« 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 ;-)
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.
On the other hand, perhaps Canon will continue selling the MKI which could be interesting.
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.
.... 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?....
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.
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...
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.
It doesn't matter how good the conversion is, most will want as much information as possible for the edits.