August 01, 2014, 02:59:28 AM

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 ... 284 285 [286] 287 288 ... 537
4276
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Considering switching to Nikon
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:08:38 PM »
I tried a Nikon, and invested about 10 K in a D800 and top lenses.  The D800 is great at low ISO, but you have to be extremely careful with it.  I think its a great landscape body.  Lenses that match the body really don't exist, as I painfully found out, and there is nothing close to the quality of the 24-105mmL, the 135mmL, or the 100-400mmL that are some of my most used lenses.
I sold it all, and bought a new Canon body along with a  new16-35mm L  The only images I really liked from the D800 were the low ISO images, 400 or lower.  The DR of the D800 at ISO 100 was amazing, so for bright light landscape use, it is fantastic.

4277
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 12:59:19 PM »
Part of this is because lenses play a very important role in photography, and Nikon has lagged behind with FF lenses.  They have very few really good lenses, their 14-24 being the best example followed by their new 85mm f/1.4.  Their 24-70mm has horible CA, their 70-200mm is very good.  There are a ton of "D" lenses that are good, but no one seems to want them, and they do not have coatings that are well suited to digital.

Then, Nikon nothing that matches Canons 24-105mm L, 135mmL, or 100-400mmL much less the Canon 400mm f/5.6. 

Nikon has been cranking out new low cost DX lenses as though the lens side does not believe FF is the way to go. I get the feeliing that they do not have a coordinated plan.  If they are bring excellent new FF bodies to the market while developing DX lenses, customers like me who went out and bought a D800 and 24-70 f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4 and discovered that I'd have to buy a Sigma lens if I wanted a decent low cost 400mm lens that could not match the older Canon designs, and found nothing to match my favorite Canon lenses.  I finally sold the body and the lenses, and bought another new Canon body.
The Nikon lens prices are generally too high for what you get.
Its a shame, but Nikon does seem to be struggling, and I'd credit their being behind in good lens availability at low prices for a big part of it.

With Sigma agressively churning out ever new and improved lens designs, I'd think this helps Nikon but buyers generally prefer to stick with OEM lenses.

4278
Software & Accessories / Re: Head for Manfrotto 055xprob
« on: October 09, 2012, 12:25:20 PM »
I use a Kirk Ball Head, and have a Manfroto horizontal joystick for my light table (bolted to the table).  I've had a couple of the Manfroto vertical joystick units, they had a lot of play, the more expensive pro models have no play.  Our local Pro Camera shop has a different brand of vertical joysticks that are low priced.  I played with them in the store, and they were worlds better than Manfroto, too bad I already have the expensive pro model.
  I also have two Benro Ball Heads,  total junk, they won't hold even a ordinary camera and lens still unless you really reef on the lock.

4279
Lenses / Re: A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens
« on: October 09, 2012, 11:53:46 AM »

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use. 

My feeling right now =  :-\  to  :'(
Thats a low price.  They go for $350 around here.  No wonder you sold it so quickly.
I've been thinkinng of selling mine, I've had it boxed up for the last 4 months, but have not been able to part with it.  I might sell it if I buy a 24-70 MK II. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I with metal mount.  I just finished doing a AFMA with it (-11).  I want to do a comparison of images before I decide which to keep.

4280
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: October 08, 2012, 11:50:37 PM »
Is there any place where we can get 5d mk iii sample Raw files so we can play around how much detail we can recover from the shadows. And is the ISO level in 5d mk iii superior at 6400 compared let's say d600 or d800? I was trying the raw files from dpreview but some thing from a more natural setting (environment, landscape, outdoor or indoor portrait) would give help clear out how much we can recover without creating those nasty bandings and noise.
You do not create banding and noise, it is just there, and if you boost the exposure enough, you will see it.  It seldom shows in a print, only when you look at the image at 1:1.
The issue with obtaining raw images is that every image is different, so its easy to manipluate the results by selecting one that shows whatever you want.  Then you make a general statement about how wonderful or how awful it is.
As you raise the ISO, the DR and the ability to recover shadows lessens.  The D800, for example is supurb at ISO 100, but at 12800, the 5D MK III is better.  However, at very high ISO settings, neither will tolerate a poorly exposed shot, it must be right-on.  Forget about pulling up shadows at ISO 12800.

Lol, yeah meant to say revealing those banding. I felt it was considerably less in 5d mk iii version of the raw file.
I've never seen one on either of my 5D MK II's or my two 5D MK III's with a normal photo.  You have to Create the setup to show it.  You can pull up a image several stops and see it, no doubt, but that is pretty extreme.  I'd seldom pull a image up by more than a stop.  its much better to slightly overexpose and pull the image exposure down slightly.
 

4281
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: October 08, 2012, 10:45:57 PM »
Is there any place where we can get 5d mk iii sample Raw files so we can play around how much detail we can recover from the shadows. And is the ISO level in 5d mk iii superior at 6400 compared let's say d600 or d800? I was trying the raw files from dpreview but some thing from a more natural setting (environment, landscape, outdoor or indoor portrait) would give help clear out how much we can recover without creating those nasty bandings and noise.
You do not create banding and noise, it is just there, and if you boost the exposure enough, you will see it.  It seldom shows in a print, only when you look at the image at 1:1.
The issue with obtaining raw images is that every image is different, so its easy to manipluate the results by selecting one that shows whatever you want.  Then you make a general statement about how wonderful or how awful it is.
As you raise the ISO, the DR and the ability to recover shadows lessens.  The D800, for example is supurb at ISO 100, but at 12800, the 5D MK III is better.  However, at very high ISO settings, neither will tolerate a poorly exposed shot, it must be right-on.  Forget about pulling up shadows at ISO 12800.

4282
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New 60D or Second-hand 7D?
« on: October 08, 2012, 09:18:26 PM »
You can get a new 7D for under $1000 these days, surely that's worth paying?

Here is a link to 7D prices from stores that are rteputable.  I'd certainly wonder about someone selling a new one for under $1000.
 
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02849/Canon-EOS-7D-price.html

4283
I really want/need a ground level tripod for macro work which will hold a 5D3 + EF 100 2.8.
 The model I want is a Redged RTA-320.

TIA

Available at Redged
http://www.redgedstore.com/Redged%20RTA-320%20Kit
 

4284
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade or Add
« on: October 08, 2012, 07:30:59 PM »
The 24-105mmL is not particularly suited to a APS-C body, but is great on full frame.  For walk around use, you will need to carry a wide angle lens as well as the 24-105.
I'd wait and purchase the 24-105 as part of a FF kit.

4285
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: October 08, 2012, 05:25:05 PM »
My 5D Mark III seems to be better than my 5D Mark II at this.  I've had two of each, there was quite a bit of difference between the 5D 2's as to sensor noise with the three year newer one being noticibly better.
I just received my 2nd 5D3, so I haven't compared it to my earlier one which was very good.  I also had a D800, and it indeed has more DR at low ISO's, enough to immediately see in a outdoor shot.  However, I do a lot of extreme high ISO work, and there the 5D MK III has a tiny but noticible DR advantage. My D800 struggled at ISO 12800 and produced grainy noisy images that were not very pleasing

4286
Lenses / Re: Switching Canon 70-200 2.8L to Tamron 70-200 2.8 or not?
« on: October 08, 2012, 05:13:17 PM »
Your lens is very good, you are not going to improve on it with the Tamron.  My first 7D seemed to have grainy high ISO images and I returned it.  I bought a refurb last year and see no issue with it, so there are some out there with that issue.
I have used my latest 7D at ISO 3200, its ok for smaller prints, but keeping to 1600 or even 800 is best.  The 5D MK II is fine at 3200 and usable at 6400 for 8X10 or smaller prints.  I'd judge my 5D MK III to be about 1/2 stop better at 3200 and 6400, but then it pulls away at the higher ISO settings.  I'd use it at 12800 if I had to, or maybe even 25600 in a emergency. For small prints, its fine at the extreme high ISO's.  As always, I use the lowest possible ISO setting.

4287
Lenses / Re: Canon 180mm Focus Squeaking
« on: October 08, 2012, 05:04:23 PM »
Return it if you can't compare it with another lens.  If the replacement does the same thing, you might just have very good hearing.  Its unlikely that the replacement will have the issue.

4288
Lenses / Re: Canon 16-35mm II + Reikan FocCal Pro --- Tips
« on: October 08, 2012, 05:01:50 PM »
The target validation is going to make sure that you are properly lined up with the target.  If you are, the testing will proceed.  If not, it asks you to align the camera to the target using the utility provided.
I recommend validating the target for the most accurate and repeatable results.  If you are not properly aligned, you might get different values if you come back and run the test again later with a different alignment.

4289
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 + 17-40mm or 500D + 10-22mm?
« on: October 08, 2012, 04:54:58 PM »
Just recently, I'm thinking of buying a 17-40mm L lens.  I intend to upgrade to either 5D2 or 6D after sometime.  My question is, is it really better than just having an APS-C + 10-22mm lens?  This will be used for landscape photography.  I'm also into macro photography but perfectly happy with a 500D + 100mm F2.8 USM lens.  Should I just forget going FF and go for APS-C?  I'm confused because I really love both macro and landscape photography.  I'm planning to complete the set by next year March since summer starts in my place during that month.
Just hold off.  The 17-40mm L is no better than your 10-22.  Bank the money and wait to see what is announnced in January next year.  There is no use buying lenses for a FF body, particularly since prices are dropping due to the world economy.
I did not fall in love with a 17-40mmL on my 5D MK II, it was good but did not really inspire me.  I recently bought a 16-35mmL and it is sharper, but that could be a sample variation thing. 

4290
Lenses / Re: Resolving ability of the lenses
« on: October 08, 2012, 01:45:20 PM »

But don't worry, we've got a long way to go before lenses become the main limitation on system resolution.

What may become a challenge for some however is that as the resolving abilities of lenses improve, so their prices tend to increase.  Shooters on a budget may find that their wallet becomes the limiting factor in the system before availability of lenses with suitable resolving power does.  - That said, it could be argued that the price-performance ratio of lenses has improved a lot.

+1

Pages: 1 ... 284 285 [286] 287 288 ... 537