November 28, 2014, 02:18:02 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 - mrsfotografie

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 97
31
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:52:00 PM »
Sweet!

But for economic's sake my Samyang 14mm will probably remain my ultra-wide solution for the foreseeable future.

32
To: "mrsfotografie" & "tayassu"
You've inspired me to share my image of Black Beach in San Diego.  I like this image so much that I printed it and have it hanging in my house.  It constantly amazes me that I took it with a Canon SD600, even now that I have much more advanced equipment.

That is a very nice shot and it shows the great color reproduction and tonal qualities that Canon Powershots can be capable of. Thanks for sharing :)

33
As my 7D is in the "hospital" at the Moment, I got my very first camera out of retirement: the PowerShot A520... worse ISO Performance at ISO400 than my 7D @ISO12800, but who cares? Love this thing, has got ISO50 and an OVF!! :D
#vintageselfie ;)

I had a Canon PowerShot A590 IS that I loved. Unfortunately it had a lens centering defect that was apparent in the middle of the zoom range. No matter, here's a panorama of Porto de Luanda I made from the top floor of Hotel Presidente, Luanda, Angola. The A590 IS was perfect for this business trip because I didn't dare take my DSLR over there... The a590 IS was very practical and it was the smallest and cheapest *real* camera that I have owned. In fact I may at some point try to find a good copy for nostalgia sake (and it's still a really great little camera with great controls and fantastic color reproduction).

34
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC Gets First Test
« on: October 08, 2014, 01:54:17 AM »
One of the best things that I saw in this video was the microcontrast on that page of text.  If you have watched his video on the Zeiss Otus 85, you will find that this text compares very nicely to the what the Otus did in similar situations, where he contrasted it with the 85L II.  That microcontrast could mean some serious pop in shots taken for, say, wedding photography (that, to me, is one of the potentially most exciting applications for this lens).

Really?  I actively avoid rectilinear ultrawides for people photography because of the egg-head phenomenon you get at the edges of the frame.  That's why I like the fisheye for that - keeps people's heads round.  In fact, when I have shot rectilinear, I've often added a massive amount of barrel distortion in post just for this reason.

In that sense I've found the native 'moustache' distortion of the Samyang 14mm to be very beneficial when there are people at the edge of the frame. Doing a lens correction on that one quite significantly stretches the edges (and makes it less 'wide' too). Natively it's relatively forgiving for people at the edges of the frame so for stuff that doesn't necessarily have to be too rectilinear I leave the lens correction off.

35
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 08, 2014, 01:48:23 AM »
Is it possible to unsubscribe from threads on these forums, so they don't show up in your new replies list?

I would like that option too.

36
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 01:41:07 AM »
"AT CANON, WE SEE IMPOSSIBLE"

It means that Canon sees its impossible so give us what we want.

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr

Inverted lens hoods as standard?  ;D ;D

37
Canon General / Re: seeimpossible.usa.canon.com?
« on: October 06, 2014, 01:40:06 AM »
New lens caps.

Threaded ones which seal better, no more of this leaky center-pinch nonsense.

Jim

Haha, screw-in lens caps ;D

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 20mm f/1.8
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:50:58 AM »
There are some really nice Leica 19mm and 21mm primes that produce very nice images but unfortunately don't come in EF mounts.

That Nikon have a 20mm prime is very interesting.

I'd love it if Canon did a non-TS/E prime between 17 and 22mm.

There's this Zeiss too (but it's f/2.8)

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/distagont2821.html

39
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 20mm f/1.8
« on: October 03, 2014, 01:52:09 AM »
As for 20/1.8 - I cannot put a finger on that one, rather odd combination of focal lenght and aperture, quite interesting actually, just not that common :)

While perhaps not the greatest lens in the world, I have the Sigma with those specifications. It does allow for a lot of creative leverage (bokeh in close up wide angle shots). Despite it's optically so-so performance at wide apertures, it's a 'fun' lens and that's the primary reason I haven't sold it, and it still finds its way to my camera body every once in a while.

40
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: One is the loneliest number...
« on: October 01, 2014, 03:03:06 PM »
Some shoots I carry two full frame bodies, for instance a WA prime on one and a telezoom on the other. Often I think of what I'll need and have those lenses on the bodies already before I go to the shoot. This saves swapping lenses and potential of dust getting in the camera. Sometimes I have an extra contingency lens in the bag.

Other times I'll just carry one body, or my mirrorless with several lenses. When traveling it's mostly one gripless body though with the bare minimum 3 or 4 lenses I think I'll need.

One rule I have is everything I take HAS to fit in my Lowepro Minitrekker AW. Taking choices what to bring helps me concentrate on what and how to shoot before actually going there. This has really helped me improve my photography. It also limits the volume and weight I carry, saving my back and helping my mobility.

Example of a recent outing with 5DIII + Samyang 14mm and 5DII + 24-105L: http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/evenementen/stadskanaal-onder-stoom/

Notice how using the two bodies allows a mix of focal length ranges throughout the series without swapping lenses.

41
Hrmpfh! The forum didn't agree with me and my posting. Doing it again in a separate post.

Update 2 - The thumbnails of two images in DPP. One without, one with DLO.

Thanks again! I found this on the matter, too: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/dlo/howto/index.html

However S-RAW, M-RAW, JPEG, and TIFF images are not supported and I usually shoot SRAW1 (5DMkII), and MRAW (5DMkIII). I will evaluate if there's an advantage in it for me, but I normally downsize my images for digital viewing and well below the ~10 megapixels I shoot with. The 10 megapixels is sufficient for any material I've printed, largest on canvas. The hit on storage space is definitely not a plus because I shoot and process a lot of images... also not sure how my aging computer would handle these files.

42
Does anyone ever use that option in the editor to 'update' the lens data (via "add or remove lens data" dialog)? What's the benefit if you do? I find it downloads a lot of data and I don't see any difference - the Canon lenses are suitably correctly even if I don't download anything.

...

I have updated the lens data a few times. It took a long time before 400/5.6L USM appeared for the first time in that list.
You don't have to download the data for all lenses Canon released, but if you want to apply the DLO corrections you will have to do so manually.

Interesting, I did register those lenses in my collection with my Canon bodies via EOS utility, so I wonder if this data is now embedded in the raw files?

If applied, it will show up as a plus sign under the lens symbol in the top right corner of the thumbnails you see in the program. Typically, your CR2-files will grow to double the original size. Did a quick check on two of my 7D-files: The one without DLO - 23.3MB, and the other one with DLO - 44.8MB.

DominoDude, thanks for sharing this info.  :)

43
Does anyone ever use that option in the editor to 'update' the lens data (via "add or remove lens data" dialog)? What's the benefit if you do? I find it downloads a lot of data and I don't see any difference - the Canon lenses are suitably correctly even if I don't download anything.

...

I have updated the lens data a few times. It took a long time before 400/5.6L USM appeared for the first time in that list.
You don't have to download the data for all lenses Canon released, but if you want to apply the DLO corrections you will have to do so manually.

Interesting, I did register those lenses in my collection with my Canon bodies via EOS utility, so I wonder if this data is now embedded in the raw files?

44
Does anyone ever use that option in the editor to 'update' the lens data (via "add or remove lens data" dialog)? What's the benefit if you do? I find it downloads a lot of data and I don't see any difference - the Canon lenses are suitably correctly even if I don't download anything.

It's interesting to see what improvements Canon has made. I never particularly liked Lightroom but I am forced to use it for my Sony raws, and I've started to use it for my Canon files too if I've used the Samyang 14mm in a series (to correct for distortion). DPP has a much faster workflow but offers less editing latitude.

45
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: September 29, 2014, 12:02:03 PM »
Also most are in the same camp bout the mega pixel war and know that sony needs to create more native faster lenses 'I'd rather have faster autofocus, in body stabilization, quieter shutter and more native lenses (and faster ones) than more megapixels.'

That's right, as an a6000 owner I would like Sony to invest more in good (aps-c) glass and less in megapixels and overall nerdiness. At high iso the NEX-6 was as good or better than the a6000. Still, the a6000 is the better camera from a usability point of view (and the picture styles finally incorporate a good 'neutral' similar to the style from Canon).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 97