November 26, 2014, 09:52:53 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 ... 127 128 [129] 130 131 ... 235
1921
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

1922
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.

1923
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

1924
@ 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.


1925
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.

1926
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.

1927
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.

1928
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.

1929
Pricewatch Deals / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS Available January 7, 2013
« on: January 03, 2013, 02:18:04 PM »
Who will be buying this?  :P

1930
Canon General / Re: Total File Size - All Your Images and Keep or Delete
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:53:19 PM »
I currently have 1,750GB of RAW files from Film Scans, 10D, Rebel XSI, 5Dc, 7D, & 5D3 cameras. Lightroom handles it fantastically and I can easily view progress from camera to camera.

1931
The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

5d2 IQ certainly was and still is a problem for many people.
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

5d3 did little to fix the IQ problem but certainly presented a much better overall camera for event shooters.  Good for them.

For those of us who want the best IQ, in preference to overall system performance, the 5d2 is a failure. It has worse (pattern) noise character than my 40D.
The 5d3 is no improvement for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance.

The 6d might actually be the viable alternative for unsatisfied 5d2 owners who don't need to pay extra for the unneeded speed and AF of the 5d3 and aren't ready or willing to move to another platform. 
I haven't yet tested it myself but from what I've gathered so far it seems the 6D's IQ does improve noticeably over the 5d2's AFA banding noise issues + it has much improved hi ISO and low light AF ability for those times it's required.

Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o

1932
Lenses / Re: Glacier National Park - New lens?
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:37:17 AM »
I loved my 10-22mm, its everything I'd ask from an UWA lens.

1933
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5D mark III
« on: January 03, 2013, 10:23:03 AM »
Line-skipping VS pixel binning video. The 6D uses line-skipping and the 5D3 uses binning, thus the video is superior on the mk3.

1934
Lenses / Re: Soon to be Launched EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:14:35 AM »
One of the worse kept secrets ever.  ::) absolutely no surprise in its release.

1935
Lenses / Re: EOS 6D kit worth it with Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS?
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:39:35 AM »
I don't find the 6D or the 24-70 f/4L to be very good value for $$$.

I'd recommend a 5D2 + 24-105L to be a superb value for $$$.

Pages: 1 ... 127 128 [129] 130 131 ... 235