July 31, 2014, 10:24:19 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 220
1682
The 1000th post earns the 1Dx marker, Even though I have no use for such a beastly camera.

1683
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mm F4 IS - anybody bought one yet ?
« on: January 04, 2013, 04:12:42 PM »
The minor performance upgrade from the 24-105L is not worth twice the $$$. This lens is DOA @ 1499$.

1684
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 5D mark iii & off-camera flash
« on: January 04, 2013, 10:47:13 AM »
Its funny because I used to use my 7D for strobist stuff and now i'm in the same predicament.

Currently, I'm using el cheapo Cowboy Radio Triggers but I plan on eventually replacing my 580EXII units for 600EX-RT units. The cowboy triggers are reliable to 60ft and I shoot manual flash anyway.

Get a few cowboy triggers, They're pretty cheap.

1686
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera (Body Only) or Camera with Bundle Kit
« on: January 04, 2013, 10:05:24 AM »
If your willing to learn about photography and cameras, I'd never buy crop again.

5Dc + 50mm 1.8/1.4


1687
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d3 and FoCal errors
« on: January 04, 2013, 10:02:17 AM »
My method of Focal is shooting a barcode over and over and over to determine the lenses behavior of either front or back focusing. Make an adjustment and repeat. It just tuned my primes last night and now they're even better.  ;D

1688
Lenses / Re: January 8, 2013 Announcements?
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:58:35 AM »
4 days left... let's wait and see.  :)

It would be good a 14-24 or something like that.

More interested in 35L II with weather sealing ;)

Even More Interested in a 135mm F/1.8L IS.  ;D

1689
Canon General / Re: Single point auto focus
« on: January 04, 2013, 09:57:21 AM »
90% of my 5D3 shooting is precise Single Point, the Other 10% is AF-expansion + Assist-beam.

1690
Software & Accessories / Re: Oddest kit purchase?
« on: January 04, 2013, 08:48:53 AM »
In a jewelry shoot, I used my white T shirt as a bounce card.  :P

1691
@ RLPhoto - nothing personal but this near diatribe I've written here is a culmination of of seeing the same hash from the same multiple sources (pg7, pg8), you just happened to have been under the quote button.  :)
I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.


sigh... again... ???

I'm glad istock likes your stuff but that doesn't trump what I and a few other people here have said, repeatedly, ad nauseam about FPN (fixed pattern noise) problems with Canon cameras.

If you're not pushing the limits of your raw files for any artistic or DR compression purposes (and it's not all abstract, really) then you may as well shoot jpg because you'll not likely notice the difference.

It has NOTHING to do with "getting the exposure right."

It has only to do with FPN weakness of the imaging system.

Just because what you, any many others, do works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone.
We don't shoot the same subjects, we don't shoot the same way.  If we did, it'd be pointless for us to both be doing it.  What you do is not any more "correct" than what I do, it's just different, and the tool you find adequate does not work well for me.

You want to paddle a canoe with a canoe paddle, sure, works good.
You try paddle a kayak with a canoe paddle, it's not so good any more, is it?

Not all bodies of a given type exhibit FPN at the same level.
I have an early 5d2, I had an early 7d.  They both sucked with serious FPN, and so did many other bodies produced in the same time frame. (& yes, I've complained to my local Canon rep directly)
You (RL) may have lucked out with cleaner versions of these same bodies.  I, and many others, did not.  And the way I want to use the gear I paid good money for is compromised because of these problems.  That initially rendered some very expensive outings and shoots a serious loss because I do not accept images with this kind of flaw and even sophisticated post-processed is unable to adequately ameliorate the problem.
FWIW, my 40D, 60D, 350D, 400D, 450D, G11, G12, and needless to say my recent Nikons and even my new Pentax Q, suffice for the same kind of "extreme" shots the 5d2 and 7d fail at because they don't have FPN to the same extent; so can you still tell me it's my technique?  Part of my fun comes from pushing the limits of low end cameras to get good images.  It's pretty disappointing when "high end" cameras have worse IQ than some very much lower end cameras.

The simple fact is that my 5d2, even with latest firmware, shows FPN in shadows of PROPERLY exposed images, even without any significant shadow lifting. It's not the only lousy 5d2 either.  Plenty of people have noticed this same FPN issue, they've posted it in these forums, they've mostly all been rebuked by the regulars, some of which should have the technical knowledge to know better since I've seen such demonstrated regularly.

I'm still hoping Canon will pull a rabbit out of their hat this yeat with new sensor tech that will drastically improve low FPN and low ISO DR while we're at it.

Have a look at my first post on page 5 of this topic if you missed it.
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12029.60

This topic has devolved so far from the OP's initial query as to likely have bored them.  It started off with good intentions in the first few pages but here we are again. :-\


I simply don't believe that you could hold your standards higher than istock photo/ Getty images, which BTW view every image @ 100% for FPN, banding, artifacts, blah blah blah. Which allows anyone's photos to be printed at maximum size and ultimate quality.

And I pushed a lot of my files hard to get what I'm looking for, and still are accepted. If you hold your files to an even higher standard, I can't imagine what on earth you'll be doing with your photos because every photo I submit has to be gallery quality already.


1692
you guys are SO funny.
Humor your way of acknowledging defeat? ;)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o

or just dial back your contrast setting, or try Canon's own built-in LANDSCAPE style. Try both if you like stripes.
boost shadows another stop or 2 if blind or on uncalibrated monitor.

Those of use who bought the Canon fanboy hype about the 5d2 and purchased early were richly disappointed.
Mine sat unused in a drawer for most of a year until I found that the firmware updates actually improved things enough to make the camera usable without obvious MIDTONE banding any more.  MOST times anyway.

If you forgot, have a little refresher.  We're here to educate and elucidate:

www.google.ca/search?=en&q=sky+banding+canon+5d+mark+II

see FIRMWARE topic on the wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II#Firmware_updates


I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.

1693
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo
« on: January 03, 2013, 04:02:22 PM »
I'd like it if it was 599$, the market is too saturated with 24-105L's to get the 1500$ price tag.

1694
EOS Bodies / Re: Shot wedding with 5DIII, dissapointed in AF
« on: January 03, 2013, 03:58:57 PM »
My 5D3 is the best low-light AF performing camera I've used. It just takes some trial-error to get correct settings.

To get good focus in no light situations, AF assitbeam + 9 point AF expansion is a bread and butter great.

1695
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Available January 7, 2013
« on: January 03, 2013, 02:49:38 PM »
The wide end appears to have slightly better IQ on the F/4 24-70L than the 24-105L.

The tele end can't really be a fair comparison because its at different focal lengths. At tele, they're still pretty similiar.

still can't justify the 750$ premium on the new lens but it would be nicer to backpack with.

Pages: 1 ... 111 112 [113] 114 115 ... 220