October 30, 2014, 12:42:23 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.


Messages - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 ... 125 126 [127] 128 129 ... 234
1891
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system
« on: January 06, 2013, 10:52:48 AM »
The mk3 is not the problem, the problem is those heavy 2.8 zooms which the 70-200L weights about 4LBs.

That's one reason I've come to love small, light primes. 24L + 50 1.4 + 135L are fantastic to carry. If you want mobility and lens speed, try some small primes.

1892
Sell it and save the cash for another MK3. That's how my 7D went.

1893
A upper body workout might help. :|

1894
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: BLOWN away.
« on: January 06, 2013, 10:44:26 AM »
#not impressed @ 2800$.

1896
The 1000th post earns the 1Dx marker, Even though I have no use for such a beastly camera.

1897
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$.

1898
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.

1900
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


1901
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

1902
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

1903
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.

1904
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

1905
@ 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.


Pages: 1 ... 125 126 [127] 128 129 ... 234