Messages

106

Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW

« on: October 07, 2012, 10:01:32 AM »

I am very sorry to be just naïve and thoughtless just because I don't use the same software as you. Strange how people tend to release their anger as soon as someone doesn't share their opinion on the equipment they use....

if you read closely you will see he did not say a word about specific software.
so your polemic is wasted.

he wrote about the usefulness of a database!
a database you can quickly search and filter, something that is not possible with folders.

and in my opinion he is 100% right.
a library is very usefull when you do more with your images then to store them away.

OK, I guess I was somehow misunderstood, I never denied the usefulness of a database, nor the possibilities offered by the database system in LR, I was just saying that for me the ergonomics of the software are a bit stiff (or at least a logic I am not used to), in the sense that sometimes I just want to drag a file from let's say a flash card, or an open folder to work quickly in it, and LR forces me to import the whole card or folder to deal with one picture. I am still trying it, at least no one can reproach me not to try spend time on a software I do not find very attractive by default. Since the last post I've spent hours working on LR, and I start to understand its logic... I am still very green with LR, and I admit I prefer to spend more time doing an actual picture than to stay for hours on my computer, playing with software.

I might even start thinking to migrate on it eventually; nevertheless, I still find the ergonomics a bit unfriendly, as often seen on software that claim to do all in one. I found DxO much simpler, user friendly, though it doesn't of course have the same possibilities.

I was not trying to start a polemic, my critic was pointing more at the very unfriendly (if not extremely rude) way  he answered my post. Having a good understanding in some matter does not allow to assume people are simple morons just because they do not have the same knowledge as you in a specific subject.

Some people are very good at sharing knowledge (that's called pedagogy), some other lack the most basic sense of expressing their passion.

Sorry if I did not explain myself properly, and if I've hurt your feelings concerning databases.
 

107

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?

« on: October 07, 2012, 06:32:58 AM »

If your budget is limited, the 5Dc sounds like a good choice, it might seem simple by nowadays standards, but still, it is a very good camera that makes very clean frames. For general photography, it is a very decent performer.

 I hear good deals about 5D2 or 6D, but we are talking about 1500-2000$ cameras here. With a bit of patience, you could find a 5Dc for 500-600 $, that's 1/3 of the price. Buy it, use it, and when you'll feel the need for something else, you can still sell it for 400$ and think about the camera you really need (or want). For 1000$ difference, you could as well buy a few good primes, that you will use for a long, long time

108

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Better dynamic range than my 5DIII

« on: October 07, 2012, 05:59:04 AM »

Nice picture, taken very likely with a very large format view camera. Excellent DR could be due to masking work in the lab (likely a contact print). This looks like to be some early 20th century polar expedition of some sort, so making such a picture in these times was some kind of adventure on it's own, considering the equipment used (wood camera and tripod, brass lens and a suitcase of chassis). Resolution and grain are not perfect, but we are here talking about likely 100 years old equipment, nevertheless a great picture, considering the tech available then. IMHO comparison with a 5D3 is like comparing a Ford model T with an Audi A6 (sorry, cars are not my favourite matter).

However, this is to remind us that film still has something to say, especially with large formats. I still use my Linhof Technika 2000 for landscape and architecture as a hobby, and the pleasure I get from it is way beyond the one I ever had from digital work. Once you get good results, the reward is just immense....

109

Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW

« on: October 06, 2012, 02:33:28 PM »

. The import / librairies system with LR is just a useless nightmare to me, maybe is it because I am a poor Windows user, too used to organize my own folders ?

i guess you do no keywording?
anyway.... it is obvious that you have NO CLUE AT ALL what a library is usefull for. 

sorting you images into folders will help you nothing if you have thousands of photos and need to search for a motive.... and this is only one example when a database approach comes in handy.

try to find all images with a "ball" on a "beach" and a "sunset" in a 100000 picture collection.
 
takes me 5 seconds to search all my images for these keywords.

maybe you only have 1000 images than your might be happy with your folders... still your comment is just naive and thoughtless....

I am very sorry to be just naïve and thoughtless just because I don't use the same software as you. Strange how people tend to release their anger as soon as someone doesn't share their opinion on the equipment they use....

110

Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW

« on: October 06, 2012, 07:33:28 AM »

The library concept of LR is a no-go for me. Tried it and considered the workflow horrible. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.  I only use Lightroom for the lens correction, which is poorly integrated in Photoshop CS5.

It feels good to know I am not the only one to have problems with the LR workflow. Not that I did not try it, I got a cheap LR2 licence updated into LR4.2. I want to understand why it's the n°1 software, but I admit I still don't get it with the workflow. With DxO, I open the folder I want to use, drop my files in the software and work on them. The import / librairies system with LR is just a useless nightmare to me, maybe is it because I am a poor Windows user, too used to organize my own folders ?

111

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II

« on: October 05, 2012, 01:52:46 PM »

i have a question maybe someone can help me out. is the version I of this lens any good? is it a lot less sharp? why is version II so much better? about how much would you pay for a  used version I? Thank you!!!

I am afraid to say the version 1 is a very average lens considering it's price, much less sharp as the v2, tons of CA, soft angles. I tried it about 15 years ago for a job where I needed it, it did not impress me much, mounted on an EOS 1n with film. The CA shows like hell on digital sensors. To get an idea, check this link :

 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx

If you can get one for cheap, it'll do the job, problem is they are relatively scarce and IMO a bit overpriced on the second hand market. With film, I found the old Nikkor 28mm PC was sharper, though without tilt.

The last one on eBay went in the US for 805$.

112

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II

« on: October 05, 2012, 04:18:04 AM »

hi

between this 24 and 90 tse , which one give the better color

since the price is so high with the 90 tse, but no L

I used this lens on the fireworks couples time, I love the result very much.

No worries if the 90mm is not an L, sharpness is simply amazing, can't see any colour difference with the 24mm, no distortion, super flat field, no CA. Quality speaking it would deserve the "L" without hesitation. The optical formula being a simple telephoto with a 6/5 (lenses/groups), with no UD, aspheric or other special glass, I guess Canon sees it as too simple to deserve the red ring, though it is a stellar lens.

113

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5L II

« on: October 05, 2012, 04:08:33 AM »

I agree with the comments, it is a superb lens in every aspect. I own one since almost 2 years now as well as a 90mm TS-E. I bought it mainly for architecture work, but in the end more than 50% of my work is done with it (mainly indoors architecture, landscape and gardens). I am a big fan of wide angles and the 24mm is so to say my standard lens. It's almost like having the possibilities of a view camera, but much easier to use thanks to the live view.
I can confirm the the model 2 is a huge improvement over the version 1, that was a very average lens. It's much better optically  (almost no CA, extremely low barrel distortion excellent sharpness) and the new mechanical system really adds to its versatility.
 
Coming from the 4x5 world, I was always extremely frustrated by the fixed direction of the shift related to the tilt on every other TS / PC lens. This 24mm TS/E itself is the very item that prevents me to buy a D800.
My 2 cents about the cons though : the locking screws for the movements are really a pain in the ass. they barely tighten the lens enough, but get stuck very easily.

About the sharpness, it is very sharp all over the field, but under some circumstances it may appear less sharp as other lenses. In my case, I use DxO as a RAW converter, that applies by default some sharpening (much better than a simple sharpen filter in PS) on the lenses that have a correction module for it. As there is no correction module available for the TS-E lenses due to the changing nature of the image circle, it may appear softer than my 24-105L (for example), if no sharpening is added. To me distortion is never a problem but I need a little extra sharpening compared to the lenses that have a module in DxO, as the software always gives extra sharp images by default for the corrected lenses.

Aside from that it is a very big and heavy lens (I was shocked when I opened the box), with a large 82mm filter thread (seems to become the new pro lenses standard).
The focus ring is a pleasure on itself, smooth and greasy like a Leica lens.
In one word if I had to keep one lens in my collection, the 24 TS-E would be the one.

One word as well about the 90mm TS-E; although it lacks the same independent tilt / shift feature of the 17mm and 24mm II, this is simply the sharpest tele lens I ever had, period. that stuff is simply amazing, sharper than the 100mm macro, but with much more possibilities due to the tilt function. It focuses very close and in combination with the EF macro tubes, it has replaced without regrets my 100mm macro.  I just wish it would have the improved mechanics of the 24mm, but the optics are so sharp, I can live with it.

Thought I would have great use for it, I did not buy the 45mm since here a version 2 would be a must; the separate tilt / shift is really missing on such a versatile lens, and optically it is very, very average, not worth the money IMO. Please Canon push a bit of the version 2 of the 45mm, it needs urgent replacement.
Now I am thinking about the 17mm TS-E, I am just a bit scared about the protruding lens with no hood for protection.

One thing I forgot, the 24mm TS-E is compatible with the extender 1.4 (though I can only speak for version 2), that gives a very decent 34mm TS-E.

114

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A positive feedback for 6D

« on: October 04, 2012, 04:34:54 AM »

+++1
I am in the same trouble as you, I own quite a bit of glass for my 5D2s, and agree fully with you, Canon is on a very bad slope.... The sensors are crap compared to Sony/Nikon, the AF systems are prehistoric, not talking about pre-war light metering or middle-age flash system. The only thing that speaks for Canon is (sorry WAS) their glass, but since years they just release version 2 of what's already existing. Canon Creativity is about zero, Nikon has improved quite a bit on glass and their prices are decent.

If you take the 28mm f2.8, the old version sells for 200 euros when the new one is 650 euros?? 3 times the price for a basic 28mm? New 24-70mm twice the price of the old one? I don't know what kind of drugs they are on at Canon's but it looks pretty strong......

The 6D is not even for sale it already looks like a joke compared to the 600D and guess what ? It's not available; by then the D600 will cost 300 Euro less....

I switched from Nikon when the 5D2 appeared because it was a revolution (sensor speaking), knowing that everything else was worse than my D200 with it's crappy sensor. As I use a tripod 95% of the time I can cope with the drawbacks. The 5D2 was not a revolution, it was a single event. Canon has not been able to release one camera that competes with Nikon since then (except maybe the 7D).

I really think canon takes people for stupid, they release the 6D with an integrated WiFi/GPS combo, but they charge 500 Euro (WiFi) + 250 Euro (GPS) for the 5D3 accessories. In 4 months they made such a technical progress that they could put it in their mid level camera but not in the Pro ones. Not that I think these features have any use in photography, but for the principle.... They just think we are MORONS.

i cannot believe how many fanboys here are finding excuses for an AF system like that that is what, 10 years old? when nikon on the other side is offering PRO-AF on even their lower-end cameras.
As long as people using canon products won't complain canon will keep using this kind of, sorry for the french, sh*t policy with their new products, not giving a damn of what the offer is like on the other side of the market.
I've always shot canon and probably always will since i like more their lenses but this doesn't mean that canon shouldn't try to offer a camera of the same level of a D600 if it's going to price it the same for instance; canon sensors are already a joke compared to the latest sony ones, they should've at least make some effort on some other aspects (and please don't mention wifi/gps)

115

Software & Accessories / Re: Who uses a handheld light meter?

« on: October 03, 2012, 02:55:29 PM »

I use a Minolta SpotMeter when I shoot architecture and landscape with my Linhof Technika 2000, and a Sekonic L-508 to adjust the strobe light ratio in the studio. When shooting available light with a digital camera, I rely on the integrated metering, I find the camera's spotmeter works quite well.

116

Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW

« on: October 03, 2012, 02:50:35 PM »

I use DxO Optics since version 1, been quite happy with the results (one of the best RAW engine as far as I know, better than LR2 but I hear it's been much improved with LR3 and LR4). I tried LR since it is the standard (for once Adobe sells an affordable software), but I am not very happy with the ergonomic. When you get used to something.....
Plus DxO has excellent lens correction modules, as well as a practical geometry correction module to straighten architecture.
Can be tried free for 30 days.
Has anyone else tried it or does the fact it is related to DxO mark make it the evil software ?

117

EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]

« on: October 02, 2012, 05:46:02 AM »

Just to come back to the photographic matter, I would be very interested in such a camera, 5D3 has been for me a disappointment, since I was expecting more from the sensor. I agree the camera is a BIG improvement over the 5D2 about everything else, but it shows that Canon has not done the proper homework concerning sensors. Like it or not, it's always been about pixels, like before we all wanted films with more resolution. IMHO releasing a new prosumer camera with 22MPX priced at 3500$ when Nikon and Sony have 24MPX on consumer DX cameras, looks like it will appear outdated soon. It looks a bit like the D700 that was likely the best camera on the market back then, but every Canon guy was laughing at its 12MPX sensor. Now I agree that something around 20MPX is enough for a lot of tasks.

   I understand people want a "do it all" camera, but pro market does not have necessarily the same considerations. IMHO, there is a place for more specialized cameras. The 1DX should fit the task for sport / news people, the 5D3 for event / wedding photographers, but still there is space for a camera dedicated to high quality SLOW picture, like architecture / landscape / industrial / studio photography.
   I see a lot of people complaining about low ISO capability or poor AF such a camera might end with. Is it really of such importance ? Does anybody use a GOOD tripod for this kind of pictures ? Because it is a very valuable accessory I strongly advise to try.... Who gives a client a picture of his building taken with 12800 ISO ?

   What I mean here is that a few years ago, architecture / studio / landscape were made with medium format or view cameras, that do not have AF, and the only slide film you would have considered was 100 ISO. Therefore I think a high MP camera is intended at a market who doesn't need such features, people who need high ISO or super AF systems already have these cameras with the 5D3 and 1DX. Personally, this camera would have 1600 ISO max and no AF, I could cope with it as I am sure most serious landscape / architecture / studio photographer could as well...

And NO, I can not afford a 30000$ Hasselblad system, so 5000$ for such a camera would be a blessing. I am mainly using TS-E lenses and Nikon equivalents don't really have the same quality as Canon's (except for the 45 TS).

One word as well about the post processing, I see a lot of people complaining about the size of the files and the time required to process them. I can not understand that people who spend 10,000$ on a camera system cannot not afford a decent computer. You can built a PC with 6 Cores, a fast SSD and 16Gb of memory for around 1000$, that will swallow your pics in a few seconds. Personally I upgrade  my PC every year or 2, the motherboard / CPU / RAM update is less than 500-600$. Of course for Apple users things are not quite as simple, but this is another debate. Post processing big files has never been a real issue, assuming of course you have enough RAM (I advise minimum 16GB, that's 80$).

What scares me a bit, is that it seems Canon doesn't really have at this time the ability to release a sensor that could match the DR needed by this type of camera, one must admit Nikon/Sony has a much better sensor with the D800. Hope we get more real infos soon.

Now I am ready to get slaughtered but after all it's all about debating.....

PS : sorry about my syntax, but I am not a native English speaker

118

EOS Bodies / Re: Lower Price Full Frame Camera [CR1]

« on: May 14, 2012, 03:52:14 PM »

Sounds like a 5D2 again.....

119

EOS Bodies / Re: After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

« on: May 11, 2012, 06:29:03 PM »

Thanks V8 for what I call a constructive answer an a positive debate. I admit I have no absolute knowledge, and I am always pleased when people criticize positively... the main thing being to keep an open mind

1- I agree Canon's has carefully decided the 20mpx range was the sweet spot for most of his customers, and I can understand that. For the glass, are you sure this is an absolute limiting factor here ? Do you think the current lens range can not handle more pixels ?

2 - I don't fully agree about the megapixel race; we saw the Nikon D1 as a marvel with 2 mpx, the 5D1 one as a wonder with 12 mpx, the 5D2 with 21mpx and so on. I am not saying 36mpx is so wonderful, I just think there is a bit of room ahead and the trend should continue to add resolution in the future, though at a slower pace. My guess is that few people would have complained if the mk3 would have been around 28mpx.

3/5 - I fully agree with the problematic of the medium format and the relationship with the clients budget, what I am just saying is the high res sensors can provide a quality closer (not equal) to the medium format for a much lower cost. The trend being to cut on every budget, it might be a decent alternative for some medium end work. The same way film makers were so happy with the video capacity of the 5D2 to provide high end movies for a low budget, although it doesn't play in the same category as an Arriflex...
My guess is this is what Nikon is trying to do with the D800E.

4 - I agree as well the D700 was almost the perfect camera, but lacked a bit of resolution, in this sense, the 5D3 is probably a much better all around camera. Nevertheless I am curious to see if they'll release something else....

120

EOS Bodies / Re: After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

« on: May 11, 2012, 05:14:17 PM »

If only it was just a camera.... when you own about 10 lenses, making the switch is not that easy. It costs me an arm switching from Nikon to Canon years ago, you can understand I am a bit reluctant to try the adventure again...

Is it so unreasonable to wish Canon had put a few more pixels on its sensor over 4 years ?

Every brand goes the same direction, why should Canon be so wise they go the other way ?

What subject needs the resolution of a 50mpx Hasselblad ?

Why is everyone so satisfied with this sensor resolution when a few years ago they were all joking about the  resolution of  the D700 compared to the 5D2 ?

The fact that Canon marketing has decided 22mpx is enough doesn't mean everyone must agree.

The point to high mpx sensors is they get closer to medium format quality at a fraction of the cost, a lot of studio professionals are very happy with this kind of improvements; everyone is not shooting sports, weddings or hand held low light photography, I mean, there is room for still photography with more resolution. Nikon understood the idea, I am just sorry Canon doesn't.

That doesn't make the 5D3 a bad camera, just not exactly the one some people were expecting....