Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!

« on: June 17, 2013, 10:10:21 PM »

Back up to $649! Damn. (I suppose that's a good thing in a way though)

Yup, I don't think I could have resisted more than another few hours 

2

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 f2.8 II. How much AFMA does your copy need? What's acceptable?

« on: June 17, 2013, 08:04:01 PM »

I just talked to Canon CPS, and they are implying to me that their "unofficial" guideline for acceptable AFMA is around 10.  That seems like a lot since the difference between 0 and -9 is quite noticeable to my eyes.
 
They suggested that if both lens and body are "off" in same direction, it may end up too much and recommened I drop off both the lens and body to be calibrated together, so I guess I'll do that when I have time to make the drive over there..

3

Lenses / Canon 24-70 f2.8 II. How much AFMA does your copy need? What's acceptable?

« on: June 17, 2013, 07:20:24 PM »

My copy of 24-70 f/2.8 II needs -9 at wide end and 0 at tele end on my 5D III.  My Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II needs 0 at either end, and my 100L also needs 0.  Some of my fast primes including 35L, 50L, 85L II range between -1 and -3. 

A brand new Canon 17-40 f/4L I just borrowed needed -6 at wide and 0 at tele. 

-9 seems a tad too much for a $2100 lens, so I'm just wondering what 24-70 f/2.8 II owners have experienced with AFMA (and 5D III)?  Is it worth sending in the lens to Canon while still under warranty for calibration?

Is my copy of 5D III partly at fault here, as the body seems to need Minus AFMA on lenses, never positive.  The body is out of warranty, but should I send in both the 24-70 II and body to Canon for calibration together (does Canon even calibrate a specific lens+body combo?). 

Any help would be appreciated. 

4

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!

« on: June 17, 2013, 04:09:15 PM »

M..U..S..T..   R E S I S T..

5

Lenses / Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!

« on: June 17, 2013, 02:50:06 PM »

These things usually go for $600+, so I would buy in a heartbeat if I hadn't just bought the 24-70 II 
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370784493891

6

Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm macro L or Zeiss 50mm makro?

« on: June 16, 2013, 10:00:28 PM »

But I think they are pretty different lenses.

That may be the understatement of the week, mainly due to the fact Zeiss only has max. magnification of 1:2 where as Canon is a true 1:1 magnification macro lens.  The lack of AF and IS on the Zeiss is the next large difference, and the fact Canon 100L actually can be bough quite a bit cheaper is a consideration. 

If one wants mainly a "walkaround" normal lens and can manual-focus quick enough, the Zeiss would be a good choice, with the understanding you are not going to get 1:1 magnification. 

7

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Available for Preorder

« on: June 14, 2013, 12:17:18 PM »

Any of you surprised by the $799 figure?  The chatter I've seen on other announcement pages (photo rumors, Petapixel, etc.) has been very positive re: the price.

I can imagine that if Canon had come up with this first-of-kind lens, they would have priced it at $1800 easily     

I don't want to invest further in aps-c, but if Sigma makes EF-M version of this lens, I would probably buy the lens and Canon EOS-M (hopefully next version) just for this lens, skipping the EF-M adapter.   

8

Lenses / Re: What would you do if you had $2000, a 5DII and no lenses?

« on: June 14, 2013, 03:00:14 AM »

85L II. 

I'm looking at my lens collection including the likes of 70-200 f/2.8 II, 35L, 100L, 135L, 17-40L, but 85L II plus 5D II (III in my case) produces the most special images. 

9

EOS-M / Re: EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Announcement Soon? [CR2]

« on: June 03, 2013, 12:26:24 PM »

Constant F4 would have my attention 

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???

« on: May 24, 2013, 12:12:25 AM »

ETTR explained:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Sure, use ETTR if able to avoid blowing the highlights.  If all fails, a really good noise reduction software like Neat Image or Noiseware Pro can save the day IME.

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:18:08 PM »

Has anyone done any testing on the SL1 sensor to give an idea of what might be in store for the 70D? It seems odd that you can buy one at B&H but no one has done an in-depth review.

According to this comparison, SL1 IQ doesn't seem exciting at all, which I expect to be the IQ of 70D. 
If Canon is listening, who cares if iso is expandable to a gazillion, I just want super-clean at iso 3200.  Really.

Canon SL1 / 100D Rebel Hands-On Review | with Canon 7D & Nikon D7100 low light comparison	Small | Large

12

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 21, 2013, 04:01:25 PM »

Because of their introductory pricing, I suspect many will access the service for the first year, while holding on to those copies of CS6.

I'm also thinking about going to CS6 from my current CS5 and watch how things go with subscription model, but what about this Adobe Application Manager that I apparently am forced to download for CS6 and all the complaints about it on the web? 

What truly useful feature does CS6 have over CS5?

13

Software & Accessories / Re: Flickr is now 1 Terabytes!! For everyone!!

« on: May 21, 2013, 03:34:21 PM »

Anyone figured out where the "Actions" tab is now on flickr (sure hope it's there there!) where one could choose "View Exif info"?

14

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

« on: May 10, 2013, 12:39:18 AM »

Please sign this online petition. I do not know if it will do any good, but it is certainly more effective than just sitting around on this forum complaining: http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model#share

Signed and shared.

Same here.

15

Software & Accessories / Re: When and how to use DLO in DPP

« on: May 07, 2013, 03:47:40 PM »

It is going to depend on each individual image and the way a user perceives it.  I do not believe there is any magical number that works for all.

You're killin' my dreams buddy

So, are there images you shouldn't bother using this tool on?  How do you know when going through this step isn't going to result in an appreciable difference?

Should I basically just use it like sharpening?  View at 100%, start at 0, go up until I see problems, then back it down?  Then recheck at normal viewing size?

Remember, your CR2 files grow to very large size, 3X their normal size, so its not something to use on the 800 images you shot last night.

For images that need DLO, I apply DLO in RAW, convert to JPEG, then I un-apply DLO before closing the RAW, so the RAW size does not increase 3x.  Undoing DLO is very quick unlike applying it. 

DLO doesn't appear to make much difference when viewed on small screens or prints, but viewed large, it really does great for things like chromatic aberration, color fringing, and sharpness, better than the traditional ways of lens correction and sharpening IME in that results look more natural.