July 26, 2014, 01:56:28 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 - panicboy

Pages: [1] 2
1
Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 01, 2014, 11:20:05 AM »
I have had 3 copies of the 24 L II and I was very impressed with the feel of the lens and except the lens hood, very nice build quality. But that's it. I didn't like it at all IQ wise and AF was absolutely useless.

May I ask what you did not like about the IQ of the 24 L II?

Yes you may! Mine wasn't very sharp, both because of AF issues and I didn't have a great copy, it had annoying CA. The things I liked about it was the 1.4 of course, superb color and good contrast. But I always liked the 35 L better for AF and focal length. If I had one with the AF as good as the 35 and sharpness to match I might like better.

OK, thank you. I also own a 24 L II and I find the image quality amazing. Admittedly, the AF could be a bit faster, but it focuses very reliably on my 5d, even at f/1.4 without AFMA (which the 5d does not have). I guess I had luck with my copy.

2
Lenses / Re: Waiting for the 35 1.4L II
« on: June 01, 2014, 04:38:16 AM »
I have had 3 copies of the 24 L II and I was very impressed with the feel of the lens and except the lens hood, very nice build quality. But that's it. I didn't like it at all IQ wise and AF was absolutely useless.

May I ask what you did not like about the IQ of the 24 L II?

3
Technical Support / Re: Front focusing issue with Canon 50mm f/1.4
« on: May 21, 2014, 01:59:03 AM »
I also own a 5d and a 50 1.4 and, while the AF is not very consistent with this camera/lens combo, the inconsistency is somewhat random, i.e. it does not "prefer" to front focus nor to back focus. Plus, I think that it tends to misfocus more often on longer rather than on shorter distances.

These are non-scientific observations, i.e. I did not make any measurements and statistics, just been shooting with the camera/lens combo over the past year or so. In general, I have been pretty happy with the results most of the time.

4
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: February 10, 2014, 04:27:30 PM »
Thats how german girls look from behind. :P
(not all, unfortunately...)

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: moving from nikon D40 to Canon 5 D (classic)
« on: November 16, 2013, 04:48:35 AM »
Thanks. Now, of the 20,000 images I've taken on the D40 so far, none were RAW. I didn't even think about it actually. I also didn't risk shooting raw + jpeg as the D40 gives the option of basic jpeg if Raw is used as the primary option.

So basic questions -
a) How long does it take to convert a single image into JPEG if shot in RAW?
b) I assume I wont be able to view anything on screen if I shoot that format? So how do I check if the image came out 'OK'? I've been using the LCD on the back of D40 to check if the photo came out OK.

p.s. based on the previous poster's suggestions, I'm leaning towards D7000 now as am so far shooting only JPEG.

For me, RAW is the only way to go. If you shoot JPEG, you "throw away" lots of information, so your postprocessing capabilities are greatly reduced.

a) On my computer (Intel Core i7-3770K 3.50GHz) running Debian Linux with Canon DPP via wine it takes about 3 seconds per image from the 5d. But this number depends on the postprocessing steps selected for the image, e.g. if you enable noise reduction it will take longer. Unfortunately, DPP does not use the multithreading-capabilities of the CPU (yet).

b) Yes, you will be able to do so. Each RAW file (at least of Canon cameras) contains an embedded JPEG preview file, which is used by some programs for display (including the camera itself, which displays the embedded JPEG on the LCD). A program that I use for quick previewing the RAW files is geeqie (on Linux).

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: moving from nikon D40 to Canon 5 D (classic)
« on: November 15, 2013, 02:47:59 AM »
Recently, I moved from a 50d to a 5d and, so far, I am very happy.

For me, the most significant advantages of the 5d over the 50d are:
  • Less noise (the 50d was pretty noisy)
  • Shallow DOF
  • Better image sharpness
  • Better/more consistent metering
  • My EF lenses can now be used at their "real" focal lengths

The most significant disadvantages are:
  • Lack of live view (albeit, in most situations you find a way around it if you don't have it)
  • More size and weight
  • Lack of AFMA (albeit, I seem to be lucky: my lenses so far all focus spot-on)
  • The AF points are spread wider on the 50d, which I sometimes miss on the 5d

All in all, I prefer the 5d over the 50d. IMO, it delivers significantly better image quality, which is most important for me. In addition, I kinda like the 5d, because it feels so "pure" as a photography tool and it is a great joy to open the RAW files on your computer screen and see the quality it produced in the field. In contrast, the 50d output in difficult conditions often disappointed me and required much postprocessing to reach acceptable quality.

7
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 17, 2013, 02:50:20 PM »
Morning Sunrays
Scotland 2011

8
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 17, 2013, 02:46:36 PM »
Loch Morlich
Scotland 2011

9
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: August 17, 2013, 02:41:20 PM »
Plenty
Scotland 2011

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Photoshop help with this img
« on: July 19, 2013, 05:23:45 PM »
The wall adds nothing to the image. It's not an interesting composition or background. So, I would just crop it around your son.

I disagree. The background isnt the subject.  IMO it's a good thing the background is just a simple wall—because it stands back and lets the kid be the focus.  Removing it removes the personal feel and would make it look like a stock/studio photo.

+1

11
ping ;-)

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you really serious about 6D?
« on: December 19, 2012, 03:00:32 AM »
Different strokes I guess, also, everyone looking at these bodies has their own needs to fill.  For me, I have a mk3 so this would be a backup body.  Yeah, the price difference isn't that huge (in the sticker at least, it's closer to $1200 difference after tax though).  To me, that is the cost of a 135 f2L.  If your on a mk2 looking to upgrade though, then yeah the 6d may not be as big of a leap as you want.  But if your on a 60D, then just the FF sensor alone is reason to buy!  Different strokes!

And if you're an a 50d? That's what I am and I feel that the 6d would be a downgrade in several ways:
  • Maximum shutter speed
  • Flash sync speed
  • AF-Point distribution across the viewfinder
  • Ergonomics (the joystick is missing, so I cannot switch AF points easily)
  • Burst rate
  • SD instead of CF cards

That's why I am still not sure how my "way to FF" should look like. If the 6d specs were similiar to those of the Nikon d600 I think my decision would be clear. But now I think I will go 5dMk2 (which is still much cheaper than 6d when bought used), so Canon won't be seeing any of my money.
In fact, IMO already the 60d was a downgrade from the great 50d in several ways (worse ergonomics + missing AFMA coming into my mind).

13
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M or ...???
« on: October 29, 2012, 06:40:35 PM »
The Fuji X100.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« on: October 04, 2012, 03:21:33 AM »
Still too much vitriol about a camera that none of you have tried, or even read a review.

I had my hands on the 6d at Photokina for about 5 Minutes. For me, the AF seemed pretty good, it even managed to focus when I pointed the camera to the very dark ceiling, no matter if I chose the center or one of the outer AF points.

What annoyed me much more was the missing stick. Without it, the 6d lost usability compared to my trusty 50d. This is why I started looking at 5d Mk2 offers again...

15
Software & Accessories / Re: What are most people using for processing RAW
« on: September 22, 2012, 03:30:41 AM »
Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom.  Of course, there are many users who use other software, they are all pretty good, but I believe that more raw photographers use the two above.

And Linux users use DPP running under WINE.
or at least I do because I am, I don't think there's too many of us around though...

+1

Pages: [1] 2