March 06, 2015, 04:47:51 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 - Mt Spokane Photography

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 635
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Firmware update??
« on: Today at 02:44:03 PM »
I love my 7d2! But coming from a 350d I think I'd love a faulty 7d2 too! :D

I feel like my keeper rate has increased quite alot but I suppose that should be the case compared to 350d.

However Im not getting THAT much more sharper pictures I imagined and the keeper rate is not something one might assume after getting one of the best AF systems Canon has to offer.

Anyway - Im happy with my money spend! At the beginning I found myself looking for softness in my pictures but luckily my good friends told me not to pixel peep and now it's all good!

Dunno if I see or should see any difference between my shots with the 350d and 7d2. 7d2 just makes everything easier and gives me more of those keeper shots! Feel free to take a look at my photostream if you can pick the difference!


The slight difference in the MP of the sensor will not make a image sharper, but you should be able to pixel peep and not see a blurry mess.  I would expect to be able to crop a image and still have it sharp.

The extra $$ is for the dual processors, the fancy autofocus, and for the $$$$ spent on development.  Once Canon has recovered their initial cost of tooling and development, the price can easily drop to $1300 and they will still be making a big profit. 

I have not bought one, even though its a good camera because I know that I'd be disappointed with a crop sensor at the current price.  I may go for one this fall, depending on what other new bodies we see.

Lenses / Re: 24-105L, loose front element?
« on: Today at 02:12:50 PM »
Its likely that the screws holding the front element in place were pulled loose when it dropped.  They likely stripped the threads of the plastic they are attached to.  If the lug holding the screw is broken, then get it fixed.

Its very easy to check this, and you might be able to fix a stripped hole by putting a strip of thing plastic in the hole and then putting the screw in place.  Be sure you do not use a Phillips screwdriver though, or things could get a lot worse.  A JIS screwdriver is used, it looks like a Phillips, but it is different.

Roger Cicala has a article on cleaning popular lenses.  The 2nd part covers several popular lenses which are all constructed in a similar manner, The instructions cover a 17-55, but apply to the 24-105.

READ THE ARTICLE thenTry tightening the screws, first.  Note, you can decenter the lens element if it isn't already decentered.

Lenses / Re: Did I get a bad copy of the 100-400mm L IS II?
« on: March 05, 2015, 09:05:28 PM »

BTW You can order one from Canada for considerably less if you need it right away.  The price in US dollars runs around 80% of the Canadian dollar right now, or around $1920.

Any duties apply for shipping to the US?  Any idea of shipping cost?


Ask.  Whatever the cost, if any, its not going to be $280.

Black & White / Re: Dark or light?
« on: March 05, 2015, 08:04:45 PM »
I like the 2nd, because the different shades in the building add variety.  On the first one, the different shades of the nearer units do not show.

Lenses / Re: Did I get a bad copy of the 100-400mm L IS II?
« on: March 05, 2015, 07:56:41 PM »
Anyone have any idea when the 100-400 II will be in stock again at B&H or Adorama?

Call them and ask. 

BTW You can order one from Canada for considerably less if you need it right away.  The price in US dollars runs around 80% of the Canadian dollar right now, or around $1920.

Lenses / Re: Canon - Give us 400/5.6L IS NOW!!
« on: March 05, 2015, 07:52:12 PM »
I doubt if there would be many buyers, most have bought or are waiting for the 100-400mm L MK II.  Adding in all the wanted features will raise the price to close to $2,000, and it will still be too long, and will not focus closely.

I think that Canon should keep churning out the existing lens, pricing everyone out of the market is not a good move.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New camera body or new lens?
« on: March 04, 2015, 11:53:59 PM »
You need to describe your lighting.  Lighting is a huge part of portrait photography, your equipment will be fine, If you already have good lighting, do you have back drops? 

Just what equipment do you have, and how are your portraits done?  For outdoor use a 85mm will be your next best lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Check your 11-24L for decentering!
« on: March 04, 2015, 12:33:30 PM »
I'll test my copy soon, but I saw this on Dpreview yesterday have two notes on this - #1, this photo is from 2/14, so it's likely to be a prototype/pre-production model, and #2, the photo is not of a flat surface and the subject distance in the two lower corners is not the same.  I'm not saying it isn't decentered, but this isn't a very good photo to determine whether it is or isn't decentered.

Also, Johan, that's a nice page on your site.  I'll have to check it out when I have more time.

I also noted that this is not the best photo to test decentering.  I'd suggest that anyone checking a lens for decentering to look at Roger Cicala's article.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 50L on crop vs 85 F1.8 on FF at F2 ??
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:51:23 PM »
The 50mmL is a special lens, I'd never put one on a crop myself.  It is not a general purpose lens, so you need to appreciate the Bokeh for portrait use.

The 85mm f/1.8 is going to be sharper, but that's not always what you want in a portrait. 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Upcoming Sigma "trifocal" lens?
« on: March 03, 2015, 11:24:49 PM »
That's a really old interview from last fall.  They are just dredging up stuff to improve their search engine rank.

Lenses / Re: TC generation / lens matching
« on: March 03, 2015, 05:26:55 PM »

It's certainly up to what I need for video and the three times a year I shoot action stills.   I always have some form of camera support (video background) so I never bothered with the IS route, when at the time the only IS version (1) was consistently regarded as the very slightly weaker lens.

I was happy with it until I read that it was lower end and not a serious lens, this morning.  Might bin it now.

Some posters like to belittle others.  They are often the ones who don't show their superior photos. ;)

Ignore them.


If Sony would sell their sensor business, Canon might be interested, but for now, that's almost all
Sony has that's worth anything.

I know you know Mt Spokane, but Sony is an insurance company and that is how the group manages to keep all the diverse and costly arms going. Sensors make money now, but nowhere near as much as the financial division and the investment has been stratospheric.

Their Financial Services is definitely a Cash Cow, but it looks so good because their Mobile Communications and everything else is so bad.  If they dumped the dogs, then they might actually make a decent profit.  Their last statement had gigantic write offs from failed and failing sectors. The Devices sector is looking much better now, and its likely that most of that is sensors.

If someone bought them, those bad sectors would be gone tomorrow.  They should break out the Financial into a separate company so its profit would not be diluted.  I'd bet share holders would like that.  They could dump everything but the financial shares.

Lenses / Re: TC generation / lens matching
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:55:42 PM »
A TC magnifies and flaws in the image imparted by the lens.  The 1.4X TC I ans 1.4X TC II are optically the same, while the ver III does have less distortions added.

I've found that the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS does take a TC pretty well when compared to the IS ver I lens.  However a 2X TC is noticeably worse.  It all depends on your tolerance for magnified flaws.  Most prints won't show any difference.

Sorry Mt. could you clarify...  do you mean non-iS or did you mean isii compared to ISv1?  Do you have any images you could show of non-is with & without TC?

A TYPO, I don't know what happened to the NON IS I intended to insert.

The NON IS version is really excellent, and overlooked by many.

Lenses / Re: Can someone please school me on Reikan FoCal??
« on: March 03, 2015, 04:51:34 PM »
60W are  equivalent to incandescent.
Going outdoors- I'm worried if I will have enough time to do calibration As I live in Middle East and Sunrise and Sunset is much  shorter here than in other part of the world
I saw on DP AFMA tips where Neuroanatomist was using 3 lamps each 150W  for the LensAlign MkII or the DataColor   SpyderLensCal . I cannot find lamps  which are able to accept more powerful bulb.
How about 500W

500 might do it, but be sure to get a 5500K bulb.

I have a Tota light that is 750 watts and heats up the room as well as giving out a lot of light.  The color corrected bulbs were expensive.

I just bought two inexpensive 32 watt LED work lights to try for photography.  They were rated at 2000 lumens.   I put them with two 85 watt CFL bulbs that put out 4250 lumens each, but the light output of the two alone is marginal.  I just installed them, and have yet to test them for actual photography.

They were on sale for $35 each.  They will at least make fill lights to ease shadows.

2000 lumens is about equivalent to a 200 watt incandescent lamp.

You might also check out the large CFL bulbs, They come from china and are cheap.  They need a light modifier or reflector, or at least, put them sideways to the subject.  Pointing them at the subject without a reflector won't work.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 635