31
Lenses / Re: Want 400mm reach (FF) - 70-200 2.8 IS II + 2x III or 400 5.6L?
« on: January 07, 2013, 12:51:02 PM »
Get a 300/4.0is and use it alone or with your existing 1.4x
May 22, 2013, 02:59:58 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.
32
Technical Support / Re: 7D suddenly not focusing properly
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:51:58 PM »
After looking at the image full size - to me it looks like you shot with a high ISO, and used considerable in-camera High-ISO noise reduction and/or long exposure noise reduction.
I don't think you have a focus issue.... from what I can see, the eyes are in focus.
I don't think you have a focus issue.... from what I can see, the eyes are in focus.
34
Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?
« on: January 06, 2013, 09:20:48 AM »
I bought the non-L 100mm/2.8macro, then got a chance to try the 100mm/2.8L with IS.
I could see no difference, at all, in any real world shooting and informal testing. None. Any difference is on paper specs as far as I'm concerned.
Didn't like the IS for any of MY macro shots, as it does nothing for wind conditions and and miniscule movement you'd have forward and backward in hand held shots.... IS doesn't help that. Sure, it will greatly reduce your own lateral movement blur... so there is some marginal help, but I didn't feel bad not having the IS.
Then I got another chance to try the lens in a NON MACRO condition..... specifically some informal portraits. Folks were holding reasonably still, and light was getting low, but I was able to still shoot at f/4 and 1/20sec or even longer. Fantastic for that sort of use!
I'm a proponent of getting dual use from the 100macros, for portraits as well. There is very little practical difference in the 1 stop you get from the 100/2.0. At f/2.8, the macros are already sharp. Remember need "some" DOF just to get eyes and nose in focus... so I try to shoot at f/4 at least, preferably f/5.6. The macros excel as 100mm portrait lenses.
I could see no difference, at all, in any real world shooting and informal testing. None. Any difference is on paper specs as far as I'm concerned.
Didn't like the IS for any of MY macro shots, as it does nothing for wind conditions and and miniscule movement you'd have forward and backward in hand held shots.... IS doesn't help that. Sure, it will greatly reduce your own lateral movement blur... so there is some marginal help, but I didn't feel bad not having the IS.
Then I got another chance to try the lens in a NON MACRO condition..... specifically some informal portraits. Folks were holding reasonably still, and light was getting low, but I was able to still shoot at f/4 and 1/20sec or even longer. Fantastic for that sort of use!
I'm a proponent of getting dual use from the 100macros, for portraits as well. There is very little practical difference in the 1 stop you get from the 100/2.0. At f/2.8, the macros are already sharp. Remember need "some" DOF just to get eyes and nose in focus... so I try to shoot at f/4 at least, preferably f/5.6. The macros excel as 100mm portrait lenses.
35
Canon General / Re: How many clicks in 2012?
« on: January 02, 2013, 12:42:52 AM »
7500 more or less
36
Technical Support / Re: CANON 5D MK II problem
« on: January 01, 2013, 11:56:21 AM »
Canon in Irvine fixed my 7D in 10 days, plus total of 5 for shipping, so two weeks more or less.
They replaced the focusing unit, the SD card slot and shutter release switch - under warranty. Camera has been good to go ever since.
They replaced the focusing unit, the SD card slot and shutter release switch - under warranty. Camera has been good to go ever since.
37
Technical Support / Re: CANON 5D MK II problem
« on: January 01, 2013, 11:13:53 AM »
I suspect a trip to CANON is in order.
However... you might want to remove both batteries, let the camera sit for a bit, then reinstall and power up. Could be some sort of memory corruption in the camera. My old 400D did "all black" a few times, I was lucky and both batteries out then back in fixed it! Never did it again either.
However... you might want to remove both batteries, let the camera sit for a bit, then reinstall and power up. Could be some sort of memory corruption in the camera. My old 400D did "all black" a few times, I was lucky and both batteries out then back in fixed it! Never did it again either.
38
Lenses / Re: Best effective use of my 50mm f/1.4
« on: January 01, 2013, 09:07:16 AM »Using a 50mm f1.4 on a 7D will make it an 80mm, BUT how much light do I lose due to the crop factor? Has anyone done this with much success?
1. You don't lose any light
2. Yup, all the time
And the big 3.
What makes you think you need a super fast lens for portraiture? The DOF at 1.4 o 1.2 is mniscule... like the eye in focus, and the eyelashes not in focus.
Classic portraits where you have the eyes and nose both in focus.. you're going to shoot at f/5.6
Intimate portraits... you can shoot however you want for effect, but things go get dicey as far as keepers go when you shoot so close, so wide open, with a (slightly moving) human subject and hand held camera. Very dicey.
As far as oof part of the image is concerned, any outdoor background will be well blurred with 100mm shooting at f/5.6, so no worries there. If you're doing studio portraiture - well, there's a reason all sorts of muslin prints and such were created to give the soft background effect. You'll need a few feet of separation for shadow control anyway, except with the broadest (and most boring) of lighting setups.
If you're tending FF, 100macro gives you dual duty of portraiture and macro
I've always found the 85 too short for portraits, tend to go with 100 for head-n-shoulders and 135 for closer
39
Lenses / Re: How tough is the glass of a lens? (8-15)
« on: December 31, 2012, 12:15:38 AM »
Timmy the 8-15 is a fisheye-zoom, and there's really no way of putting a filter in front of the lens.
40
Lenses / Re: How tough is the glass of a lens? (8-15)
« on: December 30, 2012, 10:18:47 PM »
My old Pentax rep, Tom Hillbourn, used to put his cigarette out on the front element of a Pentax fisheye. I saw that trick done dozens of times on the same lens with no detectable ill effects to the glass or coating But, it was a trick.....
I'd worry more about sand abrasion from being in close proximity to the ground.
I'd worry more about sand abrasion from being in close proximity to the ground.
41
Lenses / Re: 5D3 + 50 F1.2 L
« on: December 30, 2012, 07:17:21 AM »
Not sure what the cause of the issue is.
Some things to consider -
Focus system alignment, or rather, misalignment, would not give you front focusing on all the peripheral points. That is, misalignment, with a good center, would give a combination of front and back focusing.
De-centering usually gives one edge focused, the other edge not.
Curvature of field is an interesting issue. Not sure if most folks fully realize that film cameras do not hold the film flat. Film itself has a curvature, and various means were used, beyond a simple pressure plate, to try to hold it flat. I did extensive testing in the latter part of the 1970's with Nikon F2 cameras and film flatness. In those cameras, when the pressure plate was upon negative film, the center of the film was about .0025 removed from the plate. The film touched the plate about 1/3 out toward the edges, then gradually sloped away from the plate again toward the extreme edges. The shape was sort of a M shape (or W). It was assumed that camera lens manufacturers left some residual curvature of field intact, in order to actually improve imaging. I was able to observe that curvature when setting up the focusing systems in those cameras (a real pain in the butt and then some!), which were adjustable in almost ever imaginable way to assure near 100 percent coverage, and perfect focus on any area of the screen (or as perfect as film/lens combinations would allow).
What I'm saying is... knowing film IS NOT flat, and that sensors ARE flat... makes for interesting relationships in hardware.
Some things to consider -
Focus system alignment, or rather, misalignment, would not give you front focusing on all the peripheral points. That is, misalignment, with a good center, would give a combination of front and back focusing.
De-centering usually gives one edge focused, the other edge not.
Curvature of field is an interesting issue. Not sure if most folks fully realize that film cameras do not hold the film flat. Film itself has a curvature, and various means were used, beyond a simple pressure plate, to try to hold it flat. I did extensive testing in the latter part of the 1970's with Nikon F2 cameras and film flatness. In those cameras, when the pressure plate was upon negative film, the center of the film was about .0025 removed from the plate. The film touched the plate about 1/3 out toward the edges, then gradually sloped away from the plate again toward the extreme edges. The shape was sort of a M shape (or W). It was assumed that camera lens manufacturers left some residual curvature of field intact, in order to actually improve imaging. I was able to observe that curvature when setting up the focusing systems in those cameras (a real pain in the butt and then some!), which were adjustable in almost ever imaginable way to assure near 100 percent coverage, and perfect focus on any area of the screen (or as perfect as film/lens combinations would allow).
What I'm saying is... knowing film IS NOT flat, and that sensors ARE flat... makes for interesting relationships in hardware.
42
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review
« on: December 29, 2012, 05:11:30 PM »
I'm holding off....
Gotta see what Canon brings out soon. Would I trade a little image quality for IS on the 35/2 ? Probably.
Would I get a 50/1.4 IS before the 35/2 IS - hard choice. I'm a real "35" type of shooter, but, I've got the 16-35 and the 24-105 that both cover that range - and the shooting I do with the 35 is mostly for social events, and I'm getting to appreciate the flexibility of the zooms. Tough call.
I'm gonna hold out, see what they do... if there's no 50/1.4 IS coming soon... I'll probably do the 35/2.0IS.
Gotta see what Canon brings out soon. Would I trade a little image quality for IS on the 35/2 ? Probably.
Would I get a 50/1.4 IS before the 35/2 IS - hard choice. I'm a real "35" type of shooter, but, I've got the 16-35 and the 24-105 that both cover that range - and the shooting I do with the 35 is mostly for social events, and I'm getting to appreciate the flexibility of the zooms. Tough call.
I'm gonna hold out, see what they do... if there's no 50/1.4 IS coming soon... I'll probably do the 35/2.0IS.
43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade from 6D from 450D
« on: December 29, 2012, 05:03:00 PM »Been pondering a change to full frame for a while now, the 6D has whet my appetite, but in order to fund, I'm proposing to sell a fair bit of crop kit, specifically my current 450D and kit 18-55mm lens, my 15-85mm, my 10-22mm and possibly my very underused 70-300 IS - which would net me about £1000-1200, leaving me to find about £450 to buy a 6D body.
I'm left with the 135mm L and 50mm 1.4, but I'm wondering about a wide option, my local camera shop has a second hand 28-135mm for £125, would I be selling myself short and better off with a cheapish wide prime, 28mm 1.8 perhaps ? Looking at my shots in the last year, my 135mm & 50mm have been used most, I'm using my 15-85 and 10-22 mostly at their widest.
I'm keen to slowly build a good lens set, interested in the yet to be released 24-70 f4, plus the 8-15 in due course, I'm not shooting much beyond 135mm as I generally shot portraits, plants and landscape, but my lingering thought right now is just how much gain will I get from the upgrade, specifically in terms of light collecting performance, imagine noise and colour rendition over my 450D
Go on, help me press the button - and no buy a 5DIII pundits thanks ;-)
No advice... just thoughts.
First thought is - I'm sure glad I didn't invest in EF-S lenses... (and I say that again 1000x under my breath).
Second - having had a EOS400, the difference between that and the 7D are "ok noticeable", but between it and the 5D2, is night and day. You'll be blown away with the 6D.
Third, if you're not using the long zoom, sell it. Ok thats advice... sorry.
Fourth, maybe get that 28/1.8, use it now, as you sell off some kit. Watch for the 6D prices to come down. Its only been out for about six weeks... prices WILL fall at the dealer level - in terms of instant rebate, or kitting or such. MAP pricing prohibits some discounts, but... you can often get a small kit - with good essentials - for the same as the MAP price, etc etc... you just have to shop and keep an eye open for deals.
And finally... even tho the 7D isn't a quantum leap in image quality over the 450D, it is a quantum leap in everything else. Right now, I'd not trade the 7D at all - period. It does too much too well to even consider it. I'm saying this because you can get a 7D now for $999US a super deal, in case the 6D trade-off/trade-up doesn't work out.
44
EOS Bodies / Re: 50(+)Mp price expectancy
« on: December 28, 2012, 11:09:05 PM »
It all depends on what other features are bundled into the product
45
Lenses / Re: Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review
« on: December 28, 2012, 08:13:19 PM »
Its a fluff review. Technically flawed.. .. and too much price ranting