April 19, 2014, 12:23:33 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 ... 368 369 [370] 371 372 ... 500
Lenses / Re: 16-35mm II "Loose" - Repair costs?
« on: April 01, 2012, 10:42:15 PM »
I'd be suprised if it only cost $200, but there is only one way to find out, and you know how.  If you are a CPS member, you get a discount on repairs for registered equipment. Canon has a minimum charge just to take it apart and troubleshoot it.
When buying a used lens, I make sure the price is low enough for a trip to canon for a repair and not end up costing new price.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d3 settings
« on: April 01, 2012, 09:30:22 PM »
The camera, or at least mine came setup with the best settings for jpegs.  I merely changed it to shoot RAW for the first tests, and then set it up to allow expanded ISO and to allow auto ISO to go to 25600 for testing purposes.
I'd say do not make changes at first other than switching to RAW.  Most of the settings that you change for jpegs like turning off NR do not apply to or affect raw, so you apply your settings in post processing when using raw.  This means RAW images will not come out looking colorful, sharp, and as beautiful as jpeg images, but you will be able to improve them to a much greater degree.
Then, when you are producing sharp images, start changing settings as you need to acomplish specific goals.  Some start changing settings, at first, and then do not realize why their images do not turn out like they expect.
Some processors like DXO convert RAWS to be very good looking immediately, while Adobe Lightroom works best if you tweak images from each ISO level and then save those settings to be applied on import.  That way, you set the processing you like for a ISO 6400 image, for example, and then save that as the starting point for images imported with that ISO.  You can make the settings the same accross all ISO levels, of course, but I don't apply any NR except for high ISO levels, and sharpening varies with ISO as well.

The 7D as well as my 5D MK II had a steep learning curve, and I was struggling at first.  With my 5D, I started on a local school play with the rehearsal, and went 4 nights in a row, taking 500-1000 shots, and bringing them back to review and plan new settings for the next night.  It was a struggle, but the final nights images were pretty good.
Lightroom three really made things easier, it immediately gave images better IQ and less apparent noise.  Now, I'm learning to be proficient with LR4 at the same time I use my 5D MK III. 
The 5D3 seems to have a much cleaner and more refined sensor.  Taking black frames and pulling up the exposure shows almost none of the nastier artifacts that were apparent with my 5D MK II sensor.  I think the cleaner sensor allows more leeway to do extreme edits, but that will take a while for me to totally digest.  One thing I have learned is to take one step at a time and not make any snap judgements.  Its too easy to get discouraged before you learn the proper use of the tool.

Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site Information
« on: April 01, 2012, 09:04:40 PM »
Wow, Vbulletin really appears to be a big step up in capability.  Good support for mobile users, and a ton of features. 
Do you plan to have a preliminary test installation for users to try out?

They seem noisy.  Are you pulling up the darks in that first one?
I do not like to use my 7D over ISO 800.
Here is one at ISO 400 cropped quite a bit

At ISO 1600 in low light with no NR.  It cleans up with just a touch of NR.

Now, from the same school play with my 5D MK II and ISO 6400.  NR was either off, or minimal.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is 5D3 maximum optimal ISO ??
« on: April 01, 2012, 07:53:07 PM »
For ordinary printed images, I'd have no problem at any setting, I've printed some up to ISO 102000 and they look sharp clear and no visible noise printed at 8.5 X 11.
Looking at Raws with no NR at 100%, you definitely notice noise creeping in at ISO 3200, but its generally not a issue even at 6400 as long as you have a perfect exposure.  Underexpose at high ISO's and it falls apart.
With Lightroom 4, there is no more fill light, which is a good thing.  You can be much more precise about pulling up dark areas with the new controls.

Lenses / Re: !00mm macro L or non L
« on: April 01, 2012, 07:46:00 PM »
I had two or three non L versions and sold them all.  I like to hand hold them, and could not get consistently sharp images hand held.  For many images, it took so long to focus that using AI Servo, I often clicked the shutter before the lens had finally focused, or at least, that what I suspected.
I'm much happier with the "L" as a walk around lens, it focuses quickly, and the Hybrid IS lets me take handheld images that are reasonably sharp. 
As long as you are patient and careful, the 100mm USM is plenty sharp, its just not the best choice for someone who is impatient.
Here are some I took with the 100mmL just walking around.


Here is one with the 100mm USM


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III at F/8 and smaller Tests
« on: April 01, 2012, 07:28:21 PM »
Sounds like what happens with my 7D, 70-300L, and Kenko 1.4x T/C (which doesn't translate aperture).
Sometimes it focusses, a lot of the time it just hunts, even when I MF it to the correct spot it will go to one extreme or the other.

Do you have a 5D2 or 7D lying around to compare results?

My 5D M II worked with the 70-200mm f/4L and my 1.4X TC reasonably well.  I don't recall if my 7D worked.  It already has a 1.6 advantage, but is noisy for high ISO which is needed for high shutter speeds and small apertures.
My 1D MK III would usually work at f/11.

post links to your problem images.  We don't know what level of noise you consider unacceptable.  There may be something wrong with your camera, or you might want something that doesn't exist.

A low pass filter is just that.  It cuts off high frequencies that are perceived as sharpness / contrast at the expense of causing moire patterns.  Some low pass filtering is also usually done in firmware on conversion to jpeg.
This has been known for a very long time as the Nyquist limit.    As we get smaller and smaller photosites, the Nyquist limit is increased, and the possibility of having a usable camera is increased as in the Nikon D800.  Even then, it needs filtering in software / firmware to soften the image and reduce moire.
However my 5D MK III is not soft.  Being limited to studio work where lighting can be controlled to minimize moire patterns is the penalty for removing the filter.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Update: 5D Mark III at F/8 and smaller Tests
« on: April 01, 2012, 04:16:39 PM »
Its stopped snowing, and the 1 inch of snow has melted, so I went out to the studio and pulled out my 70-200 f/4L IS and 100-400mm L and taped the contacts on the lens rather than the TC, simply because it was temporary and easier.
First, I tried the 100-400mmL and 1.4X TC (f/8 equivalent).  At 100mm which is a little faster than f/8, the lens did focus fairly reliably but not fast.  At 400mm, it hunted, but did manage to focus.  I suppose its usable, but pretty slow.  I panned the lens at 400mm from distant to near, and the focus did follow fairly well.
Then, I put the 2X TC on my 100-400 (f/11) and it tried and erratically found focus, but I'd call it a failure, because it sometimes focused incorrectly (fuzzy image).
Next, I taped the 70-200mm f/4 L IS and attached the 2X TC (F/8).  I tried it at 70 and 200mm as well.
At 70mm, the lens was unstable, but eventually found focus for near objects.  For far objects, it focused slowly.  At 200mm, the lens would not focus on near objects, but wanted to chatter like my 135mm L.  At intermediate and far distances, it failed to focus except sporadically, so I call that a failure.
To summarize,
My 70-200mm f/2.8L (Non IS) focused fine, quickly at 70mm and 200mm every time with a 2X and 1.4X TC stacked (f/8 equalivent). 
My 100-400mmL + 1.4X TC worked, but not well, and would focus slowly with considerable hunting.   
My 70-200mm f/4 L IS was basically unusable with a 1.4X TC.
My 135mm L worked fine at longer distances with stacked TC's, but was slow to focus.
I'd say that a firmware fix would not work for reliable f/8 AF, a new sensor design would be needed, but some combinations of taped TC's and lenses might just work.
I'd be interested to here if the new 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MK II works like my old one.  Mine worked suprisingly well.

Lenses / Re: Tripod collar for 70-300L: Does it really exist?
« on: April 01, 2012, 03:04:07 PM »
Canon seems to miss out on a good business opportunity by not making them available at a reasonable price.  They cost the Chinese 3 or 4 dollars to make, Canon could have a higher quality one made for $8, and sell a ton for $39.95.

Site Information / Re: Canon Rumors Site Information
« on: April 01, 2012, 02:06:36 PM »
I saw one person make his first post this morning, nothing wrong with it, and he already has a -1. 

Yes, some are fooled easily.
Just google RH-1 and April Fools Day

Lenses / Re: Which lenses need micro-adjusting?
« on: April 01, 2012, 01:33:20 PM »
Virtually all lenses can use some micro adjust of the focus.  I have 14 lenses plus 2 TC's and use Reikan FoCal software to check them all.  I did this on both my 7D and 5D MK II.  I used to think that my lenses did not need it, but getting a accurate tool really helped.
Only my 300mm f/4L did not need AFMA on either camera, and I sold it to help fund my 5D MK III.
The curve plotted by FoCal Pro shows why you might not really need to adjust, the top of the curve can be broad so a little focus error might not be a problem.  If you have a very wide aperture lens, it can be a narrow peak.


Pages: 1 ... 368 369 [370] 371 372 ... 500