Messages

1681

Canada / Re: COPYRIGHT in Canada

« on: May 26, 2011, 10:39:04 AM »

Copyright is such a finicky issue.  I shoot product photography for a local company where I live and it is understood that while I am the photographer, they own copyrights with the photos and I cannot resell the photos.  NOW... It is also understood if i have a photo I shoot that I like I can put it in my portfolio, put in on my website, promotionals, etc... The advertising manager does the same thing with her personal portfolio where when she uses my photographs in her layouts and catalogs, etc... For her it's a reflection of her layout/graphic design skills and for me, it's a reflection of my photography skills... We just cant profit off the photos any more than whats in our paycheck. 

With just about all my other jobs, I have written into my contracts I own copyrights... On weddings, portraits, architecture, etc... Now also the rough rule of thumb of "if you alter the photo 5% then the photo is yours" is also sketchy but used in everyday life, SO, if you shoot a photo for a client, they like it, buy it, and then you turn it into fine art, clip things out, do post production to the photo, etc... Then as long as you keep your nose clean and it's not perfectly recognizable, then it is what it is. 

1682

Lenses / Re: EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]

« on: May 26, 2011, 10:24:58 AM »

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8, and I am happy with it.  I use the f/2.8 far more than the 35-40mm range, plus the faster shutter at other apertures...

Now a 16-40mm f/2.8 or a 17-50mm f/2.8 IS would be perfect...

The day they announce this lens is the day I put my 17-40 up on craigslist and put my order in for this one.  The irony with the price inflation over the last year, the price I paid 2-3 years ago for it new is $150 cheaper than current retail rates so I could make up my entire investment on this lens and then some on the used market.  =)  It's not often you need shallow DOF (F 2.8 ) for wide angle because bokeh is diminished in wide angles due to the wider angle and lower focus scale making the relation between  the subject matter and infinity a lot closer than mid range or telephoto.  If I need that tad bit of speed, I will throw in my 430 and give me my extra light.

Now what I want and need is that a lens that is sharp, sharp, and sharp.  Corner sharpness doesn't have to be exceptional, acceptable even on full frame, and an IS that does a good 4 stop correction.  I shoot a lot of architecture  and commercial real estate in which I go into a lot of empty warehouses or foreclosed buildings and have to take pictures quickly with what I'm given as I'm paid by the job, not the hour, so If i spend a day or an hour, I still get the same pay.  If I can handhold close to a second and get sharp photos, I'll buy 2 of them. 

1683

Canon General / Re: Patent - EF 300 f/4L IS II

« on: May 25, 2011, 10:19:48 AM »

Is it just me or the Fno's not quite what they are claiming to be?  This lens, for instance is 4.14 but advertised as F4... similar with the 35mm patent and 24mm patent?  The 50mm appears to be 1.3 but advertised as F1.4.  With these minor differences, when the cameras metering system calculates the exposure on what the lens SHOULD be letting through, (especially since the lenses are wide open when they are metering and focusing and not stopped down) then it seems to me some of the lenses would be a hair darker and lighter than you would expect once you shoot the scene. 

1684

Lenses / Re: EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]

« on: May 24, 2011, 04:20:22 PM »

If the IS is decent, it might more than make up for the difference.

I'm sure the IS will be decent (4 stops at least).  But it doesn't make up for the 1-stop difference if your subjects are moving.  Fine - a 16/17mm lens with 4-stop IS can be handheld down to 1 second (4 stops slower than 1/focal length).  But that's not going to help if your subject is moving.  Only a wider aperture (or flash) will do that.  Granted, one stop is not a lot - but it's the difference between 1/30 s (where involuntary motion in a posing subject can still cause a little blur) and 1/60 s (which will freeze that involuntary motion).

But isn't 4 stops IS better than one stop natural light? Going from an F4 with no IS to an F4 with modern, 4-stop IS makes it better than an older 2.8, right?

It is better for static low light situations with no motion of the subject matter (architecture, commercial, etc) however if you have subject motion, you get 1 stop faster shutter... It's not much, however if you have subject motion,  and F4 wont cut it, odds are 2.8 wont be perfect either, a fast prime would be... It's about knowing what conditions you are going into before choosing your gear. 

1685

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 24, 2011, 01:52:03 PM »

I'm glad they got it to work well with your canon lenses... Regarding the AF board... a year/year and a half ago or so I sent in my 7d and 17-40 in to be cleaned through CPS and asked for them to double check focus to make 100% I was getting the sharpest images with the lens, might as well... When they came back, the camera was notated that it was within specs however they said there was an issue with the computer chip with the 17-40 and they replaced it/fixed it for free.  I dont recall bad focus before i sent it in, i just wanted to double check it, however it is fixed and i haven't had problems since.  Regarding the computer chips goes, (AF chips), computer techs treat electricals with gloves and sterile environments, however we, as photographers, aren't nearly as protective of our lenses (especially the electrical contacts) nearly as much.  That being said, I'm 100% confident the contacts are protected to an extent to account for this.

Your 50mm 1.8... is that a metal mount or a plastic mount?  I've heard of the AF motor frying.... the 50 1.4 is infamous for that (for people who shoot constantly with that lens)... and that lens is almost 3x the price of the 1.8.  So... given that, with this lens I wouldn't be as concerned as I would if it happened to my 17-40 or 70-200, etc...

Lastly, I wouldn't lose sleep over the turning off your camera when changing lenses, etc... I dont do that, but then that could account to my 17-40mm never mind.. haha.  But then again I haven't had problems since so who knows.  Use your best judgement.  If you're in a dry climate with a lot of static electricity, then by all means... if you're in a moist climate, then maybe not so much... You know denver better than I do but keep us updated as you see fit.  Keep in touch with your ventures. 

1686

Lenses / Re: EF 16-40 f/4L IS [CR1]

« on: May 24, 2011, 01:26:32 PM »

My wife would kill me but I'd be in line to sell my 17-40 and upgrade... =)

1687

EOS Bodies / Re: A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

« on: May 22, 2011, 10:09:45 PM »

Also dont forget, talent will and should always win out in the professional world.  Be limited and questionable in quality regarding videos, remember parts of the TV show "House" is/was shot with the 5D II's as well as avatar (i believe... correct me if i'm wrong).  So they can keep up with the pro video cameras if in the right hands.  I'm no video pro but I did take some video classes at BIP and have first hand experience with video equipment and editing and such... My 7D can do some good shots if on a tripod and such but panning scenes look like crap... I'm still doing what I can to get better with what I've got but thankfully in weddings and such I can set up a 7D or 5D on a tripod and let it capture the moment rather than run and guns... =)

I used to offer high end architecture and real estate photos to several architects and real estate agents... now real estate agents are buying 7d's and rebels and doing their own photography and architects are going to the lowest bidder... You have to adapt some times or you will go out of business, especially in this market and economy.

1688

EOS Bodies / Re: A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

« on: May 22, 2011, 09:43:48 PM »

It's the same rant we're read from professional photographers 5 years ago when DLSRs went mainstream.
And that's the same rant we've heard from music producers 15 years ago when digital recording went mainstream.
...


Technology gets cheaper, that's just the way it is. Does the auther think the availability of cheap, large-sensor video cameras will solve his problem? Why should it? It's just another tool that used to cost five-digit sums and is now available for the masses. In fact, it will make his problem even worse.

The only way to differentiate from the crowd is by delivering high quality work and nothing else.

+1  amateurs are the #1 competition to Professionals all over... Professional Photographers, Videographers, etc... While I have seen awesome work done by 5d's and 7d's and such, I also admit they are done by people who really know what they are doing and come from video backgrounds.  While I will admit I am a professional photographer and NOT a professional videographer, I do offer video work to my clients, however I do offer samples of my work so the clients know what they are getting talent wise.  Hopefully with the next few generations of cameras we will get a better product. 

1689

Lenses / Re: Obsessing

« on: May 19, 2011, 04:39:02 PM »

I just feel that this pursuit of optical perfection is not so much about any practical or creative benefit but rather about profiting from those who are increasingly being led to believe that only the best is good enough. If it continues to push prices higher and higher, I feel sure it will dissuade many in the future from taking up SLR photography as a hobby.

I wouldn't mind some amateurs in the future to be dissuaded from SLR photography, They have to be the 100% competitor for most modern day pro photographers haha.     With that said, I have the 17-40 and use that for my set up and shoot architecture... Then again on my 7D, to get the most sharpness and detail I usually shoot at F8-11  (lower the aperture (16), the worse the degree of the lens softening and the higher (4), the shallower the DOF) and really any architectural photographer would know better than shoot at that if they want corner sharpness.  At stopped down apertures corner sharpness is ok... Plus dont forget a sturdy tripod. 

Lastly, regarding sharpness... should the new 17-40 be announced and is not going to cost me a second mortgage, or third, I would be in line to trade mine and pick up a new one.  Sharpness is one of those things where if you dont want all the sharpness, then it's ok, you dont have to have it, however it's always better to have the extra sharpness and soften in post as needed then not to have it and need it.  Even the 135mm soft focus has the option to have the soft focus on or off... If i want an artsy fartsy effect I would rather have full control in post rather than have no control what-so-ever. 

1690

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 19, 2011, 12:49:20 PM »

Update... 

Canon has had my 7D exactly one week, and I have not yet received a service update from them.  I actually see this as a good sign, because when they did their (in)famous "electrical adjustments to the AF assembly", the entire process - door to door - was ten days.  The fact that they've had it a week already indicates to me that they must be doing some serious work and/or investigating.  In my past dealings with their Irvine service facility, this is the longest I've gone without getting some type of automatic email update. 

Fingers crossed that they are working to get her in tip top shape!

I'm glad they are taking their time with the camera rather than doing a rush job.  I've spent time thinking about your striping issue (banding) and since it's in a particular area, I would hate to think it's a bad sensor... I know they issued (a while ago) a firmware update that dealed with some banding issues, however if you have a fully up to date firmware, then I dont want to do the disservice and make suggestions without really looking at the camera and knowing the situation first hand. 

Fingers crossed and give us updates as you get your camera back. 

1691

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 16, 2011, 12:20:33 PM »

I see that the 2 images were taken with the 70-200 2.8... Does this banding show up in every picture with every lens in the same location?  OR, does it come up in a certain lens combination?  That's an interesting phenomenon.

So far I've only seen it with the 70-200, but then again, I haven't looked through enough photos yet to be sure.  Also, it's inconsistent even with the 70-200, and only appears with certain types of lighting.  Odd.  I'll dig some more into my archives and see what I can find.

Take a look to see if you can see it on any other images on other lenses... perhaps it could be a light leak with the lens but if it is with other lenses, then it could be with the sensor...

1692

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 16, 2011, 11:55:01 AM »

justsomedude... Just thinking about your tokina situation... The general rule of thumb has been, with 3rd party lenses, to go to camera stores and test several versions of the lens to get the sharpest because QC and repairs would be so troublesome, however in the terms of camera upgrade that gets thrown out of the water since it's pairing with a new camera. 

Awin and Neuro - thanks for the responses.  I don't think I'm going to kill myself over the Tokina clarity, it's just not worth it.  Once I get the 7D back and (hopefully) all my lenses check out OK, I'll give the Tokina one more visit to THK service.  If that doesn't fix it, off to the auction block she goes... maybe for a canon 17-55 EF-S, we'll see.

But one last item of concern:  what are your thoughts on the vertical "light" band I've been finding in some of my images (I forgot to mention it before)?

http://www.akphotodenver.com/images/7D/band1.tif   (warning - 51 MB file!)
http://www.akphotodenver.com/images/7D/band2.tif   (warning - 51 MB file!)

This is almost more troublesome than the damn focus issues!

I see that the 2 images were taken with the 70-200 2.8... Does this banding show up in every picture with every lens in the same location?  OR, does it come up in a certain lens combination?  That's an interesting phenomenon. 

1693

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 16, 2011, 12:13:23 AM »

justsomedude... Just thinking about your tokina situation... The general rule of thumb has been, with 3rd party lenses, to go to camera stores and test several versions of the lens to get the sharpest because QC and repairs would be so troublesome, however in the terms of camera upgrade that gets thrown out of the water since it's pairing with a new camera.  When I moved to the 7D, my sigma 135-400mm lens, while having sharp images, especially on continuous focus, just couldn't keep up with the 7D... it was always half a second (or longer) behind and couldn't catch up when I needed the shot, it wasn't there... So it gave me the excuse to upgrade to the 70-200 L... it doesn't have the extra 200mm which i only used once in a blue moon to be honest with myself but was faster, lighter, and an L lens in quality, construction and optics.  I understand the tokina is a nice lens, and given the product production, perhaps that could give you an excuse for another lens?  If not anything but selling that lens for full market price on craigslist (there's always suckers) and buying a brand new lens in which you can test at the camera store.  I know that's not the suggestion you're hoping for but for what it's worth.  If not, try sending to a local camera store that does repairs... see what they offer since they aren't necessarily brand exclusive.  Maybe it could be something simple we aren't noticing. 

1694

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 15, 2011, 11:47:34 PM »

Awin, thanks again for the detailed reply - your patience and help is MUCH appreciated.

So, some more detail...  the 50mm is the cheapie 1.8 (yes, I'm on a budget).  But even with that said, I really wouldn't expect such glaring inconsistencies in sequential photos.  Check the following full resolution samples (and note, all three are sequence photos, with a good pause between shots for reacquiring focus)...

http://www.akphotodenver.com/images/7D

justsomedude,

thanks for sharing your photos... as neuro mentioned, it does appear to be severely front focused however i'm not sure about your options regarding the tokina lens.  If there is any consolation prize, you can live with it, call it art, and charge 3x the price  =).  I used to have quite a selection of sigma lenses once I started upgrading my gear from the 10D to 30D...  Once I moved to the 50D I joined CPS and still am with CPS.  Ever since then I only have 1 sigma lens left (10-20mm) which I will keep until I make the leap into full frame completely.  The reason I did that was in the long run, if i needed anything fixed within canon, it's just one company to deal with than sigma (and or tokina, tamron, etc)... If you have a full MA and you still cant get + or - 20 something doesn't seem right.  IF and that's a big IF it is the case and there is a severe incompatibility, I would ask if you still have your 40D and if it still works great with the 40D.  If you got rid of the 40D, just asking, but is there a chance it was dropped or something happened to maybe loosen an element to cause it to be so far off?  Just trying to rule that situation out. 

Regarding the 50mm 1.8, I cant say I've used that lens so I cant speak for that lens...  From what reviews i read, it was a good bang for your buck lens with the 1.4 and 1.2 being just a tad sharper overall which speaks a lot for a lens averaging just about $100.  The 1.4 is a good lens, however in another forum post, i gave my 2 cents on that lens... It's sharp from 1.8 and up... however the crappy micro usm causes me to almost wait a second or two to allow the lens to fully catch up to me shooting which is ok for portraits, so-so for event photography, however for fast shooting, is a nightmare.  It's a lens issue for that lens.  Also the focus mech for the 1.2 I tested left me wanting a lot (A LOT) more.  I dont know if the 1.8 issue is because you're shooting to fast (not fully waiting on the focus beep) like my 1.4 has or if it is a MA issue.  That's one of those hands on things I couldn't tell ya unless i'm there.  As far as upgrading, i would wait and see if and when the 1.4 gets replaced.  Then I'd buy one once they are out and reviews come back glowing. 

You mentioned you sent in your camera again... I hope you sent all your lenses in because I would hate for the adjustments they made last time to make the 28-135 and the other lens to get screwed up just to make the 50mm up to par.  As always, if you have any more questions or concerns, feel free to email me or post a message for me.

1695

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 15, 2011, 01:18:32 AM »

Whatever great 7D is on paper, it shouldn't be so tedious to get that sharp focus while other cameras seems to do it in instant. Afterall, so many people in so many forums cannot be wrong, you know. If they get sharp pictures easily on 40D,Xsi etc, it shouldn't be so hard on the great 7D. I just feel something is wrong. I never had any experience on other DSLRs but even cameras I used back then (analog) was easy to focus, even if it was manual. I just hate having to spend 30 secs trying to get a sharp focus or 4-5 shots to get 1 good shot. With technology, things should be easier and faster not the other way around. I am definitely going to consider another body in near future. Life should be easy you know.

I understand where your coming from, however hindsight is always 20/20 in regards to photography and camera gear.  With the 7D it magnifies so much more due to all the extra MP that any and every little flaw in focus and or lens will be that much more magnified.  I had the pleasure a few months ago to run into a CF card with pictures I didn't delete yet which were from my old 30D and sigma tele lens... During the time when I had that camera, it seemed to constantly pop out amazing photos one after another, however looking back at that card and photos, now with my increased expectations, I would be ashamed to show any of those photos on my portfolio due to stuff I may not have noticed during my time using that camera.  It doesn't mean the camera was bad, but my increased expectations of me, of my current gear, of my skill set has changed.  Comparing different, especially older generations of cameras is apples to oranges due to that same reason.  7D is a beast of a camera, but on the same note, any slight issue will be that much more magnified.