Messages

136

Lenses / Re: 85 mm Lens

« on: September 26, 2012, 07:18:39 PM »

I use the 85 f/1.2 for closer work on a 1 series body and the 135 for 3/4 or full length shots.  Both are excellent lenses.  The 85 f/1.2 focuses more slowly and can by tricky to use wide open but gives excellent results.  The 135 is light, cheaper and very sharp.  The 135 will give better compression and a more pleasing shape to a face than a wider lens.

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

137

Lenses / Re: Lens Filters -- preference?

« on: September 26, 2012, 07:12:28 PM »

Thanks -- I saw three B&W 77 mm XSPros... 1) Kaesemann Circular Polarizer MRC Nano Filter, 2) UV MRC-Nano 010M Filter and  3) Clear MRC-Nano 007

If I wanted a CPL, I'd choose the CPL - that's for optical effect (reduce reflection, increase saturation, darken blue skies, not to be left on all the time as it costs you ~1.75 stops of light).

If I wanted protection for the front element, I'd choose either 2 or 3 - for a dSLR there's no difference so get whichever is cheaper.

Yep, +1.

138

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 60D actually doesn't need AFMA?

« on: September 26, 2012, 04:10:58 PM »

I don't have a 60D, but put a 200 f/2 or an 85 f/1.2 on there and shoot wide open and see if you still think there are no front/back focusing issues.  You might be lucky and have a perfectly matched body to your lenses, but probably not.

My 1DsM2 was perfect with all of my lenses as well, but that was probably because I couldn't AFMA it and I just didn't know how sharp it really could have been. 

139

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX (Jpeg)

« on: September 26, 2012, 03:59:37 PM »

Yes, the 1DX would still be a great tool to use when shooting jpg.  I shoot RAW most of the time, but I use jpg when I shoot dog sports since the buffer will fill up with RAW sooner than I need.  I sometimes will shoot 70 to 100 consecutive shots before letting up on the shutter button.  RAW just can't do that but the 1DX can do that at 12 fps in wonderful jpg.  You do have to learn your settings (as others mentioned) and I have found that they are drastically different settings depending on whether I am shooing in low light indoors or bright sunlight outdoors.

Oh, I also forgot to mention that shooting 30,000 images in one weekend takes up much less hard drive space if you shoot jpg instead of RAW.  Workflow is also much, much faster and sometimes that makes a big difference.

140

1D X Sample Images / Re: 1D X - Memory Cards best burstrate with Lexar and Transcend Cards 400X and 300X

« on: September 26, 2012, 09:16:24 AM »

Well, I have never lost any images on Sandisk cards. Losing images on either brand cards would be a game changer for me.

I agree which is why I switched to Lexar.  Technology will always change.  What works in our cameras today may not work well in our new cameras tomorrow so I'm sure I will be using something different in a few years.   

141

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chasing exposure

« on: September 25, 2012, 02:52:25 PM »

gone are the days of just Pointing and Shooting and accepting what the camera chooses...

I'm not sure I remember those days (outside of my 110 camera at the local zoo).  Skipping any of the critical steps in photography can result in mediocre images (which is a large portion of the images coming out of DSLR cameras these days, from what I can see).  Exposure, composition, compression, DOF and now post processing are just a few of the critical steps required to break past the so-so looking images.

Others have given great advice and I agree that you need to learn several techniques that work with DSLR cameras and use the method that renders the best results for your type of subject matter and shooting style.  Ignoring it and using an Auto mode may work sometimes, but it won't work all of the time and more often than not will result in those less than professional looking images.

Personally, I shoot to the right most of the time and zone it some of the time.  My 1DX is different than my 1Ds3 and 1D4 which has caused me to slightly change the way I shoot just like using slide vs film caused us to expose completely differently based on which one you were using.   

142

1D X Sample Images / Re: 1D X - Memory Cards best burstrate with Lexar and Transcend Cards 400X and 300X

« on: September 25, 2012, 02:34:51 PM »

Is this a Lexar stockholder reunion or what's up?

If two cards are rated at the same specs, what would be the reason to buy Lexar, if you can get a fully equivalent product from Sandisk for a better price? If Lexar is cheaper, I don't mind buying Lexar, but as long as Sandisk offers for a better price, I am buying theirs. If prices are equal, I won't care either way.

Lexar was cheaper for me.  Just bought six more 16GB 1000X cards.  They also work better for me as several of my Sandisk cards have died (and lost images) but the Lexar cards have worked perfectly.  Your mileage may vary but the price was cheaper.

143

Lenses / Re: New 24-70 L II - something wrong with mine? is this normal?

« on: September 25, 2012, 11:16:54 AM »

I own the version 1 but I would say that you have a bad lens.  I presume you have tested with other lenses to verify that it is not the camera?

144

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D at 46.1mp Next Month? [CR1]

« on: September 25, 2012, 11:09:22 AM »

So Canon and Nikon are developing almost the same products together.

I think they are the same company and people.  They just get us to fight it out on which is the better flavor of the year while they make money either way.   

145

Lighting / Re: ST-E3-RT & 600RT with Canon 5DIII

« on: September 24, 2012, 10:40:21 AM »

Looking to do the same.  I use the 580EXII flashes with radio poppers and an ST-E2.  Love the setup but the ST-E2 is hard to read in bright light since the red lights on it are dim.  I had issues this weekend trying to do some A/B ratios since I couldn't see what the setting was.  The new ST-E3 should fix that since it has a digital display.

146

Lenses / Re: Rockwell on the 24-70v2, "holy cow, it's awesome."

« on: September 21, 2012, 12:59:33 PM »

More K.R. fans.   

Oops, I just F.A.R.Ted.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

I don't think I'll be purchasing equipment based on reviews from someone like that.  To each his own I guess.

147

Lenses / Re: Quality control issues with the 24-70 L II?

« on: September 21, 2012, 11:08:22 AM »

Samples 1 and 2 are very close when you look at the 24mm shots.  This is the exact reason the newer camera bodies have AFMA for both near and far on zoom. 

Also some good reading here...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

148

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommendations needed for Compact Flash cards for 5D Mk III

« on: September 21, 2012, 08:33:33 AM »

So if you're not maxing out your camera's buffer with continuous bursts or video, a fast card will do nothing for you - except drain your wallet.

That is not entirely accurate.  Faster cards mean spending less time waiting for the images to move from the card to your computer.  This may not be important for some people, but many photographers will have hundreds or thousands of images to transfer and slower cards simply take longer.  Time is money (to most).

149

Lenses / Re: Best way of doing AF MA?

« on: September 20, 2012, 03:05:50 PM »

I see, is it typically done for all the lenses you use or just the ones you are having issues with?

All of them since you may not realize that you are not getting the sharpest image possible.  Some of my lenses I thought were pretty good actually needed a fair amount of correction.  They are crazy sharp now.

150

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 F1.2L And EF 35 F1.4L Sharpest Settings

« on: September 20, 2012, 02:59:35 PM »

Neuro said,

"The 50L has focus shift - as you stop down from wide open, if back focuses, but at some point (which is dependent on subject distance) the thicker DoF overcomes the back focus.  So, if plotting the sharpness of the 50/1.2L based on autofocus (assuming it's AFMA'd normally, i.e. at f/1.2), I'd expect it to be sharp at f/1.2, then get progressively softer as you stop down until somewhere in the f/2.2-f/3.5 range, then get progressively sharper again, peaking at f/4 or f/5.6 then dropping again after f/11 when diffraction sets in."

So Neuro, here's the question, and I'm just spitballing.  Is there a workaround for the 50 1.2L's focus shift?  Have you ever AFMA'd your 50 1.2L at other apertures than f/1.2?  It seems you could generate a lens adjustment lookup table for the lens based on f-stop to squeeze the most sharpness from the lens.  I know you said it depends on subject distance, but the DIGIC knows what that is and could factor it in.  If there is utility in this approach, the next logical step would be convincing Canon to provide the capability to enter lens adjustment values based on f-stop.

I tried the AFMA for my 50 1.2L and I found that it also varies by focus distance.  Basically there was no way to get an accurate adjustment unless you only shoot at a certain aperture and distance.  I sent my 50L back and spent my money on other glass.