February 28, 2015, 02:18:31 AM

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 - Shawn L

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X AF in Low Light action
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:57:15 AM »
Though, examining the photos in question again, I see that many of the really sharp ones were also taken in landscape orientation using focus points in the center three "tall" columns. Many of the soft ones were taken with points outside this region.

One of the really soft ones shot in landscape orientation at 1/500 of a sec uses points just to the right of the three tall columns.

Maybe it's time for me to read up on what's expected from the various focus points. I thought the difference was about ability to focus, not quality of it. But I could have that wrong.

Shawn L.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X AF in Low Light action
« on: December 14, 2012, 10:47:29 AM »
To the OP, do you happen to know how charged the 1DX's battery was?

I ask because of something I'm seeing. I bought a 24-70 II and have had somewhat mixed results with it. I've taken some really sharp photos and some (with the similar settings in similar conditions) where the focus point (as determined by DPP) simply isn't sharp.

Thinking back on it, the really sharp ones were all taken in low light at a Christmas party. The others were taken outdoors, but in the shade, so somewhat similar overall illumination. The difference is that Christmas party ones were taken with the battery fully charged. The others were taken a week or so later with the battery at 30% or so.

Not saying there's causation, but I'm looking to explain a few things myself :)


Shawn L.

Thanks for the heads up :)

Shawn L.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX "Caution 02" Warnings AND Filthy Sensor.
« on: December 02, 2012, 04:09:58 PM »
FWIW, my 1DX's sensor needed to be cleaned right out of the box (four or five spots).

There's still some particles either on my focus screen or within the viewfinder chamber (doesn't affect image, but shows up in viewfinder).

You'd hope for nearly $7000 they'd at least clean the things before shipping them -- or, better yet, assemble them in a clean room :)

Shawn L.

EOS Bodies / Re: Best D-SLR's
« on: November 23, 2012, 05:45:26 PM »
1Dx > D4

Yep. Someone made the same note in the comments section. Here was the reply:

Possibly, but we haven't reviewed a Canon 1D X as yet. The piece will update seasonally as and when we've seen more products.

Shawn L.

Has to be a 1D X, right?  The 5DIII doesn't have the ability to save/load settings from a memory card.  If someone having this problem on a 1D X wants to try, PM me and I'll send you a .CSD file.

I defer to you as I simply don't know :)

Shawn L.

With different people seeing different things with the same platform, I wonder if someone who has it working (on say a 5DIII or 1DX) would be okay with posting their camera's config file. Others could (after saving their own config to restore later) load the "working" config to see if it works on their camera, too.

That would at least eliminate/confirm it being a configuration issue.

Shawn L.

Landscape / Re: Help Me Get Better - Crashing Waves
« on: November 16, 2012, 05:59:30 PM »
I've recently been interested in tripods, too. You might find this site helpful:


It includes recommendations ranging from very affordable to not so much.

Shawn L.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DUST!!!!!!! WHAT TO DO!?!?!? (resolved)
« on: November 15, 2012, 12:17:16 AM »
Not sure if this will actually help prevent blowing dust into your camera or not, but that's the intent of the attached Hepa filter :):


Shawn L.

Lenses / Re: Shooting straight down with 24-70 mm II -- possible?
« on: November 11, 2012, 08:42:06 PM »
Thanks, once again, Mt. Spokane.

I am shooting in One Shot. May I'm just doing something wrong. Maybe it is still a MFD issue. I'm still getting used to the lens.

Shawn L.

Lenses / Shooting straight down with 24-70 mm II -- possible?
« on: November 11, 2012, 04:27:58 PM »
Testing out a new 24-70 II (after running it through Fo-Cal three times, thanks again for everyone who helped with that :)), and some of the photos are sharp. But those where the camera is steeply angled down, often aren't.

Is that expected? Do others see the same thing?

I don't notice any lens creep, but could it be so miniscule that I wouldn't?

Sorry for my ignorance :/


Shawn L.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Convince me to shoot in RAW
« on: November 09, 2012, 11:37:57 AM »
RAW files on a 50D have 14 bits of data per channel. JPGs, on the other hand, only have 8 bits of data per channel. What does this mean? Well, in a JPG file, values for red, green, and blue range from 0 to 255. In a RAW, red, green, and blue range from 0 to 16383 (effectively). That means there's 64 times more data in the RAW file.

But you can't really display all of that, so why would you want it?

Well, let's suppose you accidentally overexpose an image so that all of the data is in the right half of the histogram. With a JPG, that would mean red, green, and blue only had 128 possible values (values from 128 - 255 (the left hand-side of the histogram, 0-127 is empty)).

If you edited the image, spreading the data out so that the entire histogram was filled, there would still only be 128 unique values for each channel (here, I'm ignoring interpolation which would cause the image to soften; I'm also ignoring dithering, which would help, but effectively introduce noise). So even though you'd now have an image with solid blacks and bright whites, gradations would be blocky.

Looked at numerically:

Initially, your gradation contained: 128, 129, 130, ... 255
After corrections, the gradation contained: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...254

You're jumping by twos in the corrected image because you're trying to cover 256 values with 128 unique inputs.

If, however, you did the same thing with a RAW file, you'd have started with 8192 possible values for red, green, and blue (8192-16383). Looking at that numerically:

Initially, the gradation contained: 8192, 8193, 8194, 8195, ... 16383
After adjustments: 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ... 16382

But, you're still counting by 2's, right? How is this better?

Well, you still have way colors than are displayable by most devices you're likely to use (your monitor probably is 8 bit, or possibly 10 bit; either way, it has fewer colors than the 14 bit RAW file). When you scale your data back down to fit into the 0 to 255 range used by your display, printer, etc, you get:

0 / 64, 2 / 64, 4 / 64,...
0, 0.03, 0.06, ..., 16384/64
0, 0, 0, ..., 255

Thus, all numbers from 0 to 255 are represented (without averaging any of the existing data) and you get smooth gradations.

That means RAW allows you to more heavily edit images without causing visual artifacts.

Note that the above works no matter how you've over or under exposed your image -- up to a point, of course :)

Shawn L.

Lenses / Re: New 24-70 II, maybe AFMA will help?
« on: November 08, 2012, 09:14:33 PM »
Thanks again for the help, Mt. Spokane.

Shawn L.

Lenses / Re: New 24-70 II, maybe AFMA will help?
« on: November 08, 2012, 02:57:11 PM »
Old Shooter & Mt Spokane:

I have been looking at getting FoCal, my hold up has been that I don't own a tripod and I'm not sure I need one other than for this. Perhaps, it's time to rent one, though :)

Thanks, everyone.


Shawn L.

Lenses / Re: New 24-70 II, maybe AFMA will help?
« on: November 08, 2012, 11:14:42 AM »
Okay, so mine was nowhere near sufficient, then :)

Shawn L.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7