August 30, 2014, 08:25:01 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 - drjlo

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 42
61
Try uninstalling back to factory.  Reset defaults and try again.

So, on your ML install, you DO get the automatic image display after you take the photo? 
Where in the menu is the factory reset button? 

62
Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 05, 2014, 04:33:03 PM »
A nice read for those deciding among the 35 mm options out there.  I especially concur with this point:

"But one of the things I do besides reading reviews when I am doing research before purchasing is to look at pictures taken WITH the lens.  I realize that there will always be a very wide disparity in the quality of photos because of the skill level of the photographer.  But after a while you start to get a sense of how the lens performs in a variety of situations.

Lenses are more than the sum of their parts or even review scores, and I find that particularly true with fast prime lenses.  The 35L, for example, produces images with a frequently beautiful “feel” to them that goes beyond technical merit.  The images frequently look “pro” or “magic” (and that’s a good thing!)  I kept waiting for the WOW images from the Sigma…but I rarely saw them.  The Sigma just seems more clinical."

63
Thank goodness the 50 ART is probably going to turn out to be a real deal.  Now let's hope the other shoe (price) drops somewhere friendly  ;D

64
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Alpha a6000
« on: April 03, 2014, 11:16:18 PM »
Got it late yesterday so it was all low light and the difference was negligible
I'll try it again today in good light
It's got the 16-70 f4 ziess

All up seems like a nice package

But AF does not even come close to the 5D3
And the evf is pretty sucky in low light

I presume you are talking about one-shot AF mode speed and accuracy, not the burst mode?  A6000 is supposed to have 11 fps, which surely has at least faster burst rate ( and more accurate?) than EOS-M's burst rate. 

And yeah, EVF's really look bad in low light, even the "better" EVF in A7/R..

65
I posted on ML forum but got no answer so far.
Question.  After I installed ML on my 5D III (1.2.3), my automatic image display is disabled.  I had it set to automatically show the image I took for 4 seconds after shooting the photo, but after ML, the LCD does not display anything after I shoot the photo unless I actually push the display button.  I checked in both Canon and ML menu, and there does not seem to be a solution to this?  TIA.

66
IME monopods are not nearly as useful as they seem in use, not even in the same universe as a good tripod.  My nice carbon monopod usually sits at home while I'm out shooting.  I wouldn't waste the money on a nice monopod, but instead I recommend you look into a nice tripod with one leg that is detachable to use as monopod for occasional use (maybe).

67
Unfortunately, The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS lens has received disappointing reviews at both photozone and SLRgear.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-70mm-fe-zeiss-gets-tested-by-photozone-and-slrgear-doesnt-meet-the-expectations-from-the-reviewers/
I read those reviews and that's pretty much what I feel about the FE 24-70 f/4 lens ... it is a good lens to have for about $700 (maybe $800 max, but no more) but for close to $1200 it is just not worth it, one might as well stick with the kit lens.

In fact I've read the kit lens is actually quite good for a "kit lens". Charging this premium for the Zeiss certainly makes people expect quite a bit more.

However, to my knowledge this is not a "Zeiss" lens. They only provide QC to Sony. In fact some new real Zeiss ZFE (or whatever they will be called) primes should be announced at the next Photokina.

Is the FE 50 mm f/1.8 then not a real "Zeiss" lens, either?  Pretty darn good if it's a Sony with only Zeiss QC.

68
Unfortunately, The Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 OSS lens has received disappointing reviews at both photozone and SLRgear.

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/24-70mm-fe-zeiss-gets-tested-by-photozone-and-slrgear-doesnt-meet-the-expectations-from-the-reviewers/

69
EOS-M / Re: EOS-M first impressions
« on: March 26, 2014, 10:23:06 PM »

I actually find it very convenient and use it like this (touchscreen shutter activation needs to be off):
- touch the screen where I want to focus (right thumb)
- press the '*' button to focus (with the right thumb which is already positioned close to the button)

Phil.

I would have loved the EOS-M touchscreen and its touch-to-focus feature on my Sony A7R.  I would have gladly traded away the Sony EVF for the touchscreen which makes it 10x faster to move the AF point than A7R's ludicrous two-dial system.  Yes, I still can't stand EVF's. 

70
EOS-M / Re: EOS M Lens survey - your favorites, and your most wanted?
« on: March 23, 2014, 06:10:51 PM »
Personally, I would love something like a mirrorless (smaller) version of Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO DX Macro lens, but make it EF-M 35 f/2 Macro.  It doesn't even have to 1:1 macro like Tokina, but 1:1.5-2.0 would suffice and also would be great people/event lens.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Problem with MK3 new 1.2.3 firmware
« on: March 23, 2014, 03:58:02 PM »
Are you sure it's due to the new firware?  Something similar to what you describe have happened to me in past, but with 5D III and 1.2.1 firmware, using 90EX as optical ETTL trigger with off-camera 580EX II..

72

I agree with Rienz. I think in a couple years time the situation might be very different. Sony has still a so-so reputation in the photographic world, but if/when Fuji will release a FF X system, then the whole market might reconsider its position.

I had hoped Fuji would go FF based on rumors, but it looks unlikely according to this interview with Fuji executive:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/12/17/fujifilm-not-coming-up-with-full-frame-x-mount-camera-according-to-manager

Yes, we have a couple of years to consider things.  By then, a Canon 5D MKIV will be apparent, and depending on what Canon does with new sensor (or not  :-[), many will consider other options including Sony.  Hopefully, by then Sony will have: improved customer service, fixed their overheating speedlite, introduced some TTL triggers, made their RAW lossless, fixed the shutter vibration, improved AF on FF, etc. 


73
Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: March 21, 2014, 01:40:46 PM »
the 5DIII is definitely yet another big step up from the 7D, particularly with subject tracking.  Being able to lock an AF point on a bird and have it track it over 2/3 of the frame is amazing.

I am still experimenting with 5D III for BIF, which is a bit difficult due to AF point not lighting up in Al servo and 6 fps.  Which Al servo "mode" do you prefer for BIF, and which AF point distribution (all AF pts on, double cross only, center only, center expanded, etc)?

74
The 50 1.4 is an excellent lens, no doubt about it.  It was my first prime on a DSLR and what made me fall in love with photography all over again.

You guys started with luxury.  My first DSLR prime was the Canon 50 f/1.8 II for around $100, and it was a mini revelation  ;D  Then I went through the 50 f1.4 (great lens), even FL 50 f/1.2, then 50L, with stops along the way with Sigma 50 f/1.4.  What amazes me is how Canon still has not updated the non-L 50 f/1.4.  One would think a little tweak in the optics, with more/rounded blades for better bokeh, with updated USM AF system would produce an excellent 50 f1.4 II.

75
Lenses / Re: 16-35 II vs what?
« on: March 20, 2014, 09:46:59 PM »
I tried the 16-35 II and 17-40, and really, they are pretty good, way better than what one would guess by reading comments by people who say they are "cr&&&" or "unusable." They can produce very good results, especially when one applies appropriate type and amount of lens correction that are readily available. 

I also believe many people who think they "need" f/2.8 in wide angle probably don't.  Perhaps if you shoot a lot of real-estate interior shots in dim lighting, but then again, proper lighting and tripods should resolve that. 

The 17-40 I tried was of recent build, and I don't understand why people say it's much worse than 16-35; maybe the older productions were worse?  ???

If one must produce and sell wide angle photo's in large print sizes with absolutely perfect corners, then maybe this Canon "Year of the lens" thing will work out in the way of a new Canon 14-24 or 16-35 Mk III..

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 42