December 26, 2014, 12:08:54 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 241
181
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 07:35:54 PM »
Heh... I believe I called this at $1999 - $2200 and got a little good natured ribbing for it.  Salt with your crow?  ;D

I was right there with you ($2100 - $2400), although in my case, it was more wishful thinking that educated insight ...
I believe I predicted $2500 to $2600..... this keeps my prediction record perfect... wrong every time :)

182
Lenses / Re: Why don't Canon make lenses for other mounts?
« on: November 08, 2014, 04:42:21 PM »
I read that through a scotch laden haze... but it made sense...

Also, look at sigma and their issues with AF consistency.  Canon doesn't give them their secret recipe, so Sigma reverse engineers it... and only somewhat effectively. 

So if canon made lenses for Sony or Nikon or pentax, or even sigma... what happens if they don't share the Colonel's secret recipe... then the Canon brand is hurt as well as their reputation.

I have no issues with recommending either a Canon or a Nikon to a beginner... but it doesn't take much for someone to sour on a brand... because they heard a few bad things.  I still haven't bought a Sigma lens even though I have had a boner for both the 35mm art and the 50 art... so there's that to consider.

When Canon adds a lens to their stable, they add characteristics of the lens to their firmware.

For example, let's say you are shooting with a 1DX and Canon comes out with a 200-600F5.6 lens. The lens would report itself as such to the body, and the body would say "I don't know you, but I will treat you like a 100-400" and the camera would focus the lens. Then Canon comes out with a firmware update for the 1DX and the focusing characteristics of the lens are in that firmware. Now the 1DX knows that if the AF sensor is X distance off that it has to drive the AF motor for time Y and it now focuses the lens faster with less hunting.

The problem with a Sigma (or Tamron) lens is that Canon does not put other manufacturer's characteristics into the Canon Firmware. Sigma (or Tamron) have to cheat and tell the camera body that their lens is whatever the closest Canon lens is to their characteristics. The AF can never be as good as a Canon Lens.
I thought Scotch only helped make things clearer :)

To focus a lens as fast as possible, you accelerate the focusing elements in the direction that they need to be moved until you get to a point where if you "slam on the brakes" the focusing elements will come to rest in the focused position. If you know how far you need to go, what the acceleration rate is, and what the braking rate is, you can calculate the time required to drive each step. Canon knows these values for their lenses and (presumably) they use those values in the bodies to make the focusing as fast as practical.

They have negative reason to put in other companies data. Say they put in data for a Tamron 24-70F2.8 lens... and now the Tamron lens focuses as quickly and as accurately as the Canon lens... that takes away one of the reasons to buy the more expensive Canon lens, and will financially hurt Canon. Why would they go to extra work to cost themselves money?

As to using Canon lenses on other mounts, we are dealing with the exact same problem, but now from the other side... Why would Nikon or Sony put in the firmware to enable top performance out of a Canon lens when it will cost them sales of their own lenses.

So much for the electronics, now on to the mechanicals...

Many of us who have been shooting for a long time will remember the Tamron Adapt-all mount. You would buy the Tamron Lens, buy the adaptor for your body, snap them together, and off to the races. (I still have my Tamron 90mm macro lens with it's Olympus OM mount and it's Canon EF mount) Slap in some simple electronics, and you could do the same thing with digital cameras. I seem to recall something about either Sigma or Tamron starting up a program where on certain lenses you could send them back for a mount change at a reasonable price.... same thing...


183
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 02:13:25 PM »
now the 400F5.6....... please.....

184
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: November 08, 2014, 11:53:08 AM »
There seems to be a panache here on CR for under exposed sunsets so here's one of mine: swans on the River Stour as evening falls.

Beautiful picture.

I think that sunsets are a subject that if you expose properly for, with lots of DR and shadow detail, suck! Photographed like yours is, there is a mood, a serenity.... it would be lost otherwise.

185
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 07, 2014, 08:55:57 AM »
I know that there's a lot of posts here, but I am trying to make this clear, I _am_ shooting in one shot mode, one focal point, the example I posted originally was just one example. I could post more of just one focal point but didn't have time. Despite all of that, even shooting with one or small cluster of focal points on the 7DI, I never had this problem, with the 7DII with one focal point or even a cluster 1-2 out of 3 photos are out of focus and I am not new to this as I've said, I don't believe that it's user error.

I am just going to contact B&H and ask for an exchange and if it still happens I'll invest into FoCal or manual MA.
You are shooting in one shot mode
you are using one focal point
you have a random number of shots in focus...
it happens with multiple lenses which all worked fine on the old camera....

Given that, I really doubt it is AFMA...

If it were me, I would send it back for exchange....

186
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 07, 2014, 07:47:20 AM »
I just want to be sure I understand everyone, if a camera takes good and bad photos of a subject with not setting changes it's a AFMA problem? I would think that it would be consistent.

If the camera is working correctly and you have decent contrast on the subject, the camera should consistently focus  +/- one "tick" from the true focus point.

There are several things that can throw that off. The first is that you are using multiple AF points and the camera is not focusing where you think it should be focusing. This would get you the kind of random focusing problems that you seem to have. The solution would be to go to fewer (best is spot) focus points.

The next think is poor contrast. This would also give you the random focusing performance. If the camera is hunting for focus, this may be the problem.... if it locks on quickly, it isn't.

If the problem is AFMA, then the camera should be consistently off focus by the same (or very close) amount. With your random in-focus pattern, it is probably not the root cause, but it may be a contributing factor.


hope this helps.

187
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 07, 2014, 05:44:40 AM »
Speaking as someone who works in a research lab and surrounded by lots of very expensive test equipment, the first thing you do when you get in a new piece of gear is to test it. First you check for functionality, and then  you calibrate it. The same holds true for a new camera..... First you try it out and get familiar with the basic functionality, then you calibrate it, which means to AFMA your lenses.

When I got my 7D2, the first few pictures were of the cat. I would focus on the eyes and only the tip of the nose was in focus. A quick adjustment on the AFMA and the problem was solved. This weekend I plan to do a more detailed AFMA of all the lenses.

I really suggest yo try to AFMA your body/lens. It will most likely solve your problem, and even if it does not, you will learn how to do it so that even if you do end up exchanging bodies, you will be ready to AFMA the new one.

188
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:50:44 PM »
I just want to clarify, I retook some photos using the single AF point, same results, 1-2 out of 3 photos were out of focus.

Same lens, same settings, different flash, problem happened without the flash as well. I realize that the AF system is new but this is not right. I've been shooting for years and have never had this problem before.

I typically shoot with one AF point when it comes to portraits, I use all AF points when I'm shooting a nice wide landscape.

This isn't the only lens this happens with. I'm going to end up having B&H send me another one in exchange for this one.

Have you tried to AFMA the lens? I had to adjust my 17-55 by +2 on the wide end and -3 on the long end....

189
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:19:45 PM »
The problem is that I can take these same shots with NO problem on the 7D, same lens, etc. I'm not going to shoot @ f/8 when I have a 2.8 lens and want that shallow depth of field.
OK!

If you want shallow depth of field you can't beat F2.8 when using that lens :) I have one too and I love it!

Seriously though, go to a single focus point and use it on the area you want to be in focus... I really think that's your problem.... When you use multiple points it choses the closest one (the fork) and you loose her face :(

190
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:58:27 PM »
I was using the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 and was roughly 3 feet away, sitting. I was using the focus assist on the flash. Using the latest DPP (4x) that was downloaded today.... it looks soft on the camera screen as well.

looking at the picture, I would guess that your lens was around 35-40mm.... At 35mm, F2.8, 3 feet away, and with a 7D2, your depth of field should be 2.76 inches.... 1.32 inches before the focus point to 1.44 inches behind. I think that is your problem.....

Going to F8 would get you +/- 4 inches from the focus point. Try using a single focus point and on her eyes...

BTW, you can find lots of online DOF calculators.... http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

hope this helps

191
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:17:55 PM »
Here are two photos, hand held while sitting.

Manual Mode, F/2.8 @ 1/125, Canon 600RX-RT mounted to camera. Two consecutive shots. I can set it up on a tripod but I barely ever use one and may just ask B&H for an exchange, I don't have time to mess around with tests or micro adjustments, etc.

What lens did you use, what was the focal length, and how far away was the subject? That would help in debugging....

192
EOS Bodies / Re: The Canon EOS 7D Mark II Jumps Out of a Plane
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:58:27 AM »
so how come we dont see nikon,samsung,panasonic,sony cameras taken too extremes like this???

Maybe because you are not looking?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/19/nikon-middle-east-sends-a-d5300-skydiving-with-photographer-juan-mayer-vide

http://www.usairnet.com/2012/08/30/new-sony-camera-for-skydivers-hits-shelves-in-september/1002361/

I hope you don't think that skydivers only use Canon cameras.
GoPro is the camera of choice.... size matters :)

In this frame from the 7D2 video we see 4 people with something other than GoPros mounted on their heads... ( in other frames they looked like the Sony Actioncam,  but most definitely not 7Da or even 1Dxs :) )

193
EOS Bodies / Re: do you hope for sony sensors in the 5D MK 4?
« on: November 06, 2014, 10:33:52 AM »
I went with Canon because their mount was designed as a digital mount from scratch, not bastardized from a mechanical mount to make it work.... That means that it is more likely to stay around.....

A lens is an investment. A camera is a consumable. The camera will be around for a few years and then replaced while a good lens will still be a good lens 20 years from now.

In that camera are many systems... arguably the two most important ones are the AF system and the sensor. Although both are critical for a great picture, if the AF system can not handle the task you end up with blurry out of focus pictures, and who really cares what the sensor IQ is of a blurred picture....

With that sensor, we have the perpetual Canon/Sony tradeoff. Yes, the CURRENT Sony sensors have advantages over the Canon sensors, but it isn't a slam dunk... At high ISO Canon pulls ahead. The only thing that you can be certain of in the long run is that BOTH will improve. The question of who is the best is becoming less and less important as realistically, both are fairly close under most circumstances... too close to tell the difference without pixel peeping or heavy manipulation.

And back to the glass... as both companies improve their sensors, the limiting factor starts to become the optics... and this is where Canon definitely holds the lead. As Neuro is fond of mentioning, we are talking about imaging systems, and it is the total package that determines the final result... Look at some of the things being discussed on various forums.... Bob switches from Canon to Nikon... Dick switches from Nikon to Sony... Jane switches from Sony to Canon.... Shouldn't this be a clue as to how close they really are?

So to answer your question, NO! In the long run, it makes no significant difference in imaging quality but it does stifle innovation.

194
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Roger Cicala cracks open 7D II!
« on: November 06, 2014, 07:42:15 AM »

Def agree that the toughest and prone forms of weather damage are ones that no sealing can really protect like internal condensation from swinging temps.

actually......

I just installed three Panasonic cameras.... they have a heater to keep the inside warm on those cold winter days and they have a mini dehumidifier to keep condensation under control.....

But I certainly would not bring one of them on a photo shoot :)

195
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXOMark Review
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:12:31 PM »
Oh, wait...there are.  ::)

Considering that old ballasts sold for scrap net more money for the copper in them then new electronic ones cost...guess I'm more drawn to the rational.

Yeah, so am I.  Alas, the real world isn't always rational.  Empirical trumps rational in the real world, maybe you live somewhere else, must be nice for you.   :P
and for empirical evidence from my kitchen....

First strip is with anti-flicker on.... I took ten shots and they were all the same.

Second strip is with anti-flicker off... I took ten shots and they were all over the place

all shots manual and same iso, aperture, and shutter speed... no processing other than to shrink the size down.

So for me, flickering lights are a problem that hits close to home :) and I don't have to look very far to find them.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 241