Messages

1426

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: September 29, 2012, 10:45:09 AM »

If you want better DR, Spend some Dosh on a filter set.

1427

Lenses / Re: What 3 lenses do you dream of and long to own?

« on: September 29, 2012, 10:44:10 AM »

It seems the 200mm F/2L is the most desired lens here. 

1428

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?

« on: September 28, 2012, 02:51:23 PM »

Thank you all for your feedback. I think I shall continue to shoot raw and Ljpeg but with adobeRGB set to take advantage of the larger colour range if I want to show a photo immediately to friends on my laptop.

99% of any monitor made today cannot display the extra color range of ARGB. Infact, some web browsers may show your colors dull because of this.

1429

Software & Accessories / Re: On-line Wedding albums

« on: September 27, 2012, 06:07:17 PM »

I have just shot my first wedding and the couple want a wedding album made up.

I was going to do it on-line so can anyone recommend a good on-line wedding album site.

....or am I better getting it done professionally.

Any help is appreciated but don't want the album ending up costing a fortune.

UK based if possible.

Note: I want a physical wedding album printed up not just an on-line version.

I've had good experience with Adorama's Books and software.

1430

EOS Bodies / Re: New Canon EOS-M

« on: September 27, 2012, 12:48:58 PM »

Hello everyone,

Just had a rather interesting day spent with a couple of the Canon reps.. Basically iv got to play with the new EOS-M.. Build quality is very good, it has a touch screen which is pretty much the same as a iPhone ( very good even tho I strongly dislike touch screens on cameras ).. The only downside to today was I wasn't able to try it with either the standard kit lens or with the EF adaptor.. Ill uploaded some pics.. If you have any questions just ask..

Update.. For some reason I cant upload the images to Canon Rumors so Ill add them to my flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/66876906@N06/

Nice. This will be my mirrorless camera.

1431

EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ

« on: September 27, 2012, 12:06:21 PM »

I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, let alone held one.

I do know my way around my camera, but on these boards I keep hearing people talking about Dynamic Range when comparing cameras or making wish lists of improvements.

Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.

Cheers.

For decades photographers have pursued higher and higher DR in camera's since the original daguerreotype. How much have we improved? Eh, Its hard to say in camera tech.

But,

In-out camera technique such as filters, timing, scouting, HDR (if you like that sorta thing), you can can easily photograph stuff that's far, far beyond anything a bare sensor can capture. Like 20 Stops.

So if you want better DR, Work on your technique to achieve so.

1432

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Rx-1

« on: September 27, 2012, 11:56:45 AM »

Just curious - how interested are you guys in purchasing this camera as a secondary backup to your DSLR? If not this specific sony rx-1 how about a canon full frame compact camera?

Is there a market for it? What's a price you'd be willing to pay?

While the rx-1 looks and sounds amazing - I don't know that I could stomach spending 3k on a fixed lens camera. The idea behind it is awesome tho. I'm reading lots of rumors of the nex-9 (or whatever it ends up being) that will be Sony's FF mirrorless camera entry.

Now that I might pick up.

Kinda interested what everyone's thoughts were on this.

Its an amazing camera, and wouldn't mind the fixed lens. Its just that I rather get an EOS-M for 799$

1433

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?

« on: September 27, 2012, 11:50:23 AM »

I know I've asked this before, but I kind of want a solid answer. I really do want to go FF but seeing as a used 5Dc is the only real alternative I have, I'm asking if it's actually worth it. I'm looking to keep my collection strictly EF glass because I do want to upgrade to a 5Dmk3 one day. I understand the limitations of a 5Dc (sluggish feel, horrible LCD, slow FPS, average AF) Is the 5Dc still a trust worthy FF camera that offers the basic needs of an amatuer street,landscape, and portrait photographer?

I've shot the 5Dc for years and In my taste's, produced the best digital files that are most similar to film. If I had to do it all over again, I'd skip the Rebel series and straight to a 5Dc. You can add a focus screen for fast primes which my 5D3 doesn't offer. 

Its just a camera, No extra fluff. I didn't have Liveview on my OM-1, because that's what distance scales are for. 

You can buy a 5Dc, 50mm 1.4, 100mm f/2 for just the price of a MK2.

1434

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Amatuer Upgrade - T2i to 1D3?

« on: September 27, 2012, 11:47:35 AM »

Hello all.  First post on the forum.  I have been reading and searching though for a while.  I am a hobbyist looking to upgrade my camera body (currently T2i).  My primary use of the camera is shooting ice hockey and walking around during travel / holiday.  So, I am looking for something with better / faster AF performance and tracking and reasonable / fixable low noise at high ISO.  Most of my ice hockey shots are ISO 1600 - 3200.  My first thought was a 7D, but given where we are in the product cycle, I think it would be more advantageous to wait.  I figured I could get a used / cleaned 1D mark III for relatively equal price to a refurb 7D and then see in a about a half year if I want to upgrade to the 1D mark iv or a 7D mark II / 70D (whatever canon has plans for).  I shoot a 70-200 2.8L for sports fyi.

Looking for advice from anyone with experience in shooting ice hockey particularly with 7D vs 1D3 vs 1D4 etc.

Thanks in advance.

Thats a good upgrade, As the 1D3 and 7D are similar in price. The 1D3 is a great cam, just make sure you don't get a body with bad AF though.

1435

Lenses / Re: To IS or not?

« on: September 27, 2012, 11:25:32 AM »

I haven't shot IS lenses for awhile now. I've managed ok. 

1436

Lenses / Re: Vintage Lenses: Any Advise?

« on: September 26, 2012, 04:21:18 PM »

If you're buying vintage lenses, read this first:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsc.html

and once that's clear, start the buying madness

http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html

Hi! I knew some lenses wouldn't keep the pace of modern digital sensors, but I'm also sure the good ones would still be good. As I said, my 25-years-old nifty fifty is so much better than any modern MK2 I've seen.

I would like to get a setup of old, possibly all-metal, manual focus fast primes.

I am a child of the AF generation, so I'm very little experienced in this sense and I don't know which ones are worth having nowadays.

I'm interested in 20-28mm, 30-40mm, 50-60mm, 85-100mm and 135mm. A standard setup.

Please share your opinions with me. Doesn't matter about brands, as long as they can be adapted and that it makes sense to buy them price-wise.

Thank you!

Contax-Zeiss Primes have less issues being fitted to EOS camera than the FD lenses. Plus, They're awesome.

Do you have any direct experience?

http://leitax.com/Zeiss-Contax-lenses-for-Canon-cameras.html

Had a 50mm 1.4 zeiss once, never really used it much.

1437

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Why Hasselblad?

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:03:31 AM »

Bigger format's resolve finer details better, and If you ever decide to try an old film TLR or hasselblad. They are indeed very sharp.

Thats why serious landscape photographers still use 4x5 - 8x10 Sheet film. It can capture much more detail than 35mm ever could.

Medium format is great for portraits because you don't have to turn the camera, Its mostly a square format. 20mp MF camera will look better than a 20MP 35mm camera and that helps in print.

1438

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 10:30:20 AM »

D800. Its the name of the camera on everyones mouths these days. In all the blogs. In all the reviews. Its the thing raving Nikon fans rave about. Canon's taken a solid back seat to Nikon these days, particularly to the D800. I've said many times that Canon cameras have some pretty amazing highlight recovery, as Canon tends to tune their sensors response to favor highlights (either intentfully or simply as a byproduct of their manufacturing process, I can't say...although I'm inclined to think its intentional given Canon popularity among wedding photographers.)

I regularly repeat that anecdote in many of my posts...but I just came across a couple accidental overexposures of some of my own photos that I think clearly demonstrate the point. While out photographing birds with a rental Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II IS and Canon EF 2x TC III, I kept coming across dragonflys. A telephoto lens with a TC is a great way to photograph some frame-filling insect "macros" (more like pseudomacro) without scaring the subject off. I accidentally set my exposure wrong and totally blew the first few shots:

The exposure should have been around 1/1000s @ f/8 ISO 100 (which I proved with some subsequent shots, which ended up being 1/1000s @ f/7.1 ISO 160)...so my exposure above was almost four stops overexposed. Thanks to the power of Lightroom 4.1 and its amazing highlight recovery, the above image, with -4 EV exposure correction and 60% highlight recovery, turned into this:

I'd experienced Canon's amazing highlight headroom when photographing the moon. I REALLY push my moon exposures...to the point where once exposed the moon looks like a nearly uniform almost-white disc in the in-camera preview. Once imported, its clear that there are actually few parts of the moon that are actually white. I'd never actually overexposed something so much that on import it really DID look almost entirely white. The histogram of the dragonfly was all bunched up in two peaks near the very far right...with a small gap between the second peak and the actual right edge...a gap maybe 1 or 2 pixels wide. With 100% highlight recovery in LR 4.1, even the specular highlights on the wings still retain a lot of detail:

Since this image started out way overexposed, there is zero color or pattern noise in the shadows. There is also minimal random (photon shot) noise in the shadows as well...they look as clean as a D800 at ISO 100! ;-)

So, the next time someone tells you Canon sensors suck...send em here. While Canon sensors may not be able to achieve 13.2 stops of DR or allow noiseless shadow recovery like the D800 can, they really do know how to pack in the highlights, and maintain full color fidelity while recovering. The next time you need low noise shadows...expose to the right....then, try exposing farther to the right. 

Your right, I don't understand how anyone took photos before the D800. 

I still use my D30 for some web stuff, and it's taken some great photos that some would deem impossible with its ancient sensor.

1439

Lenses / Re: 85 mm Lens

« on: September 26, 2012, 10:24:21 AM »

Hey,

I am not a professional photographer, but I would like to buy a nice portrait lens. I have a full frame body (1ds mk3) so I am considering the following lenses:

Canon 85 1.8
Sigma 85 1.4
Zeiss 85 1.4

Which would you recommend and why? Do you think it is better to go with the 135L ?

85L is over my budget and is to slow...

Thanks

Tomaz

I prefer the Extra Compression of the 135L, its cheaper and just as good as the 85L.

1440

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 4.1 Running SLOW!

« on: September 26, 2012, 09:55:53 AM »

I love LR 4.1. Its been fine on my machine and tweaks my 5D3 files nicely. Its from 2006 but has had basic upgrades since then.

C2D E6600 - 2.93ghz
4 GB 667 MHz RAM
Nvidia 660TI 3GB Card.
Dual monitors

Perhaps, your machine hasn't streamlined its services and background programs?