January 26, 2015, 08:37:31 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 ... 368 369 [370] 371 372 ... 622
5536
Lenses / Re: Next lens in my bag query
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:32:03 PM »
A 135L is missing, its my most used lens.

5537
Lenses / Re: Calibrate Canon 24-70L?
« on: October 10, 2012, 10:48:27 AM »
Sit the camera on a tripod and aim it at a brick wall 15 feet more or less away.  Make sure it is perpendicular to the wall.
 
Use live autofocus (not quick AF).  This will focus the lens according to the highest contrast at the selected AF point. 
 
If its sharp, it needs AFcalibration.  If its sharplly focused in the center but not at the edges, thats normal since the lens has a large field of curvature.
If the lens is still not sharp when focused this way, it has more serious issues that Canon might be able to resolve.  I've had five of them, on a crop camera, they were not excellent, but they were adequate.. 

5538
Lenses / Re: A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens
« on: October 09, 2012, 09:27:59 PM »
The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.
Do you have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I?  The MK II is the poorest lens to manually focus I've owned, and by a large margin.  The MK I is fine. 
 
The 35mm f2 also has a actual focus ring.

5539
Lenses / Re: Need quick advice Please and thanks! Choir photoshoot!
« on: October 09, 2012, 09:21:44 PM »
You did not ask about lighting.  Do you have lights?  A single flash will not light a area wider than 24mm, so you will need multiple lights for creative settings.

5540
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:28:35 PM »
DXO mark means nothing to me... i will say glass is what matters and canon's ef range of lenses are untouchable they just make my mouth water i want them all but i will need to sell my girlfriend lol
Could you post a photo (of her) :)

5541
PowerShot / Re: Powershot Perils
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:25:51 PM »
I have poor hearing, and tend to not hear something dropping out of my pocket, (or even someone shouting to tell me it dropped out).  I'm glad you got it back.

5542
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Firmware?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:20:12 PM »
Any news on this?
Nothing!  Don't expect anything soon.

5543
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:16:31 PM »
My canon 7d appeared with an error 30 and now 90% of the pictures appear too dark. Is there any solution?

Thanks
Stop using it and send it for repair.  A bad shutter can come apart and cause more damage and double the repair bill.

5544
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade or Add
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:13:48 PM »

A little bummed about the 24-105 not working well with the crop but I'm glad I asked before purchasing :)
The 24-105mm L works very well with a crop, its just not a "all in one" walk around focal length.  The images on a crop body are fantastic. 
I use my 15-85 on my 7D rather than my 24-105 L because of the focal length issue.  Its nice to have just one lens when out walking around.

5545
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.

5546
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.

5547
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.

5548
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.

5549
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.
 

5550
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.

Pages: 1 ... 368 369 [370] 371 372 ... 622