Messages

1381

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 16, 2012, 02:05:20 PM »

:|

1382

Lenses / Re: Next Lens

« on: October 16, 2012, 01:16:19 PM »

OK, I have the 24-105 (haven't used it and may sell it for something else like a 24-70 ii) I also have the 35L, the 85 1.8, the 100 L macro 2.8, the 70-200 F4L.  My EF-S lenses for my T4i are the 17-55 2.8 and the 10-22 Wide.

Thinking of the 50 1.2 or upgrading the 1.8 to the 1.2.  Not sure I can justify the 85 upgrade, as the 1.8 is pretty sweet.  Leaning toward the 50.  I love my T4i and 35L combo, so on my new 5D3, the 50 will be close. 

Or, do I stick with what I have since using a combo of my ASP-C and FF with current lenses, covers most focal lengths. 

If it helps, I am an event photographer, I shoot models and families too.  Looking to get into weddings and have already been asked to shoot 2 in 2013.

You may want to read this first section of my review on fast primes. The 50L is a love or hate lens IMO.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/33253428138/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-1-85mm-1-2l-ii-mini-review

1383

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Want to start shooting professionally aNy suggestions?

« on: October 16, 2012, 01:07:28 PM »

I have a 5d3 24-105, 70-200 2.8 is ii, 50mm 1.4. I want to start a photography business shooting family portraits at family outings or where ever they want to shoot. I like Candids and would love to go and capture those moments for families like first days at schools, parties, holidays, etc. just not sure how to get started and if I should do some free work to gain experience, etc. Any suggestions would be helpful.

1. Start a Website, and Show your best work.

2. Hit free social networking sites and expand.

3. Make sure your keyworded for search engines.

4. Call previous clients and inform them about your new business.

5. Get out and exhibit your work locally.

6. Get into stock photography if possible. It brings me steady monthly income.

7. Never shoot for free, but shoot to cover gas at minimum.

These are just basic stuff but much more details can be researched.

1384

Lenses / Re: "White fog" on pictures..

« on: October 16, 2012, 12:59:41 PM »

haze is usually caused by the internal lubricants running over the optics over time. It's a common problem on older FD lenses and sometime isn't noticed at all. It looks like haze on this lens and may affect certain focusing distances.

Thanks Ramon. Now I'm sad! And you are most probably right, while converting the lens there was some lubricant all over the "back part" of the lens. I can't remember exactly where but I saw it. I will disassemble the new mount again and maybe wipe the visible and reachable lubricant away. Maybe this will help a bit, but I don't think so. The lubricant has gone probably already inside the lens, between the glass..do you have any advice how to get rid of the haze (if it'll get worse), except disassembling the whole lens?

//Chris

At that point, Wipe what you can away with some Pec-pads and hope it gets better. It may solve the problem.

If not, just shoot lomography. It can still look nice on low contrast portraits. 

1385

Lenses / Re: "White fog" on pictures..

« on: October 16, 2012, 12:45:10 PM »

I haven't used filters with this lens, and it has a built in lens hood, no petal, but a cylindrical one. I thought the same first, that it's flare, but on the picture above there was only diffuse light shining through the covered sky, how can this cause flare at all?

I don't think it's fungus. When I look through the lens I just see a fair amount of dust particles, most are kinda transparent and there are just a couple of more whitely dust specks. I don't see any haze inside the lens or on the outer optics, although I have never seen a hazy lens before...

EDIT: And if it would be haze, it would be appear on more pictures, and not only on a very small percentage, or am I wrong with this assumption?

haze is usually caused by the internal lubricants running over the optics over time. It's a common problem on older FD lenses and sometime isn't noticed at all. It looks like haze on this lens and may affect certain focusing distances.

1386

Lenses / Re: "White fog" on pictures..

« on: October 16, 2012, 12:14:03 PM »

Hello!

I have a nFD 135mm f/2 lens converted to EF mount with the EdMika kit. I like the pictures I take with this lens, but from time to time the pictures have a weird "white fog" (is it ghosting?) overlaying the subject. I don't know why it happens, neither can I predict when it happens. I would appreciate it if anyone could give me a hint what is causing this white fog. I have shot very little with the lens, but I'm guessing the white fog thing happens only when the subject has a particular distance from the lens..is this possible? Please have a look at the picture. Thanks!

could be fungus or hazing inside the lens.

1387

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 16, 2012, 11:40:26 AM »

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36865463
10 stops underexposure from a Pentax with Sony inside

Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops.   

But it works, and doesn't with a Canon

Then shoot pentax and underexpose all your picture's 10 stops if you like.

while real photog's will continue to get correct exposures, since the days of the wet plates to ansel adams to modern digital.

I don't know if anyone has informed you that in the end, the camera doesn't matter. The fleshy device behind the camera matters and how it will get the most of a camera. BTW, where's your portfolio? 

1388

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 16, 2012, 11:29:34 AM »

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/36865463
10 stops underexposure from a Pentax with Sony inside

Only a clot would underexpose 10-stops.   

1389

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 16, 2012, 11:23:20 AM »

I had NOT paid ANY attention to the Canon/Nikon debate so far. But the pictures posted here by Mr. Risedal make me sit up and take notice.
And take notice is the only thing I can do as I have Mr. X, 3 and whole bunch or lenses already.
I was happily cruising along and then I see these photos...

So...one guy takes a few pictures with a specific agenda in mind, deliberately choosing an exposure that is not optimal (and not just a little off - several stops underexposed), and then processes them in ways which may be totally irrelevant to your images, and that makes you doubt your decision to shoot with Canon gear?

I agree with neuro, Michael is definitely doing something wrong in his processing. Look at my 7D example of recovery and that's not even the best sensor around but easily recovered by NR and good enough for a full-res prints.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9570.180

1390

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 15, 2012, 08:32:31 PM »

Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.

exact , so it is or vice versa

Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.

You use the same logic as Pentax did with a 22bit ADC some years ago, more is better
I say ,   when a proper test is  done we  can discusse  the AF issue, or wait  a year when all sports photographers have seen their keepers from different events, it was not so difficult to see the differences between the 1dmk3 and D3 regarding keepers  and that was one of the reasons why 1000 of sports photographer went over to Nikon from 1dmk3

I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did.

You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior.

You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance.

You fail fanboy.

read what i writes ,and  unlike several others I say nothing  about AF but I'd love to have proof that one or the other would be better.
And when it comes to AF in D3 and 1dmk3  you need  to study the subject  a little.

Until you provide facts that Nikons 51 point system is a better field performer than the 61 pt system from canon, the canon system remains better on paper and remains better in first hand experience from me.

Also, where is your body of work? Or does it consist soley of test charts and color charts?  I could believe you more if you had a portfolio showing your work using the nikon system.

1391

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 15, 2012, 07:38:43 PM »

Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.

exact , so it is or vice versa

Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.

You use the same logic as Pentax did with a 22bit ADC some years ago, more is better
I say ,   when a proper test is  done we  can discusse  the AF issue, or wait  a year when all sports photographers have seen their keepers from different events, it was not so difficult to see the differences between the 1dmk3 and D3 regarding keepers  and that was one of the reasons why 1000 of sports photographer went over to Nikon from 1dmk3

I never said quote "more is better" infact, you did.

You still have not provided any evidence proving the Nikon system superior.

You fail on your sports argument because canon gained all the sports togs on the 90's due again, ironically, to canons better AF performance.

You fail fanboy.

1392

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 15, 2012, 06:29:12 PM »

Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question.

exact , so it is or vice versa

Since canon's system is better on paper, and you cannot prove the nikon is better in use. The obvious conclusion is

The Canon AF is better.

1393

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 15, 2012, 06:24:39 PM »

Canon 61 pt AF > Nikon 51 pt AF. done.

Nonsense. Point count != superior AF. In my experience the 7D's AF is superior to the D7000's, practically on par with the earlier 45 point 1D bodies and several Nikon 51 point bodies, and it only has 19 points.

I don't honestly know who has the best AF right now because I don't spend sufficient time with the top tier bodies. But AF is an extremely complicated thing to objectively test, and subjective opinions are open to bias and error. AF performance can also be better on body A for situation 1, but better on body B for situation 2, etc, etc. Not to mention that lenses are at least as important as anything in the body, and it's a mistake to assume similar lenses from two manufacturers have similar AF.

Even with a case as one sided on paper as the 6D and D600 you can't conclusively say one body is always better than another. There's little point in discussing the top tier bodies unless you happen to own and shoot both regularly under a range of challenging conditions.

You must have never used the sheer awesomeness of the canon 61-Point AF system And yes, I've used nikons excellent 51-point system as well. So yes, I can say the Canon AF system is better than nikons right now. Plus, I never said that point count makes a better AF system, because then S0&y would be the best then. 

My Xsi was good
My 7D is Better
but my 5D3 is Great.

1394

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 15, 2012, 06:17:09 PM »

If we are discussing facts , please Meet me with the facts, I am happy to listen to you

Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and  function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different  scenes. Canon have  chosen  for example  up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.
It would take a very long time to test out which of the systems is generally best, it is probably not doable.

Canon 61 Point AF system - works @ F/5.6

61 points total
41 Cross type Points
5 Double-Crosstype point which currently no manuafauter makes.

Can work @ F/8 With Kenko Extenders. Not limited by hardware but software.

Nikon 51 Point 3500 Series AF - works @ F/8

51 points total
15 Crosstype points
0 Double crosstype points

Is that factual enough for you? Teh Canon is clearly superior on paper, can you prove that the nikon is superior in use? that is the question. 

1395

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 15, 2012, 06:08:02 PM »

I would have to disagree with AF here, Canon beats Nikon.

I think AF is the biggest advantage canon has right now. That and lenses of course.

I never discuss AF , It should take a month to evaluate, but it would be interesting to know what you assumptions  are based  on when it comes to that  Canon would have a better AF than Nikon.

When the D800 first came out I played with it a while and wasn't that impressed with the AF.  There are reviews that also state the 5DIII has a better AF system (just look at the 1DX).

show me please. who has done a complete AF test? The AF is not the same  in 5dmk3 and 1dx, 1dx has more sophisticated  computing capacity
and I am sorry if some of you think  I am offending you (Im tired of rabid people whatever they are Nikon or Canon people)
I enjoy discussing facts and regardless of  which brand.  I use Leica, Nikon and Canon 24x36mm cameras in my work

Warning: Entering middle earth. Don't end up like this discussion.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9822.msg177361#msg177361