1
EOS Bodies / Re: Make yourself happy
« on: Today at 11:41:37 AM »
Doesn't the Picture Styles Editor App work for the SLi?
May 24, 2013, 12:58:55 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.
2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: Today at 11:00:12 AM »Cleaning up the OP's file was very easy.
If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to learn to process it, if you don't, can't or won't you are better off shooting a custom Picture Style jpeg.
Just curious, what did you do to it? I have my own ways of getting some noise out, but I bet there are better methods.
Very quick global adjustments on the jpeg, so nothing fancy.
I opened it in ACR via Bridge, even though it is a jpeg, this gives you the RAW style noise reduction options that are in Lightroom, I really like ACR/Lightroom noise reduction and can't imagine why people buy NR plugins. I adjusted the luminance noise slider until I was happy (there is no colour noise so I didn't use that adjustment), this is normally much more than most people, I find I can reapply the detail, but you have to get rid of the noise first. I then did a little sharpening in ACR with a heavy mask, this is just with the slider but it allows you to target the detail, his hair and eyes, whilst not touching the noise prone smooth areas. I then opened it in PS and applied global Smart Sharpen and a curves adjustment to the bottom third of the histogram, this kept the highlight detail where it was but gave better general exposure.
It sounds like a lot but there are no selections or layers involved, everything is global, and it took under two minutes. If I had the RAW I could easily get rid of all the noise and retain 99% of the detail using a very similar workflow in a similar time. Indeed for this kind of shot, say an event shoot, if you had 1,000 images all with similar exposure (but not using auto ISO!!!!) you could batch process all the RAW files to output jpegs (or anything else) after recording a simple action.
I find Smart Sharpen in PS way way better than the sharpening options in Lightroom for files with any kind of issues.
Hope this helps.
3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???
« on: Today at 12:12:12 AM »
Cleaning up the OP's file was very easy.
If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to learn to process it, if you don't, can't or won't you are better off shooting a custom Picture Style jpeg.
If you shoot RAW you have to take the time to learn to process it, if you don't, can't or won't you are better off shooting a custom Picture Style jpeg.
4
EOS Bodies / Re: Make yourself happy
« on: May 23, 2013, 11:56:09 PM »Fair enough! I was actually browsing eBay for old canon digital cameras lost a bid on a 4 megapixel Canon 1D.
I don't use mine anymore, if you want to make an offer PM me. Still works perfectly and I have a new Lexmark battery.
6
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 23, 2013, 11:38:34 AM »
Neuro,
I 100% agree, what you are shooting makes a much bigger impact on the shot than what you are shooting it with, I was just trying to illustrate that with yours and florianbielers images. In your situation you were somewhat limited in position by the swing, in florian's situation he had complete control of the model and background distance. In that specific comparison, fair or not, I believe very few would pick the head shot as the one taken with the macro.
I believe this flies in the face of people who proclaim this lens or that lens "has a unique look" especially when on another occasion they proclaim "any shot can be take with any camera"!
I 100% agree, what you are shooting makes a much bigger impact on the shot than what you are shooting it with, I was just trying to illustrate that with yours and florianbielers images. In your situation you were somewhat limited in position by the swing, in florian's situation he had complete control of the model and background distance. In that specific comparison, fair or not, I believe very few would pick the head shot as the one taken with the macro.
I believe this flies in the face of people who proclaim this lens or that lens "has a unique look" especially when on another occasion they proclaim "any shot can be take with any camera"!
7
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 23, 2013, 11:31:42 AM »Quote
"Plus, according to PBD, f/2.8 and f/4 look the same, why bother?"
And again you selectively misquote. F2.8 on a crop camera and f4 on a full frame camera when using an appropriate focal length to achieve the same framing don't "look the same", they are identical in dof characteristics. It is called equivalence. See my demo below.
You on the other hand have stated very vigorously that any photograph can be taken with any camera; when challenged you further stated, specifically, you could take any image including any image shot with a 135 @ f2 with a box brownie.
One of us can demonstrate our point with images, one of us keeps changing their position. Have fun Ramon, I am not interested.
8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III inability to use AV mode with any flash
« on: May 23, 2013, 11:06:45 AM »True - that is also one of the reasons why Syl Arena is shooting Canon and their Speedlites.
He mentioned it in his book "Speedliter's Handbook: Learning to Craft Light with Canon Speedlite"
The huge advantage Nikon flash users have had over us poor Canon flash users until recently, was the SU-800, that gives a ST-E3-RT like group interface and incredible control, but over optical triggering. The SU-800 really does make the ST-E2 look like a joke. The other cool Nikon feature we still don't have is SU-4 mode, which is just remote manual and optical dumb trigger, that is why Nikon flashes with SU-4 are so useful, you can integrate them into any manufacturers flash setup.
But with post 2012 bodies and the RT system Canon really have leapfrogged Nikon in the flash department.
9
Lenses / Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« on: May 23, 2013, 10:23:12 AM »
But we are talking about two similar built lenses, light concrete might be hotter than grass, but it is a lot cooler than black concrete or tarmac in the same sun.
I understood, and I vaguely remember this being from a Canon Lenswork book a long time ago, the white lens colour was introduced solely because of the specific contraction and expansion characteristics of the artificial fluorite elements. Indeed wasn't the first artificial fluorite element in the Canon FL300mm f5.6? It was black with a green ring (pre DO and FD!) and came out in the early '70's. When they did the same thing with the black FD300 f2.8 (that also had a green ring) they did have "issues" with focus, that is also the reason all Canon teles used to focus past infinity, so on the update of the 300 f2.8 they went white specifically because of the fluorite elements thermal characteristics and all the subsequent teles did.
I am sure it has since become a marketing tool, but there was a real reason for the introduction.
I understood, and I vaguely remember this being from a Canon Lenswork book a long time ago, the white lens colour was introduced solely because of the specific contraction and expansion characteristics of the artificial fluorite elements. Indeed wasn't the first artificial fluorite element in the Canon FL300mm f5.6? It was black with a green ring (pre DO and FD!) and came out in the early '70's. When they did the same thing with the black FD300 f2.8 (that also had a green ring) they did have "issues" with focus, that is also the reason all Canon teles used to focus past infinity, so on the update of the 300 f2.8 they went white specifically because of the fluorite elements thermal characteristics and all the subsequent teles did.
I am sure it has since become a marketing tool, but there was a real reason for the introduction.
10
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 23, 2013, 09:57:00 AM »PBD, dude let it go. Your not covinceing me, nor people who actually used both lenses. That's why I asked him, not you.
I am not trying to convince you, you have already been shown to be contradictory and unable to backup your claims. I was showing examples, yet again, that illustrate the "differences" to a completely different person who asked the same question.
You, Ramon, have already failed the test on multiple occasions, I am just using empirical evidence to back up my assertion, you on the other hand think you can bully people into submission with nothing more than an overinflated ever changing opinion that invariably fails at the first challenge.
11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon beats Nikon in accidental damage tests
« on: May 23, 2013, 09:47:36 AM »Quote
"being font heavy with a lens its more likely to bounce with the cameras weight directly onto the glass element"
In free fall weight is a relative concept, something having more weight at one end will not cause it to rotate, in our atmosphere it is resistance that creates rotation in free falling objects, a sycamore seed being the perfect example where the heavy end stays still and the lighter more resistance laden end rotates about the heavy end.
Having said that you are spot on with the designed weak spot in the lenses, I have had occasion to use that feature
12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III inability to use AV mode with any flash
« on: May 23, 2013, 09:32:57 AM »
Whilst Neuro has definitively illustrated the actual workings of Canon cameras with flash in Av mode, via the Manual (RTFM) I find it is interesting that this is a fundamental difference between the way Nikon and Canon cameras work.
Canon Av mode with flash works out two exposures, the subject which it illuminates with the flash, and the background that it illuminates with the shutter speed. With no EV compensation set it will attempt to balance the two. ETTL also has a pre-programmed EV compensation, is strong daylight it will underexpose the subject because it assumes you want it on fill duty. In dark situations it will give you very long shutter speeds. Nikon won't do this, the shutter speed will default to a value pre selected in the menu. With Canons if you want to alter the subject illumination you just need to adjust FEC, alternatively to only alter the background use regular exposure compensation. This gives you a huge amount of control to fine tune exposure in auto modes even in dynamic situations where subject distance is changing, or you are bouncing flash. Nikon cameras can also do separate subject and background exposures via the TTL-BL metering mode, but it is not quite the same as the very useful Canon Av mode with flash and their EV compensation also adjusts the flash output.
When shooting Canon and flash in dynamic situations I normally have the camera in M and the flash in ETTL. In less dynamic situations I go manual everything. For macro images, manual everything, the vast majority of macro shooting is as far from dynamic as it is possible to get short of studio still life images.
Canon Av mode with flash works out two exposures, the subject which it illuminates with the flash, and the background that it illuminates with the shutter speed. With no EV compensation set it will attempt to balance the two. ETTL also has a pre-programmed EV compensation, is strong daylight it will underexpose the subject because it assumes you want it on fill duty. In dark situations it will give you very long shutter speeds. Nikon won't do this, the shutter speed will default to a value pre selected in the menu. With Canons if you want to alter the subject illumination you just need to adjust FEC, alternatively to only alter the background use regular exposure compensation. This gives you a huge amount of control to fine tune exposure in auto modes even in dynamic situations where subject distance is changing, or you are bouncing flash. Nikon cameras can also do separate subject and background exposures via the TTL-BL metering mode, but it is not quite the same as the very useful Canon Av mode with flash and their EV compensation also adjusts the flash output.
When shooting Canon and flash in dynamic situations I normally have the camera in M and the flash in ETTL. In less dynamic situations I go manual everything. For macro images, manual everything, the vast majority of macro shooting is as far from dynamic as it is possible to get short of studio still life images.
13
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 23, 2013, 08:47:14 AM »Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.
Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?
The bokeh on the 135mm f/2L has been described as magic... I haven't heard anyone say that about the 100... though I don't think it is bad... it isn't magic.
I have said it, and I have demonstrated, several times, that even lens zealots can't reliably distinguish images shot with the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when shot for the same framing. It is interesting that Ramon, whist having such strong opinions, can't actually back up any of them, and, he keeps changing his mind.
Bokeh from the 100 f2.8 is very very smooth, exceptionally so given that it is a macro lens.
Take a look at these two images I have copied from the relevant lens image threads on this site. I would say the swing bokeh is distracting and far from smooth, on the other hand the head shot has beautiful bokeh, very smooth and not distracting at all. I prefer the background rendering of the head shot.
Here are the links, swing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=302.msg14622#msg14622 , head shot http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1195.msg236485#msg236485
14
Lenses / Re: Best fisheye for canon.
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:13:37 AM »Quote
"So let me get this straight..you are judging a fisheye's quality but how it can be de-fished???"No, of course not. You are the one who said the full frame fisheye is a "low use one trick pony type of lens" I was just illustrating that it isn't, however the circular fisheye is. I was responding to your strawman and you then tried to turn that around to belittle my input.
Quote
"Currently, the only Canon fisheye on sale is the zoom. The prime was discontinued shortly before it's release. So unless one buys one second hand, they are no longer available."
Actually the prime was available for a while after the zooms release, but did you read the OP's actual question? He stated this "The canon 8-15 is out of the range of what I want to spend. I was thinking on a second [hand] canon 15 2.8 or a sigma." Clearly you didn't.
With regards your Flicker feed and websites, I have nothing polite or pertinent to say.
As for the 85mm comment, again you are throwing up a strawman argument and you compound your error as you have obviously never shot high school basketball, if you had you would know the 85 f1.8 is practically de rigueur, my original comment was just that the biggest and highest spec lens is not necessarily the most appropriate for a specific task, something that would have been patently obvious had you tried to shoot that high school basketball with your 85 f1.2. Many people consider it to be the best lens available for the task, there certainly are not "loads of other lenses far better suited to that role".
Clearly, had you read the OP's opening comment, you would have realised your strong opinion about the 8-15 zoom is a nonstarter. Too much money and unrequested functionality, apart form those two fundamental criteria I think you nailed it. DOH!
15
Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« on: May 22, 2013, 05:44:40 PM »Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.
Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?
You couldn't, I used florianbielers images in our 100 vs 135 match off, you didn't have a clue which lens was used.
PBD, Your simply astounding that you tracked this comment down enough to repost another a comment about it.
And yes, I can see the difference thank you very much.
When you were asked to you couldn't, you didn't have a clue. Of the four examples I posted of the 100 @ f2.8 and the 135 @ f2 you got none right. Indeed of the twelve images posted in the thread you got one right, a monkey throwing darts at a balloon would get you better odds than one in twelve.
As for your unique look, well for one, you can't actually distinguish it when challenged and, two, don't forget, it is your firmly held belief that gear is a matter of convenience alone, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14689.msg268343#msg268343 You have subsequently stated there is nothing you can do with a 135 f2 that you can't do with a box brownie.
Which is it today? I've seen chameleons with less colours than you