« on: August 15, 2014, 01:27:22 PM »
24mm f/1.4 A $1100?
Please anyone, what was the introduction price of the 35mm?
Please anyone, what was the introduction price of the 35mm?
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.
On this topic (an a little off it as well), please recommend a little external flash that I can use for fill-flash on a 5D series body when traveling. I currently have a Metz Mecablitz 48 AF-1 that's great but way too big for that purpose.
The 270EX II is relatively small, sits low on top of the camera, and has some bounce capability as well. Uses 2AA batteries. Obviously, it suffers from the same issues as a pop-up flash - not very powerful and close enough to the lens that redeye can be a problem. But if you don't want to pack a 600EX-RT, it's small enough to carry easily when you might just need a little light.
I thought ring lights were for macro stuff where the subject is virtually pressed against the lens and just getting any light on it can be a challenge?
Have you ever looked at studio strobes? You get ringlights from all brands, and they aren't excactly useable for macro work.
I think you're talking about something that falls under the category of "off camera flash" much better than "on camera flash" which is the subject of this thread.
Fantastic, have fun with that on your next vacation.
Out of curiosity, what does the EXIF tagging show for the f-stop? From what I've seen when working with MF lenses, I'm fairly certain the lens can't lie to the camera about its wide-open aperture, or else every shot would be underexposed by a stop. But perhaps it could get around that by lying about every setting equally. If that were the case, wide-open shots would claim to be f/5.6 at the long end, even though they really can't be.
First of all, the EXIF data is always correct. But somehow third party lenses have had a workaround that bypassed the f/5.6 maximum aperture limitation for many years. I understand that the trickery is not so much about metering as it by bypassing that limitation. Magic Lantern software also can bypass that same limitation for all lenses, so it obviously more of a software limitation than it is a physical limitation.
After studying the lens protocol, I think I get it. The camera asks the lens to report its maximum aperture, but that's the maximum aperture for the whole lens, not for the current zoom setting. When the camera sends a command to fully open the lens, the lens reports the actual aperture. I'd imagine that the check to decide whether to autofocus or not is based on the maximum aperture reported by the lens, rather than the aperture that the lens reports when the camera tells it to open all the way at the beginning of focusing.
So as long as the lens says that it can open up to f/5.6 or wider, even if it really fails 100% of the time in practice, the camera will make the attempt.
With that said, I only spent about three minutes looking over the lens protocol, so I could be wrong.
+1 - I'm on my nice calibrated monitor now, and while I agree mostly, it's very much red in the center and orange on the outer petals. It's a beautiful flower.Thank you all, especially Jon and McG.
Nice shot Mrs.... only that on my monitor, the flower shows as a deep burnt orange, not red
Same here. That looks like a some kind of Poppy, and they are usually more orange than red.
it's orange here on my crappy monitor, nice shot though.
Direct light coming off the camera is horrendous.
I honestly can't think of a useful way to use a pop-up flash (other than blinding people in dark rooms so that you can run away).
It's still the worst place for light to come from regardless if its the primary light source or fill. In every conceivable circumstance i would want my fill coming from off camera..even if its slightly off axis.
To me pop up flash doesnt belong on the pro bodies simply because of the location in which the light is coming from (directly above lens). The optical master argument is a thin one, every flash is an optical master (which is the problem with optical triggering...you cant prevent other sources from triggering your strobes).
Would having a pop up flash on the 5d or 1dx bother me even if I never used it? Yes. Those things inevitably and stupidly seem to end up popping up on their own causing distraction and getting in the way.
Count me firmly in the camp of pop up flash hater.
Absolutely, the in-camera WB has an effect on exposure.Nice photo MRS! I would like to clarify what you said above - it has an effect on the exposure of JPEGs and histograms, but zero affect on the exposure itself in RAW, and it does not affect the metering.
Annnnnnd this is why I'm not a pro.
Mackguyver: ETTR is not new to me at all, I've been doing that for some time. That principal is well in-hand for me.
But if I understood your and Jrista's posts correctly, I just learned that my in-camera WB does affect my RAW files due to its effect on metering. That's a big deal for me, as I shoot everything in AWB and JPG+RAW, and I simply correct the white balance in my keeper RAW files.
So now I do need to sweat my WB. I always thought that RAW alleviated me of that burden and I just focused on a general (non-color-specific) histo.
I have often struggled with red objects in my 5d3. I wrote last year about it but did not get any replies. Yesterday while trying out my new 85 1.2 ii, I saw the same issue.
Red flowers come out in an over saturated red haze. The other colors seem saturated just fine, but the reds are over powered so much that the flowers lose detail.
I can reduced saturation in LR, but then the whole image looks washed out... the issue is only with reds.
If I reduce just red (Red channel only) , then it lacks punch, although I get back details in the flower...
Has anyone else observed this?
I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length
I second that. I really love my CZJ Flektogon 20/2.8 although I miss autofocus. A 24mm f/1.4 is already made by Canon so I don't see the need for Sigma to do this too. I'd rather had a 20mm f/1.4 with a close focusing distance of 19mm like the Flek. And yeah, I know there's the 20mm F1.8 EX DG by Sigma but that lens is dated, it has no hypersonic AF (HSM).
How do they differ in the way they sharpen? When would you use one over the other and how much sharpening is usually required and how much is too much?
I just "googled" "how to set DPP by default to 'sharpness' instead of 'unsharp mask' for 5DMkIII images?" and couldn't find the solution to your dilemma. Maybe Canon can fix this in a future version.
When in a pinch the 70-200mm F2.8 MKII with 2x converter work pretty well. I only have the V2 converter, its easier than carrying two lenses and the IQ is pretty good IMO close to the 100-400mm at 400 but the AF is slower... but with the 5DMKIII I missed very few shots, also the 4 stop IS works great with the 2x.
Couple of recent examples, all commercial. As you can see, they are very sharp, and two of the below are very quick and the combo had no trouble.
BMW CSL 1973, Batmobile, Colin Turkington, Jet Super Touring Car Trophy, Silverstone Classic 2014 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr
I see what you did there.
It would be strange for a manufacturer renowned for their AF camera's...