Messages

1

Canon General / Re: Do you feel your photos have improved proportionally to the cost of your gear?

« on: August 30, 2012, 01:29:22 AM »

Pareto principle might apply. You could have achieved 80% of your shots in the same quality with 20% worth of your gear. Spend 900$ to get 80% of your shots, for the rest spend 3600$ more ;-)

2

Site Information / Re: In Sympathy for CR Guy

« on: July 17, 2012, 03:28:24 AM »

My condolences too. Take your time with your beloved family to get back on your feet. It's a terrible loss.... Words can't help unfortunately 

3

Lenses / Re: downward pressure on EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L pricing, Tamron's version tests well

« on: June 01, 2012, 06:53:04 AM »

On the other hand, perhaps Canon will continue selling the MKI which could be interesting.

Isn't it already officially discontinued?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/official-discontinued-list/

4

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 4.1 RC2: no update from Adobe on final version or fixes to problems

« on: May 30, 2012, 10:13:51 AM »

Recommend Adobe give us 5Dm3 and D800 support on LR 3 to cover us; then release a LR 5 when its good and ready.

This.  Also, am I the only one that doesn't like the changes they made to the tools? If 5dmk3 support was added to LR3 I'd go back in a heartbeat. Still edit my 7D files in LR3 just to no deal with the sluggishness.

With older process version (2010) you get the old 'tools' back. Simply change your settings in lightroom 4.1! But in my eyes Proc.version 2012 is an improvement....

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: MRAW to LR4

« on: May 30, 2012, 02:17:27 AM »

LR 4.1 final is available.... give yourself the treat 

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 4.1 RC2: no update from Adobe on final version or fixes to problems

« on: May 30, 2012, 02:16:17 AM »

LR 4.1 final is available. It was quite a wait for some.... 

7

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 4.2 RC no update from Adobe on final version or fixes to problems

« on: May 29, 2012, 04:28:10 PM »

As far as I see it there are issues for some but not for all - talking about performance now. There are also users with old-(er) gear that have no such issues. For me it doesn't work too bad, but yes there are some annoying things, especially if performance-bug bit you. Release was a bit of a rush.....

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: MRAW to LR4

« on: May 25, 2012, 09:36:35 AM »

There is a release candidate for LR 4.1 available from adobe labs. Lightroom 4.0 doesn't support 5DIII RAW files. Else you could download adobes DNG converter and convert the RAW files to DNG and then import in lightroom.

The link for LR 4.1 RC2: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/lightroom4-1.html
I hope it fixes the problem for you. I think official LR 4.1 should be available in the next two weeks. Pure speculation 

9

Software & Accessories / Re: 5dMIII SDK to be released tomorrow

« on: May 24, 2012, 07:49:51 AM »

v2.11 is out indeed
http://www.didp.canon-europa.com/

10

Software & Accessories / Re: Reikan FoCal

« on: May 24, 2012, 07:21:38 AM »

.... And if I'm right, there are also lenses with slightly curved DOF, I personally don't think there would be a possibility or need to adjust test settings for that 'issue', since that might be very slight subtleties, but does anyone consider things like that as well?....

Oh, curved DOF would result in a curved image projected to the sensor as well. Now that was difficult! 
Or let's say it is basically the same... the above statement might be not exactly right as well...

11

Software & Accessories / Re: Reikan FoCal

« on: May 24, 2012, 06:57:13 AM »

You used the same term 'focus shift' on a different thread wrt 24-70mm mk 1. Does this mean that getting FoCal primarily for this lens (I'm happy with the sharpness on my other lenses) would be pointless?

If so, I apologize.  The 24-70 has an issue with field curvature, not focus shift. Field curvature is when the lens doesn't project a 'flat' image circle onto the focal plane. Focus shift, which the 50L suffers from, is when stopping down the lens changes the focal point. Since focusing is done wide open, that's an issue. AFMA will correct for f/1.2, but focus will still result in slight backfocus between f/1.4 and f/4 or so, with close subjects.  Live View doesn't have the issue.

For lenses that are known to have field curvature/astigmatism issues, would it make sense to choose another focus point than centre point for AFMA? Or maybe test with centre point and then with one of the edge focus points and choose a value in between? And if I'm right, there are also lenses with slightly curved DOF, I personally don't think there would be a possibility or need to adjust test settings for that 'issue', since that might be very slight subtleties, but does anyone consider things like that as well? Are there lenses (maybe wide-angles if focused quite near) where it could have an effect on the image indeed? I have only started with AFMA some time ago, so there's another question :-) I've read a post some time ago where someone tested a zoom lens (24-70 mkI, I think) on different zoom positions, and through the zoom range it went from + values to - values and back to + values, does AFMA make sense anyhow in such cases? Thanks for some insight....

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW vs JPEG debate in the light of 5DIII improvements

« on: May 23, 2012, 07:33:58 AM »

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.

You shoot weddings - you've got it easy. Yes, I'm very well aware of the pressures of wedding photography, and the photography itself is way down on that list.

You've got all the time in the world (comparatively speaking) to put your subjects where you want them; to get the light right; to take a ton of frames, chimping between shots to check the histogram, to get the shot you want.

Come back to me when you've successfully tried shooting uncooperative, tiny, hyperactive birds that are inviariably in the wrong place for the (routinely crappy) light I deal with in the UK, and get back to me...

I don't see how RAW helps more with those hyperactive birds than at weddings, I think there's more the AF that needs to be top notch. I still think most important reasons to decide between RAW and jpeg shooting are the desired output speed and also the target of the image. Fast output/small prints/web jpeg is as fine or better suited than RAW. With large prints or if you have the time to tweak your image to the best, RAW is certainly better. I also don't think it's right to say weddingers have it easier than birders. A wedding is a one time event and there's lots of pressure from the clients.... not saying birding is easy of course!

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW vs JPEG debate in the light of 5DIII improvements

« on: May 22, 2012, 12:31:06 PM »

........
 
Why not turn DLO on in your 5D MK III and take a jpeg shot??  Your post processing a raw converted to jpeg seems like you are trying to distort the facts.
 
This is about in camera jpegs. The lens profiles you need can be installed in your camera in a process similar to that used for DPP.

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW vs JPEG debate in the light of 5DIII improvements

« on: May 21, 2012, 04:07:11 PM »

There are also some printer and paper combinations that provide a bigger gamut then sRGB. If I want to work in a larger colorspace I prefer not to work in jpeg since it would stretch the different tones of colors too much due to 8bit limitation.... So for prints it's a nice thing to have the RAW. As said before, it depends on your needs!

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW vs JPEG debate in the light of 5DIII improvements

« on: May 21, 2012, 09:25:58 AM »

It doesn't matter how good the conversion is, most will want as much information as possible for the edits.

My opinion too.

I guess the same points that were valid are still valid.

1. It depends on your needs. If you need to deliver your product as fast as possible (news etc.) then jpeg is fine.
2. jpg is always a compressed/lossy file format. Editing jpg and saving as jpg again (and maybe the customer too??) induces/enhances jpeg artifacts.
3. Now this is my personal opinion: If you edit your photos anyway, it's better to have them in RAW. There are many possibilities to batch process them depending on ISO, camera model etc. so you could do the conversion with your postproccessing tool and make changes to the photos where they apply... If you can have the best, why not have it. Unless point 1 applies to you...