55 I was usually adding vibrance +10 to 20 and saturation +5 to 10.
  • Extra (ie reduced) DOF (about 1 and 1/3 stops) is great
  • I find the bokeh more pleasing

I find the 24-105 to be better than the 17-55, but the 24-70 kills both of them hands down.

I do with the 24-70 II had IS, but for capturing social events etc I can still shoot at ISO 25,600 and f/2.8 and produce OK (but not great photos).
ISO 12,800 and f/2.8 is fine so long as the exposure is right.

Lenses / Re: Recommended lenses for travel to Central America
« on: August 25, 2013, 05:32:33 AM »
try 18-55 f3.5-5.6

I have a 5D3 - don't need EF-S lenses...

Lenses / Re: Recommended lenses for travel to Central America
« on: August 25, 2013, 02:54:18 AM »
Now, all that being said; to the OP: save the big gear-fest for a non-honeymoon trip. C.A. is a pretty short flight away and not that expensive. Gear up on your next trip. And, for the love of god, enjoy the food/drink, culture, history of a beautiful region with your new bride. Oh, and watch out for crazy drivers and stray dogs.

I'm from Australia... Central America is not that close :P

I do have a flash, which I will take.

The consensus seems to be to take a telephoto over the UWA, which is helpful to know.

I have the 40mm f/2.8 as well. It's super light so I might pack it anyway... probably more useful for street than the 35L.

Lenses / Re: Recommended lenses for travel to Central America
« on: August 24, 2013, 08:28:10 PM »
The trip is in March/April next year. Thank you all for your advice!

Lenses / Re: Recommended lenses for travel to Central America
« on: August 24, 2013, 08:06:43 PM »
I have a S95 that I will take as well for if I want to leave my camera gear wherever we are staying.  My bag will be lockable, and I have a combination cable lock that I can use to lock the bag to something pretty immovable (eg bed frame) which will discourage all but the most serious of thieves.

The advice to take just as P&S is a good one, but part of the reason we are going there is because of the photographic opportunities, so I know that I'd kick myself for not taking my good gear.

I don't own any lenses >400mm, and given the cost and weight I can't see myself getting one.  I suppose the 70-300L + a Kenko TC is one option there, but this would be MF anyway then.

I'm not going to take a tripod... although I could make use of it, setting up etc may become an imposition on others. I'd rather just handhold and take the shot for most things.

Lenses / Recommended lenses for travel to Central America
« on: August 24, 2013, 07:04:09 PM »
My future wife and I will be taking our honeymoon in Central America (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala).  We will be spending most of the time on a tour.

We will have backpacks for our gear, so can't travel too heavy.

Balancing considerations of weight and practicality, what lenses do you think I should take?

I currently have a 5D III which will be coming.

I am also thinking
  • 16-35L (yet to be purchased
  • 35L
  • 24-105L

I have the 24-70L II which I am considering taking in place of the 24-105L.  The image quality is just so much better. I don't think that I will miss the long end. As always, IS would be great but I find my photos from the 24-70L to be so much better than those from the 24-105L.

I have a 70-300L but don't think it will be needed. I'm not into birds at all, much more landscape, culture and people.

I also own a 24L, 85 f/1.8 and 135L but don't think that it's worth the weight to take these.

I have a 600D that I will probably take as a backup body in case I get robbed at any point.

Thoughts? Thanks :)

Lenses / Re: 24-70L II is fantastic
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:39:32 AM »
And one more at f/3.2

Lenses / Re: 24-70L II is fantastic
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:37:59 AM »
Another at f/2.8

Lenses / Re: 24-70L II is fantastic
« on: April 26, 2013, 01:36:30 AM »
Unsure how to do inline images with attachments so here's one at f/3.2

Lenses / 24-70L II is fantastic
« on: April 25, 2013, 08:53:19 PM »
I own a wide variety of lenses, including the 24L II, 35L and the 24-105L.  The 24-105L is a very solid lens, and I get great results from it in bright light,and particularly at f/5.6 or better.

However I have not been fully happy with the performance of the 24-105L at f/4.0.  The image is not as sharp as I'd like.  Also, the extra creative possibilities of f/2.8 on the 24-70 II were pretty appealing.

I went ahead and made the decision, and after two days out shooting with it have no regrets.  The 24-70 II feels sharper at f/2.8 than the 24-105L does at f/4. 

But what I'm most impressed about is the rendering, particularly for the OOF areas.  The bokeh is loads better.... the 24-105L has quite ring-like bokeh, whereas the 24-70 II bokeh is fairly smooth across the blur disk (there is a small amount of onion-like structure if the blur area is under-exposed but not very noticeable).  I now see why people compare the lens to the 24L II - the colours and rendering are fantastic.

What a great lens!

Technical Support / Re: Is this dust or sensor damage?!
« on: April 11, 2013, 05:04:21 PM »
OK so I've cleaned the sensor with a rocket blower and exposed the sensor to light for a few seconds as suggested and the spot is still there. The geometry looks slightly different though - the ratios of the intensities in different pixels are slightly different. Perhaps I've slightly dislodged something that's there?

Note that there is still intensity in the pixels - they aren't black and so aren't totally dead.

I have done a bit of nightclub work with lasers before. I've seen millions of photos from clubs with lasers so wasn't aware that this was a problem!

I guess the next step is to get the sensor cleaned at a camera shop to see if that makes a difference.

I'll be very disappointed if I've damaged the sensor :( I've only had the camera four months.

Technical Support / Is this dust or sensor damage?!
« on: April 11, 2013, 07:12:04 AM »
Attached is a highly cropped image from my 5D3. There is a black/purple spot about 5 pixels by 2 pixels. What is this? Dust? Sensor damage?! Help!

I should say this was taken at about f/2


Lenses / What would cause Canon to release the 35L II?
« on: March 26, 2013, 06:24:20 AM »
So the 35L II has been rumoured for a long time.  The widely held belief seems to be that Canon delayed it after seeing how good the Sigma 35 f/1.4 is.

What do you think will happen here? Do you think that Canon will go through the trouble of redesigning the 35L II and release it sooner? Or do you think that this lens is set to languish?

Is there anything that would force Canon's hand in this matter? The release of a high MP camera would seem to be such a trigger, as the 35L would perform poorly on such a camera.

Lenses / Re: Best lens from my set for nightclubs?
« on: March 21, 2013, 05:45:51 PM »
Thank you to all the advice, particularly from those who actually read my post ;)

I don't have the 16-35L, and this would be a great lens for it. I don't have the cash for it at the moment.

RLPhoto - no idea why dance receptions are relevant to this...

LOALTD - I understand the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is pretty good, but I have the 35L and so have no compelling reason to buy it. I keep reading about autofocus issues, even with the Sigma, and so went for the 35L instead and have been pretty happy with it.  I was hoping for the 35L II but this seems like a fantasy.

TrumpetPower!  - I do have the 40mm pancake but hadn't considered it - 2.8 is only one stop faster than f/4, and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 I would choose the 24-105 f/4 over the 40 f/2.8.  The reason to go for the primes in this environment would be to get substantially more aperture. I love the colour rendition of the 24L. I do take your point about it being more easily passed off as amateur though. My 40mm stays on my camera a lot of the time when I'm doing street photography as it is less conspicuous.

Pages: [1] 2