July 29, 2014, 07:08:11 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 ... 278 279 [280] 281 282 ... 536
4186
Lenses / Re: "Zoom Creep" on the 24-105L : My Solution
« on: October 14, 2012, 05:39:24 PM »
Your 24-105mm has zoom creep?!?   :o

Guess I'm lucky, mine stays put.
Yes, mine is not even near zoom creeping, I can hold it vertically and have to push firmly or pull  relatively hard to get it to retract or expand.  Mine is about 4 years old, and heavily used, but I suppose that there are bad samples.  I'd recommend that anyone getting one that creeps send it back for exchange.

4187
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 05:34:26 PM »
You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting.  Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other.  It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / -  3 points is insignigicant.  You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness.   Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.



I have to disagree, even the TINIEST hair difference and the crispness of a test chart WILL differ and you can easily flip flop around comparative performance between two lenses. Even doing 10x LV MF with a magnifier on top you absolutely will see differences test shot to shot and need to pick the best out of a bunch when you are doing fine comparisons.

Even on your chart maybe the first try is the 930 and the next try is the 815, if you didn't know they were both the same copy tested you could mistakenly think one copy is way better than the 'other'. YOu need a bunch of trials to hit the 930 score with reasonable chance.

And say a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC on a 7D, even a difference of 1 on MFA can make a noticeable difference in hit rate, DOF at that high MP count and such a long lens is small.

While it true that someone can see a tiny difference at the AFMA settings, FoCal saves the1:1  images used for the evaluation at the different points, and the difference in sharpness isn't significant to me.
In fact, just using the images, its entirely possible to select the wrong one as being the sharpest.  Some people can, but the differences are very subtle.
 

 

 

4188
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera Modes
« on: October 14, 2012, 04:09:32 PM »
I don't use the dials much, either Av or Tv pretty well take care of everything.  If there is a setup I like and use a lot, I can assign it to a custom mode.
If you are comparing with a Digital Rebel and all the many modes they have, I can't help you there, I'd still use Av and TV with M in a very few cases.
If the Pentax UI is what you like, thats fine, buy one and you will be happy.  Personally, the mode dial is the oast thing I'd consider when selecting a camera, there are many much more important things than the number of modes.

4189
Lenses / Re: need help
« on: October 14, 2012, 04:02:59 PM »
I bought a 5D MK III to replace my 5D MK II and thought $3500 was too much for the differenc3, considering the features I use, so I returned it and bought another 5D MK II from the Canon refurb store for $1400.
Then, Adorama popped up with a 5D MK III for $2750 and that was the right price so I bought a second one.  I also sold the 5D MK II for a $300 profit, and got a $56 ebay bucks credit.
I gather you are in the UK and can't easily buy from the USA, but I'd look for a deal on the 5D MK III.
You might also consider a 100mm L, mine really loves my 7D.
(I also tried a D800.  Nice camera, but I found it impossible to buy equivalents to some of my favorite Canon lenses and resold it).

4190
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:28:38 PM »
You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting.  Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other.  It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / -  3 points is insignigicant.  You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness.   Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.

4191
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III HDR Mode "issue"
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:20:52 PM »
I'd expect less cropping if the camera is mounted to a tripod, was it on a tripod/

4192
I doubt if its marketing strategy.  Computers sort thru billions of optical formulas running around the clock finding those that are candidates for products.  Those are then checked by a person, and mostly found impractical or lacking in some way.  There are, of course lots of formulas dor a $50,000 lens, but finding one to produce for under $3,000 is difficult. 
The marketing part comes in setting priorities.  There are five or less lens development teams, producing a new product about every other year.  We don't know what priority they might assign to a new wide lens as opposed to say a new 100-400mmL.  Then, there are the video lenses and the EF-s lenses that all use the slim resources.
I'd like to see both.

4193
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:13:13 PM »
Thanks Viggo and mk.Spokane (by the way how is the hand now?)

What version do you recommend? (I am a hobbyist... if the pro version gives me better AFM, I will go with it).
I pre-ordered the Pro version last December for a big discount and am very happy with it.  I get access to beta versions, which is nice if you have a new camera model, because you get support quicker.
However the AFMA results will be just as accurate with any version.  You can always upgrade for just the difference in price, so you do not lose if you get the basic version and decide to upgrade.

4194
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Availability
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:09:22 PM »
Yesterday, October 13, 2012, I checked my B & H Photo back ordered Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II (USM) lens and learned that the lens I ordered is available and the order was fulfilled and sent to their warehouse for shipping!  I ordered this lens with a credit card guarantee for payment in mid July, 2012.  It took three months to fulfill.  I expect to receive this lens by Tuesday, Oct. 16th or Wednesday the following day.  I am eagerly looking forward to using this lens. I purchased a Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8 II F macro (new for $500) and it was a good lens but not the quality of the Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L II lens, so I ordered the 24-70mm II lens.
Wow, local stores have had them going in and out of stock for quite a few weeks.  B&H seems to be having issues getting their quotas from Canon.  I had heard that there was some friction that caused this, but heve no specifics.

4195
Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA Software and Suggestions
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:06:18 PM »

Thanks, but what would mean 70 +1, 135 +3, 200 +7

I can only put +1 and +7 but what should I do with 135? This is way to confusing. Theoretically, I can do a test for each and every focal lenght, print it out and change it before the shoot.  :o
OMG, this is way too complicated. I guess for prime lenses it is much easier choice.
Do you know how Canon calibrates lenses?

What are the two distances you chose. What I read recommended is 5x the focal lenght.

If you have a zoom lens, AF accuracy is not the same at different focal lengths, so test the AFMA at the focal length you usually use and set it accordingly.
If you use a lens like the 24-105mmL at all focal lengths, at the minimum, set it to about 60mm to do your AFMA.  If you test it at 24, 60, and 105mm, you can find the best AFMA values for those focal lengths and see if its only a slight difference, or a major one.
For example, notice the two calibration curves for my 24-105mmL.  at 24mm, its a +1 adjustment while at 105mm, its a -2 adjustment.  Notice that the curve at 105mm is much flatter, so a small change in AFMA makes little difference.  With this lens I'd just use a setting of zero and it would be fine at all focal lengths.  But, since the 5D MK III has two AFMA settings, one for wide and the other for telephoto, I put in +1 for wide and -2 for telephoto, and it will interpolate at 60mm by using AFMA=0 or -1
With this lens, there was no real benefit from AFMA.
24-105mm L at 24mm

 
24-105mm L at 105mm

4196
Lenses / Re: Kenko TC - 2 models - which one to buy?
« on: October 14, 2012, 02:38:23 PM »
As read in the lens rumor forum, with an kenko TC the AF is working on an 100-400L. But which Kenko to buy?

Get the new dgx, it reports exif data better/cleverer so it does af @f8. But really the newest one (there seems to have been a silent update by Kenko, so there are two ean codes for the dgx). Forget 2x, the iq will be too bad with your zoom, not to speak of af speed.
ean codes are Amazon assigned numbers, each seller can assign his own.  They mean nothing

4197
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 02:36:58 PM »
What settings were you using?  It looks like high ISO when you should use low ISO and lots of light.  Manual settings of AFMA are difficult.  Lining up everything has to be accurate.
Try a image with the camera on a tripod, square to the chart with bright light, and Live view and Live focus.  If the image is sharp, then you need a better AFMA.
FoCal will not only adjust AFMA, but it can test for consistent autofocus, which points to a lens issue.  It will also help align the lens to the target so that you get consistent values.  Its worth the price.

4198
I really do not recommend getting a expensive wide aperture lens with a body that has no AFMA.  Narrow apertures usually hide focus inaccuracies in the depth of field, but its tough to hide front or back focus at f/2.8 or wider.  You can, of course use it at f/8, but I doubt if you want that.
The images appear to be back focused, were you using AI Servo?  Is the lens focusing accurately with a static object?  If accurate on a static object at f/2.8, then its either a issue with not using AI Servo, or not having the AF point on the eye or wherever you want the focus point to be.
You may need to send the lens and body to Canon to be calibrated, with the 60D, there is no other way when lens and body do not match.

4199
Also save money for a good tripod - far more important than the camera or lenses.  The tripod I use currently cost more than my camera - and it pays off.
+1, the accessories can run many times the cost of the camera body.  Thats why using a camcorder is usually best unless you have lots of time and are willing to build your own accessories or rig them from inexpensive components.
Lighting, Audio, tripods, real fluid heads,  lenses, remote focusing aids, magnifiers or external monitors, it can run into a huge expense. 

4200
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1dx, or d800e?
« on: October 14, 2012, 01:01:12 PM »
I bought a D800 to see what it could do, and a D800E will be similar.  For landscape use where DR and lots of fine detail are needed, the camera really shines (assuming you have a supurb lens for it).  Thats the rub, you have a very small selection of Nikon lenses that will let you get that maximum resolution from the camera, the 14-24 should do that, or you can get a Zeiss 21mm.  Just don't try to find a equivalent to a 135mm L or 100-400mmL, for example.

Pages: 1 ... 278 279 [280] 281 282 ... 536