Messages

31

Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?

« on: June 12, 2012, 09:35:38 AM »

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.

Just got the Kenko 2x TC DGX.  On 5D MkIII, it ONLY works with 70-200 II, not anything else, which I expected since my Kenko 1.4x only works with 70-200 II as well.  Kenko can keep denying compatibility problems with 5D III and put their head in the sand, but problem exists. 

On 70-200 + 2x TC, probably cropped out 80% of the photo.  It was at dusk, so iso2000.

 
DZ3C3817 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Nice level of detail considering the 2x converter. There is quite a lot of visible noise, though, did you push the exposure in post?

32

EOS Bodies / Re: Used 60D or new 650D/T4i?

« on: June 11, 2012, 05:56:53 PM »

In all fairness, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM is comparable to the 100 L, and on par mechanically and IQ-wise. It has a metal body, the 100 L is a bit on the plasticky side in my opinion. The 100 f/2.8 non-L is also at least on par IQ-wise (except the L's bokeh, which is great).

Ok, I didn't make myself clear enough: I'd only recommend/get 3rd party lenses if there is a significant price or iq difference to Canon, because you'll run into less difficulties with the latter and it's valid for cps.

I had the 100 non-L macro and only switched it because the L has better sealing and is dual-usable as a portrait lens with IS and sharp f2.8 - I don't have a 70-200/2.8. I am frequently recommending the non-L for macro work, excellent lens.

At the same time, I'm always commenting on the 100L plastic fantastic build, but the iq and IS is stellar. I don't know much about the Sigma, but for currently 75€ more (Canon currently has a 70€ rebate) I'd take the Canon any day.

Ok, that makes sense. The 100L is great, no question about it. It just feels a bit...tacky compared to, well, any other L-lens I can think of

33

EOS Bodies / Re: Used 60D or new 650D/T4i?

« on: June 11, 2012, 08:34:07 AM »

Just wanted to mention it: There are other excellent lenses out there that create stunning images except for Canon "L", and older Canon L or even the current 17-40 aren't that stellar. I've got Canon lenses that don't have a comparable 3rd party alternative (100L, 70-300L) (...)

In all fairness, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM is comparable to the 100 L, and on par mechanically and IQ-wise. It has a metal body, the 100 L is a bit on the plasticky side in my opinion. The 100 f/2.8 non-L is also at least on par IQ-wise (except the L's bokeh, which is great).

34

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: June 05, 2012, 07:45:35 AM »

Is there a list anywhere for the Canon lenses that require a front filter for complete weather sealing?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM　
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM　
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM

Another way to look at this is those lens which are vented and can (theoretically) suck in dust.  It's probably wise to put a filter on the non WS, non L, 17-55 since it has been known to pick up dust.  (actually I don't know where the vent is on this specific lens but you get the point).

There are vents around the front element, but dust may accumulate over time even if a filter is used. If necessary, however, it is very easy to remove the front element and get rid of the dust. The entire operation takes less than five minutes.

35

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: June 04, 2012, 09:35:59 AM »

1. Weather sealing. A lot of L glass needs a filter to complete the seal.

Says who?  Canon?  If Canon says it's weather sealed, shouldn't that mean it's weather sealed without a filter?  I'm not doubting you, just requesting a reference.

Several Canon lens require a filter to "complete" (the key word being complete) the weather sealing.   Example, 16-35, page 7.

Is there a list anywhere for the Canon lenses that require a front filter for complete weather sealing?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM　
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM　
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & 3D Prediction from Japan

« on: June 04, 2012, 09:24:10 AM »

after the "3d" where will the mk iiifall into?

Into the hands of photographers who do not need or want the high megapixel count and the 1-Series size/ruggedness

37

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Rebel T4i/650D on June 8, 2012? [CR2.5]

« on: June 04, 2012, 09:18:17 AM »

I have been very pleased with the sharpness I have gotten with certain lenses on my t2i. Here is a link to a 100% clip from an above head to breast height image. F18 Iso100 1/160 with an EFS 17-55 F2.8 IS.

If you are very pleased with T2i sharpness at f/18, you'll be blown away by its performance at f/5.6

38

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mark III body

« on: May 29, 2012, 04:03:43 AM »

Think for yourself, this is around $1000 cheaper than anywhere else in the world. This is a very good price, even for a refurbished camera. I would be more worried it's a defective unit or a completely different camera, or even a complete scam.

If it is too good to be true...

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Why so long on the DXOMark and DPReviews?

« on: April 12, 2012, 08:15:34 AM »

I lost quite a bit of faith in DXOMark after they tested the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and found it to be significantly worse than the v1 in terms of resolution, and refused the possibility of a subaverage sample.

Their sensor tests may still be good, though.

40

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III High-ISO raw files

« on: March 05, 2012, 02:22:40 PM »

If I had a few more minutes with the camera, I would have shot some side by side comparisons with my trusty ol' 5DII. Anyway, I added a 12800 sample to the ISO. I would say it's comparable to 3200 on the Mark II.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III High-ISO raw files

« on: March 05, 2012, 03:06:30 AM »

Thanks for your work decoding the files!

I too was particularly impressed with the 6400 sample. The 51200... it is what it is. Sadly, some of my 12800 shots were underexposed due to being in M mode with Auto ISO capped at 12800 (Max auto ISO is selectable up to 25600 ftr). But I have at least one usable file that I will put in the OP later today.

42

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III High-ISO raw files

« on: March 04, 2012, 03:27:40 PM »

It asks for login.
Can you please host it on a site from where we can download without registering.

Roger that, I have uploaded to a different webhost. Feel free to rehost if you know a better way to distribute 40+ MB files.

43

EOS Bodies / 5D Mark III High-ISO raw files

« on: March 04, 2012, 02:45:56 PM »

Since I saw a couple of people requesting RAW files, I thought I'd share a couple. I would also appreciate any advice on how to do anything useful (e.g convert) with them (They can be displayed just fine in ZoomBrowser EX):


I pretty much picked a file hosting service at random, so hopefully downloading them will be not be too much of a hassle.

5D3 RAW @ ISO 51200
5D3 RAW @ ISO 6400
5D3 RAW @ ISO 12800

I have a few more samples, shot at ISO 102400, 25600 and 12800 as well, if anyone's interested. Apparently, the firmware version of my test camera was "4.9.2"

Edit: Added ISO 12800 sample

44

EOS Bodies / Re: No f/8.0 autofocus with 5D Mark III

« on: March 02, 2012, 03:40:23 AM »

I hope guys from Magic Lantern will fix this issue in lifeview mode. If they only get into digic5+ I think with it's computing power it won't be a problem neither on 5d3 nor more on 1dx with it's 2 digics (and 1 for af but could be not useful here).

This is not an issue in LiveView mode, as Liveview AF relies on (painfully slow) contrast-detection autofocus, which does not utilize the AF sensor. So using LiveView to autofocus is already a "workaround" for f/8+ AF, but that's little consolation to those bird shooters...