October 20, 2014, 06:52:24 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 ... 329 330 [331] 332 333 ... 574
4951
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FoCal likes the mk3 AF
« on: September 27, 2012, 09:46:38 PM »
I just got my 2nd 5D MK III and have started fine tuning the AF with the latest FoCal version.  I was careful to cover the eyepiece this time, since I didn't do it with my first camera.  That really improved the repeatability from shot to shot, almost no shots were even slightly misfocused.
The first three lenses (16-35mm L, 24-105mmL, and 100mmL) had no more than a +2 correction)  I have several more to do, but finding time is a issue.  I need to do some more primes to prepare for a Saturday shoot.

4952
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 09:24:04 PM »
Spammer?  Spammer = Spammer

hah, the bulletin board is obviously hating on most vendors, you need to mispell the store just enough to trick the filter but let people still known who you were talking about
They had been spamming the forum with fake users making posts about how great they are.  Now a mention of them turns to Spammer.  Well deserved.

4953
EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]
« on: September 27, 2012, 09:14:04 PM »
... a very new sensor design/overhaul. The emphasis is in the dynamic range of the sensor ...

New sensor technology?  If so I wonder what it is?  Any patents to hint at it?

I'm interested because technology tends to trickle down to consumer cameras that I can afford.
A BSI patent for large sensors was just released JP,2012-015275,A   I'm suspecting it is involved.  BSI has not been used in large sensors due to ailiasing, but the patent seems to resolve or at least greatly improve things.
I sent the patent link to Craig for him to review.  Its very compllex and difficult to read, particularly after the translation, but it basically moves the electronics to a second substrate bonded to the first which has the photosites.  The second substrate is then able to have better amplifiers as well as overcome ailiasing which should improve DR.

4954
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:19:51 PM »
Do you have a link to onecall?  I could not find it on their site.  They are local, only a few miles from me, so I was going to see if I could get one. Its much easier to return if it is not up to par.

4955
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70 ii in stock at Onecall and PC.Nation
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:02:07 PM »
I haven't seen any reviews saying it was mediocre although there have been some trolling comments by 9 year olds on the forums.
I have seen some who think that every lens is exactly the same and perfect, in spite of the abundant that lenses vary, including Zeiss. 

4956
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Rx-1
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:58:42 PM »
I haven't seen any reviews, but Sony's reputation alone is enough for me to stay away.  How long will they support it after its discontinued?  2 years at most?

4957
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Amatuer Upgrade - T2i to 1D3?
« on: September 27, 2012, 11:47:40 AM »
Big upgrade for very little money.  Go for it!

4958
Lenses / Re: New Lenses in January [CR1]
« on: September 27, 2012, 11:46:52 AM »
I already have a razor sharp Canon EF300mm f/4L. This thing is razor sharp fully open. In addition this lens with my 1.4X II produced a little sharper images than my 100-400 at 400mm.

Interesting.  I found just the opposite - my 100-400 @400mm beat the 300/4 IS + 1.4x II (and that seems to be a common theme from testers).  That was with AFMA dialed in on both - without AMFA, the 100-400 would miss a bit at 400mm leading to reduced sharpness. 

It's funny - you think something is razor sharp, then you see what razor sharp really is, say going from a 100-400 or 300/4 IS to a supertele prime.

Regardless, I expect a new 300/4 IS II would be noticeably better than the current 300/4 or the 100-400.  I'd also expect a revised 100-400 to noticeably sharper, and I'd take that over the 300/4 II.
The good thing about both the 300mm f/4 and the 100-400mm L is the relatively short minimum focus distance.  I hope they do not screw that up by trying to make the lens smaller and lighter.  A 11+ foot mfd like the 400mm f/5.6 is why I sold mine.

4959
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 26, 2012, 09:36:23 PM »
?
I'd beware of anyone out to prove a point with deliberately doctored images in a internet forum.  The 5D Mark II image is either doctored or from a damaged or defective camera.  A 5D mark II does not have poor images like those shown.
However, I will say that Low ISO, the D800 does have a lot of usable DR, but at High ISO, it has less than the 5D MK III.  It tends to be more important at very high ISO's for me than at low ISO's, but thats just me.
Here is a image from my D800 which really suprised me with its ability to capture a interior along with a bright sunny outdoors. 


Do not get rude, I have 2 x 5dmk2  and they show this  pattern noise, I have tested cameras  since 1978, scanners since 1990 and digital cameras since they come  so I know what Im doing.
5dmk2 mk3 has 11 stops DR and then the pattern noise are not including in the measure. Nikon has 14stops
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkIII.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_5D_MkII.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD7000.html
http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html

 
Rude?  Are those your images?  Posting obviously altered images seems to me to be rude.
I have been into photography for quite a few more years than you, started on digital earlier, and have owned or used many digital cameras, including two 5D Mark II's, two 5D Mark III's and a D800.
I've never seen the banding like that shown in the images, except on forums where the images were under exposed and then pulled up several stops.  You have to really manipulate the images in post, or have a defective camera.  If your 5D Mark II's  produce images like those with a proper exposure, and you did not send them back ???
I'd prefer to see information from and intrepreterted by the actual tester.
Sensorgen.org charts are derived DXO information, just a repeat of the same info.
 "One source, the one which is used for the data on this site is DxOmark.com."
DXO's own chart illustrates the higher DR for the 5D Mark III at high ISO's and the excellent DR for the D800 at low ISO's.  It pretty well matches what I've seen with my cameras.
 

4960
I'm suprised that anyone could predict brightness of a new comet over a year in advance.  They normally can't predict it right even for well know ones. Neuro's weather prediction is more likely to be right.

4961
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 26, 2012, 08:01:43 PM »
I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, let alone held one.

I do know my way around my camera, but on these boards I keep hearing people talking about Dynamic Range when comparing cameras or making wish lists of improvements.

Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.

Cheers.
[/quote


You can take a look here   http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=42598514
There is a huge difference between Canons sensors in 5dmk2 ,5dmk3 and the Sony sensor inside d800
First, Canon has about 12 times higher read out noise than Nikon d800, second, there are no banding or patter noise in the Sony sensors.
This means that you can handle the Nikon camera different and  you can expose after the highlights and then adjust the pictures in middle tones and low levels . If you do the same with Canon you have a results as the link to dprevie shows. With  Canon   you have 2 alternative  1. choose to exposure after the high lights  and  to keep the high lights and  there will be  a worse outcome in the shadows 2.  if you chose to expose Canon  more plentiful the results are  earlier high lights clipping.


I'd beware of anyone out to prove a point with deliberately doctored images in a internet forum.  The 5D Mark II image is either doctored or from a damaged or defective camera.  A 5D mark II does not have poor images like those shown.
However, I will say that Low ISO, the D800 does have a lot of usable DR, but at High ISO, it has less than the 5D MK III.  It tends to be more important at very high ISO's for me than at low ISO's, but thats just me.
Here is a image from my D800 which really suprised me with its ability to capture a interior along with a bright sunny outdoors. 

4962
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5Dc as an entry for FF? yay or nay?
« on: September 26, 2012, 07:04:49 PM »
No one can tell you if its worth it to you, you have all the facts.  IMHO, the 5D Mark II has dropped so much in price thats a better value.  Keep a eye out for new ones in the $1700 range.
The classic models are starting to get to the age where they fail more frequently, and usually aren't worth the cost to fix, since you can get another for less.
If you happen to find a low usage one that has hadthe mirror fix, for $600 or less, it is likely a ok deal.

4963
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?
« on: September 26, 2012, 06:55:04 PM »
I hate that button.  I've lost a lot of the feeling in my hands and can't easily operate buttons.  In 14 years of using DSLR's. I've never had the dial turn by accident.  I wonder what it might cost to heve it removed ;)

4964
Technical Support / Re: Memory card compatibility
« on: September 26, 2012, 04:53:08 PM »
Most CF cards will work, but SD cards are a different story.  Some will not work with SDHC, but most have firmware Upgrades.  Then 64GB SDXC cards may not work on some, and SDXC UHS-1 does not work in the UHS-1 mode with 5D Mark III but still works.  SD cards are a real rats nest of incompatibility.

4965
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?
« on: September 26, 2012, 03:20:21 PM »
Actually, if shooting in Adobe RGB matters, you've already dumbed it down a lot, because that means you're shooting JPG.  If you're shooting RAW, color space is irrelevant - you can set it later.

You are right, I set mine to Adobe RGB but use raw, so it really made no difference.  I use Lightroom 4 which has a prophoto gamut that is even wider.
 I can do a soft proofing to my printer / paper profile and bring the colors into gamut as required.

You know, this has me thinking (a dangerous pasttime, I know...).  I've often made the argument that the in-camera jpg settings do matter if you shoot RAW, indirectly, because the in-camera settings are applied to the JPG preview image that's reviewed on the LCD and used to generate the histograms.  So, to the extent that you make exposure decisions based on the preview image, histograms, or blinking highlight alert, those JPG settings matter. 

I wonder...what is the gamut of the camera's LCD, would sRGB vs. Adobe RGB make a difference in color channel saturation, a difference in the histogram or highlight alert calls, etc.?
I received my $2750 5D MK III from Adorama yesterday, but haven't bothered changing the gamut setting and likely won't.  I've not yet setup custom file naming either.  I want to get at least some of my lenses AFMA'd for a shoot coming up Saturday, but time seems hard to find.

Pages: 1 ... 329 330 [331] 332 333 ... 574