December 22, 2014, 02:59:24 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 - drjlo

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 45
Landscape / Re: friendly reminder!!! Supermoon tomorrow!!!
« on: June 27, 2013, 12:51:55 AM »
What I could manage with 70-200 and 2x TC..

SuperMoonEF2 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« on: June 24, 2013, 05:23:49 PM »

AF is another story. I'm on my 3rd copy of this lens. The first two were erratic and inconsistent, so I returned them (which was a shame, because it's such an incredible lens).

That's the kind of thing I just don't have the time or patience to deal with.

Something has also been bothering me the more Sigma 35 photo's I look on various forums.  Those photos certainly seem very sharp, but at the same time they tend to look a bit "muted," not as 3-D and popping off the page as 35L photo's.  Not sure if this is contrast and/or color-rendering difference; it could even be the fact Canon 35L was/is a more expensive lens, likely being used more by professionals, presumably with more experience/skill.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung Galaxy S4 Zoom
« on: June 22, 2013, 10:18:51 PM »
I think that the S4 Zoom is a game changer and the end of the entry level compact cameras.

I guess it could have been stunning if it had a micro 4/3 sized sensor at least.  Heck, even if it had a Canon S100 type of 1/1.7" sensor, it would have been much more exciting.  Oh, well, I guess I will get one anyway since anything would be better than my Samsung Nexus phone camera.

@drjilo: you did great! Thank you. I dare to do everything, as I pushed tri-X film to at least ISO 1600 or 3200 back in the day which looked kinda like the 5D3's ISO 51k today  ;D I know about the downsides of DPP in PP. Looking forward to LR some time later this year. What are your highest ISOs you take pictures at? Kind regards from Switzerland. Peter

I'm still kind of old school when it comes to iso and try to keep it below 6400 whenever possible.  I stick to ISO 100 for studio shooting with controlled lighting. 

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f2,8 L IS Macro... is IS worth it?
« on: June 21, 2013, 12:44:30 PM »
At macro distances, the movement is primarily forward and back - IS doesn't help in that case. Faster shutter speed [even with higher ISO] or flash is a better answer.

Really?  At macro distances and hand-held,  if I turn off IS and look throught the VF, I see all kinds of shifting including horizontala and rotational, not just back and forth.  IS certainly is not AS useful at macro distances but is still useful for me for hand-held macro shots, making the difference between getting the shot or not on my 100L..

When I had the 16-35 II, I never dared put it through iso 102,4K, but I find DPP's noise reduction is not as good as a good dedicated program like Noisware, which I used to redo the image below with just a subtle additional noise reduction while trying to preserve detail.  Obviously, working with original RAW would have been better..  Hope you don't mind.

isotestNW by drjlo1, on Flickr

Lenses / Re: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2013, 09:26:04 PM »
I can see room for all three -- the 16-50 f/4, 16-35 III, and 14-24

16-50 range appeals to me as better full frame walkaround range than 24-70; but I am afraid increasing the range will likely compromise distortion figures and corner sharpness compared to wide angles with less range, etc 14-22, 16-35.  16-35 II is already not all that great in corners wide open at 35 mm end. 

If Canon manages to pull off a 16-50 with good sharpness across the ranges, especially with a good 50 mm portrait end, I will likely buy that over 14-24..

Testing this 24-70 II some more, I am somewhat dismayed by what I find at close distance, wide open, at wide 24mm end.  Compared to where live view focusing stops, even after AFMA, the phase detect AF is hit-and-miss, even on tripod.  Often the initial half-press of shutter will be quite a bit off, then a repeat half-press or two will get it to where live view stops.  Where it stops also seems to differ based on whether I'm focuing from infinity or MFD side as well as distance from object.  At other times, it focuses right at first half-press.  This doesn't seem to happen at the 70mm end.  Phase detect couldn't be this bad relative to live view in general, could it?  Guess will see what Canon service will say/do. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Product Advisory
« on: June 19, 2013, 10:37:22 AM »
Man, are CaNikon unable to produce a trouble-free product, even at these price levels?  This would be a pain in the behind  ???

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 28mm F/2.8 IS USM $399 from Adorama !!
« on: June 19, 2013, 10:34:36 AM »
Anyway, I'm extremely grateful to the person who alerted us to this short-lived bargain.

You're welcome and have fun with it.  But now I have non-buyer's remorse  ;D

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  ;D

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..

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. 

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..

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  :'(

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 45