Messages

1

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 14-24 or 16-35 for Nikon D600?

« on: May 18, 2013, 08:17:25 PM »

I shot 14-24 on D800 through a friend, all I can say is WOW.

My vote is 14-24. I wish Canon can match or do better than current Nikon 14-24.

There are already lenses for Canon bodies whose optical quality surpasses that of Nikon's 14-24.

Read the OP.  You cannot mount a Canon lens to a Nikon Body!! 
 
You should also tell us which superior  14-24 lens is made for Canon bodies that is better so we can avail of your wisdom.

2

Canon General / Re: If the Japanese Yen is now low, why are Canon prices staying high?

« on: May 18, 2013, 08:12:34 PM »

Prices did not rise when the yen went up, they won't drop unless its a deep and long term drop.

3

Canon General / Re: Confused about this censor size info

« on: May 18, 2013, 10:41:17 AM »

Devianart is obviously not a place to learn about the specifications of cameras.
 
If you want to know the camera specifications, look at the Canon website, or one of the hardware oriented photo web sites, there are many good ones.
 
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii#Specifications
 
 

4

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM @ F2.8

« on: May 16, 2013, 01:25:05 PM »

I gave my new 24-70 a workout last night at a preliminary dress rehearsal for our spring Home School Play.  There are not many students in the school, so everyone gets involved, and they do a great job.
 
Because of the low light, I used aperture priority and took the whole evenings group of photos at f/2.8.  This is a bit of a step down, since I've been using wide aperture primes in the past, usually at f/1.8 to f/ 1.4.
 
I was particularly happy that this wide view at 24mm was sharp along the edges with minimal CA's.  I did see a few on the edges of the white dresses, but Lightroom took care of them.
I put the vignette on the image, just playing around with the LR settings, its still a preliminary photo since its the first night.


 
Here is a link to a larger image
http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Deer-Park/Nicolas-Nickerby/i-5QBDZ2Q/0/X3/Wed-2886-X3.jpg
 
 

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Live View v Viewfinder Sharpness

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:31:27 AM »

Thanks for the replies. No I haven't adjusted the Diopter but that wouldn't help as I mean the Viewfinder is capturing softer images using autofocus than Live View when I review my images on my big computer screen. I have not yet applied any AFMA as I thought this would not improve the disprecancy between Viewfinder and Live View but having just discovered that AFMA affects only the Viewfinder or Quick Mode and not Live View, this might be a way of reducing the difference in accuracy between the two. The difference is most noticeable on the wide end so might just require the wide end adjusting. Shouldn't really be necessary though ideally. Also I believe the recommended testing distance is 50x the focal length if possible?

Never used Reikan Focal. Can anyone tell me how much it is to buy and how difficult it is to use? How does it work? Think I should give it a try.

Does the fact that I can get reasonably sharp results via Live View mean the inaccuracy is down to my camera and not due to any fault with my lenses?

Generally, the way to quickly tell if you need to fine tune your lens autofocus is to compare live autofocus and phase detect autofocus.  Live Autofocus uses contrast detect which adjusts the focus to give the highest contrast image.  Its slow, but fairly accurate.
Phase detect is much faster, but slight errors in the camera body or lens can affect sharpness, and, if the body is in error one way, and the lens is in error the opposite way, then the errors add up.
 
This is a consistent issue with wide aperture and long telephoto lenses, and Sigma lenses seem to particularly generate a lot of complaints.
 
The first thing I do with a new camera body is to run the AFMA adjustment with all my lenses.  Each body is slightly different.
 
Neuro had it right!

6

EOS-M / Re: Metabones speed booster for the M

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:21:08 AM »

Even Canon is not making new EOS M lenses, or selling many cameras.  Why make a adapter for a camera that few enthusiasts will buy.
 
I doubt this very much.  They might make one for the Nikon 1 series.

7

Lenses / Re: When is the New 100-400 Coming?

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:16:44 AM »

I originally did not like the idea of a push-pull design, but have changed my mind after using my 400L for a few years.
Some of the advantages that this design made available when it was designed are:
 
     Short Storage length, shorter than the 70-200mmL
     Close focusing, for filling a frame with small birds which often let you get close.
     Is has worked for me down to 1/20 sec, far better than the IS on my 400mm f/5.6.
 
 
Newer lens technology now allows for shorter lens designs, better IS,  all with close focusing.  I'd certainly welcome a new model that  had those attributes, push pull or not.  I'd prefer the smallest one, whichever it is.
 
My 400mm f/5.6 is too long to easily store, and won't focus closely, plus a lack of IS can be a issue for stills where light in not its best.  Having to use a high shutter speed requires high ISO's unless I have bright light.
 

8

EOS-M / Re: EOS M Announcement in the Summer? [CR2]

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:06:52 AM »

For the AF speed is still that slow, why bother to buy more lenses that can only be used in EOS-M?

Already, a expert review of a non-existent new Camera!

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III focus points off center

« on: May 15, 2013, 02:29:27 PM »

You do realize that the AF point itself is not (1) pixel.. It is an array of many pixels in that given area, however during autofocus the camera can determine best focus based on the contrast in an area of just a few pixels depending on the actual subject/scene.

Basically what I mean is lets say under each focus point there is a grid of 100 pixels - and when focus is achieved under the selected focus point it happens to be on the right side of the 10x10 grid of pixels - then attempting to place a marker that represents the square/dot seen in the viewfinder precisely over the actual focus point in an image it is going to be off to the right of the super-imposed point in the viewfinder.

Well, let me give you another example. If I place the small focus point on someone's eye ball using the LCD & then check the viewfinder and see the point on his/her nose, which one am I focusing on?

I'd say that the LCD is more likely to be accurate. Therefore if I use the viewfinder to focus, I will not place the focus point on the target I was aiming for.

Liveview Quick Autofocus is likely to be less accurate.  It takes the image off the sensor, but the AF points displayed are electronically generated and have nothing to do physically with the AF sensor.
I'd expect the viewfinder to match the AF sensor, if it doesn't, Canon can adjust it, its likely not seated correctly.
 
In any event, its not likely to show up in real life because the actual AF areas are larger than what you see.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Live View v Viewfinder Sharpness

« on: May 15, 2013, 02:13:24 PM »

Only had my Mark III a few weeks so still have a lot to learn.and repeatedly find a significant difference in sharpness between Live View and using the Viewfinder, Live view being the sharper of the two.The Viewfinder is too soft for my liking. Any advice much appreciated.

A Question:  Did you adjust the Diopter of your camera?  Its not clear if you are seeing a soft image when looking thru the viewfinder, or if you are referring to images captured using autofocus, or if you are manual focusing using the viewfinder.
To adjust your viewfinder Diopter, see the instructions are on page 43 of your manual.
 
If Images captured using autofocus are not as sharp as images captured using live focus, you need to fine Tune the autofocus for each of your lenses using the AFMA adjustment in your camera.
 
Many of us use a software tool called Reikan Focal to do this.  You can do it manually, but the results might be difficult to get right.

11

EOS-M / Re: Metabones speed booster for the M

« on: May 15, 2013, 01:18:08 PM »

A link to something might help.  As it is, not much is useful.

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon SL1 sensor a step back?

« on: May 15, 2013, 01:16:08 PM »

The OP has titled the thread "SL1 sensor a step back?" ... clearly he is comparing the sensors here.

He is only comparing them in the title, as others mentioned, a RAW comparison properly done would compare sensors, but jpegs done with in camera processing, poor exposure, and different processors and algorithms is not a valid sensor comparison. Even if it was, a one off test might be sample variation.
 
The sensor is going to be very close to previous models.

13

Reviews / Re: The Digital Picture Reviews the Tamron 24-70

« on: May 15, 2013, 01:08:33 PM »

babiesphotos' response is a useful reminder of why it's hard to figure out via the internet what a consensus might be (even though it may be easier there than anywhere else).  People like to complain and warn and seem less likely to report a favorable or neutral experience.  Similarly, the problem they reported at lensrentals was announced via a special blog entry, but it took a rather obscure response to a specific comment to report that subsequent copies of the lens are just fine and have no new problems.  I would add that since the folk at lensrentals see more copies of lenses than just about anyone else, and seem reliable/unbiased/accurate in their reporting, their comments on the mechanical reliability of any particular lens are more valuable than most.

The problem you are referring to was with initial production copies at lens rentals.  It was hardly obscure, having been posted all over the internet.   It was a result of a poor design.  Tamron did not admit to fixing it or recall any, they just mysteriously stopped sending out problem copies. 
 
This topic is covering recently purchased lenses that have IQ issues.  They are not falling apart any longer, that part is fixed.

14

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:39:19 PM »

I have been using primes, but I just bought a 24-70L MK II.  After I have used it a while, I'll decide on my 35mmL, but I've sold four 50mm's and my 85mm f/1.8 in favor of zooms.
 
 I still have several prime lenses, 15, 17, 35, 100, and 135 I'm not really expecting to sell them. I've kept my 24-105 as well.

15

Lenses / Re: +18 AFMA out of the box....return?

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:33:15 PM »

My 35mmL was +2 on my 5D MK II and +14 on my 1D MK III.  I sent it to CPS and they calibrated the lens to their reference 1D MK III and its been nearly right on for every camera since then, including another 5D MK II, two 5D MK III's, and a 1D MK IV.
 
I think having CPS calibrate it is your best bet.