Messages

451

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Firmware 1.2.5 Posted Again

« on: April 26, 2011, 05:46:33 PM »

I've calibrated 14 lenses on my 7D

–1   EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

On my 5DII, I've calibrated 8 lenses and all of them have needed some adjustment:

+5   EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

LOL, pretty much a smoking gun in my book for body tolerances...seems like if any lens would have tight tolerances for "right" (whatever that is), this would be the one.

452

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Firmware 1.2.5 Posted Again

« on: April 26, 2011, 05:22:54 PM »

I would agree that maybe micro adjust "all lens" or "body" (can't recall what the menu says). It looks like a bad front focus and probably the 10% good shots are when it "misses"?

Is that a proper "fix" though?  Manual says to avoid MF adjustments unless absolutely necessary.  Seems odd that a new body would be incompatible with so many lenses... no?

I found it extremely easy to do with a makeshift similar to a Lens Align Pro (basically a ruler and a small target). Helped a bunch and is totally non-invasive in that its just a setting on a menu that you can undo at any time. I'd sure try it out since it's free and only takes a few minutes...might save you sending all your stuff in to Canon, though I'm sure they'd fix you up. My new 50d seems to be off 5 or 6 clicks since my new 100mm L macro on this body needed +6 and a new Sigma needed +5...so I'm thinking its the body not the lenses...but very simple to fix no matter what is to blame (and who knows what it will be for the next lens?).

453

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Firmware 1.2.5 Posted Again

« on: April 26, 2011, 02:17:10 PM »

I would agree that maybe micro adjust "all lens" or "body" (can't recall what the menu says). It looks like a bad front focus and probably the 10% good shots are when it "misses"?

454

Software & Accessories / Re: Digital Photo Professional 3.10.1 Updater

« on: April 26, 2011, 01:58:31 PM »

I'm giving the PhaseONE Capture One Pro 6 product a whirl. Just bought a copy after seeing some very good reports on it, will post findings in a couple of weeks...

http://www.phaseone.com/en/Software/Capture-One-Pro-6/About/Pro-Overview.aspx

455

Lenses / Re: Lens filter: step-down adapter ring, or not?

« on: April 21, 2011, 05:09:15 PM »

Shelling out for a really good filter the correct size is worth it to me just so I can leave it on and not risk cross threading the lens itself. I don't know how others feel about stacking a CP onto a UV but if they're good (like B+W MRC) seems like a non issue as long as no vingette. I'd rather cross thread two filters (even good ones) than ruin the threads on an expensive lens...and the less times I have to thread it on the less chance I screw it up.

456

Lenses / Re: Update for Canon 50mms anytime soon till next year?

« on: April 21, 2011, 01:25:18 PM »

FWIW - I just got a new copy of the Sigma last night from B&H (after they ran out of stock and then got more, so I'm guessing this one is very recent production) and did some testing. Apparently they've made some changes to address the focus shift. I shot some test charts like you see elsewhere on the net for this lens and it still has a little bit of shift, but nothing like you see at sites that tested the early ones.

Adding to my previous comments, the focus charts for the 85mm f/1.4 Sigma at photozone.de look virtually identical in terms of focus shift across apeture to what I shot with my very recent copy 50mm F1/4 Sigma.

457

EOS Bodies / Re: Question about RAW

« on: April 21, 2011, 12:21:43 PM »

Hope that makes sense.

Yes, there are differences in processing between in-camera and DPP...it's doing a better job of the JPG conversion.

That makes sense and I'll probably continue to shoot only RAW and just mess with the color temp and balance in-cam and leave the rest to DPP, That seemed to be working great and LOL now I know why. Thanks again for your input.

458

EOS Bodies / Re: Question about RAW

« on: April 20, 2011, 09:22:20 PM »

Thanks everyone for your replies. I'm a software developer and also have a background in audio so I 'get it' about the data and meta data being seperate, using a lossless format etc and it all makes perfect sense.

So now that I understand that is what is going on, do all of the in-camera processing functions get applied to the RAW's meta data or just some of them? Just trying to get a practical handle on the capabilities so I can put together a workflow that fits me.

Also, are there any differences in processing quality for any given function (say noise reduction for example) between in camera processing and the Canon software?

Thanks again everyone for chiming in, it is very helpful.

459

EOS Bodies / Question about RAW

« on: April 20, 2011, 04:48:33 PM »

My understanding of RAW is that it is simply the data "as-is" read from the sensor and saved on the memory card with no processing applied. However, I found that the color temp as set in a 50d directly affects the color temp of the saved RAW image. Are other in-camera functions applied to RAW as well?

Sorry for such a basic question but I'm new to DSLR and the last time I was serious about cameras was back in the film days. I thought the description of RAW in the manual was pretty straight forward until I tested color temp on it.

460

Lenses / Re: Update for Canon 50mms anytime soon till next year?

« on: April 20, 2011, 09:27:13 AM »

Why would you want to downgrade it to be like the Sigma?  It beats the sigma in independent tests on FF cameras that it is designed for.

Because the Canon 1.4 doesn't beat the Sigma 1.4 on a crop body.

FWIW - I just got a new copy of the Sigma last night from B&H (after they ran out of stock and then got more, so I'm guessing this one is very recent production) and did some testing. Apparently they've made some changes to address the focus shift. I shot some test charts like you see elsewhere on the net for this lens and it still has a little bit of shift, but nothing like you see at sites that tested the early ones.

461

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2011, 03:41:28 PM »

Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.

The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens, at f/8 in the center, is actually pretty darn sharp.   

My copy of the 24-105mm f/4L IS is reasonably sharp.  It's not as sharp as my other lenses in that focal range (4 L-series primes and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II), but it's certainly not soft.  The trade-off in terms of versatility is worth it, to me.

LOL, my bad for not specifying this was all at f/5.6 50mm for the zooms tested (plus this was an old non IS 18-55 II).

462

Lenses / Re: Update for Canon 50mms anytime soon till next year?

« on: April 19, 2011, 01:19:36 PM »

I would love to see Canon come out with a 50 1.4 II...something that had the IQ of the Sigma but without the focus shift and also would work well on FF. I'd buy it immediately!

463

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon vs Nikon in terms of Lens, Equipement, UI, Support

« on: April 19, 2011, 01:08:33 PM »

I'll only comment on the video use part of the question.

For my uses, the biggest fly in the ointment for video is camera shake and DSLR IS systems are not the best answer in my opinion. That said, a Sony CX550 is an excellent choice for videocam due to its "no-contest better" anti-shake...I went for one of those for video and was amazed that chasing around a 14 month old toddler in a gym with camera held right by his ear looked almost like it was shot on a dolly the anti-shake was so good. Virtually none of the "reset jerks" you get with DSLR IS or other videocams. But the big downside is that you don't get the options for shallow depth of field and low light like you get with DSLR video. So consider what is most important or just get both tools to use accordingly .

464

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2011, 12:39:24 PM »

I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.

Have you objectively compared the sharpness of it to a 100 macro or 70-200 or something else known to be sharp? The reason I ask is to help determine if the particular one I tried was just off or if it is a characteristic of the design. I may be interested in the existing one if a II doesn't materialize fairly soon and there is reason to try another copy.

I have all three lenses you mention.  The 24-105mm L is not quite as sharp as the 100mm L or the 70-200mm L, but it is close.  Its invalid, of course to compare a 4:1 zoom with a prime or a telephoto zoom, wide angles are not as sharp as telephotos.

If you want objective comparisons, there are plenty of sites to do this, I like photozone for comparisons.  The results on a crop or on a FF camera will vary as well, so when someone likes a lens on their crop camera, it may not be the same on FF.  Thats why so many user comments need to be taken in context to the body they use.

OK, that helps. I don't expect it to be like a 70-200 but I would expect it to be quite a bit better than a 28-135 or 18-55, which this one wasn't in terms of sharpness. So it sounds to me like it's worth another try if the II doesn't show up soon.

Of course its all relative but if a 18-55 was a "1" and the 100 macro was a "100" on a scale of sharpness, this particular 24-105 would have been about a "15" at best. Sound like yours might be about a "60" or "70" on such a scale? I would be happy with that.

465

Lenses / Re: EF 24-105 f/4L IS II [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2011, 12:16:52 PM »

I'm very happy with the sharpness, color and contrast from this lens.

Have you objectively compared the sharpness of it to a 100 macro or 70-200 or something else known to be sharp? The reason I ask is to help determine if the particular one I tried was just off or if it is a characteristic of the design. I may be interested in the existing one if a II doesn't materialize fairly soon and there is reason to try another copy.