Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Moire in the 1DX and 5D3

« on: Today at 09:10:00 PM »

For really gray stuff you use desaturate brush.

Some RAW decoders are more prone to color moire than others. ACR is very prone to color moire, but also produces superb fine micro-contrast. DPP has less color moire but a lot more zipper artifacts and doesn't quite extract the finest detail with as much micro-contrast and has very heavy handed and ugly NR. C1 is sort of between the two in some ways, it some gets dot line artifacts where super fine lines turn into dotted lines.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Bizarre grid "pattern" with Rebel t3i/600d

« on: Today at 09:07:13 PM »

Hey forum,
I've noticed this really weird square, almost signal noise looking pattern on photos from my t3i recently that I'm not quite sure how to describe or explain.

For reference, check out this B/W image:
http://silvestography.tumblr.com/post/50593894995/another-one-from-le-mont-saint-michel-i-would

If you look especially in that stone "frame" area around the statue, you can see there's this grid pattern where the gridlines are sharper-looking than the insides of the squares. My bet is this is normal and has some very scientific explanation but I just wanted to see if anyone else was experiencing this. Thanks!

I don't see any grid pattern. Is it your monitor??

3

Lenses / Re: Any comments on the 300mm f2.8 IS mk1 and 2x mk3 TC?

« on: Today at 09:03:43 PM »

Have any of you tried the above combo?

I currently have the Kenko 2x Pro 300 DG (red dot) which is okay for the money (cost about £110) but images aren't quite as crisp as I'd like so I don't use it that often. Can any of you comment on the sharpness of the 300mm with the mk3 converter or post images? Also, is the AF speed still acceptable to you? I'd be using the combo for airshows or birds in flight etc.

Whilst I'd rather have the 500mm f4, I'm thinking of the cheaper option first! If I got the mk3 TC I'd probably also buy a Wimberly Gimbal head too.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

Body is a 5D3.

Softer than the bare lens or using it with a 1.4x TC III certainly, but plenty usable, maybe same quality as a bare Tamron 70-300 VC or so??

AF is like 75% slower than with no TC. For quick locks onto stuff at distant distances or trick situations to lock on it can be slow but, for example, for surfing where distance doesn't change much shot to shot it tracked very well on my 5D3.

4

Software & Accessories / Re: Hdd/SDD storage for trip

« on: Today at 07:38:54 PM »

It's a crying shame Apple didn't put two USB 3.0 ports on their iPads. Pop in a WD 2TB passport and a USB 3.0 card reader and there you'd have it.

5

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?

« on: Today at 06:25:24 PM »

You don't need a quadro though. Nvidia and Adobe are just in bed so they try to make it seem like you need a Quadro.

The Quadro is faster, but I have a 4000M not because of Adobe, but because I frequently use Vegas Pro.

I have had machines without Quadro 4000M, that use GEForce or others and I can assure you that the Quadros are faster, especially if the rest of the machine is high spec.

Just between the 5010M and 4000M is a 30% real world speed difference, and the difference is amplified with the newer cards.

Your claim of there being little difference is a little like saying that there is little benefit buying a 1DX over your average P&S.

They don't put busy cycles in the drivers for certain routines that tend to be used only by graphics apps so they can be faster for some stuff, but it's not like you HAVE to have a quadro or that geforce are so sketchy. If you read the Adobe stuff it was kinda misleading, ooooooh the gamer driver might not be reliable and ooo this, all nonsense, a good GeForce card did plenty of good (thankfully they made it so easy to hack them to work that you can scarcely call it a hack) an dnot everyone had the money to dump on a Quadro or wanted a Quadro and yet if you read the forums some got scared into it over nonsense.

6

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?

« on: June 17, 2013, 11:32:01 PM »

AFAIK, there's basically no performance difference betwen a super-expensive quadro card and a $150 geforce gaming card:
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/PremiereCS5.htm

This may change with newer versions, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money without being sure it's not a stupid expense.

After reading this, I did some research and found the following.

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/05/improved-gpu-support-in-adobe-premiere-pro-cc.html

This does appear to open up a lot of cards, but it's not like the entire Quadro line is now outcompeted by a $150 card.

I'm looking at the GeForce GTX 680 as an alternative to the Quadro K4000, but I'm wondering if that extra 1GB of memory in the K4000 will increase performance by 33%.

As a hardware engineer, developer and consultant (for 25+ years), I've heard that before from so many people - here's what it translates to: "I have a Chevy Cavalier that'll do 120mph. Why do I need a Corvette? I can run just as fast as them on the road.". Then, 1 hour later "I don't understand why my Cavalier blew up."

The Quadros are more stable, more efficient and have better drivers. They are for *creating* content, whilst the GeForce cards are designed for content playback. All the little gamers out there are screaming that their little gamer cards are just as good as the Quadro, but have dead cards 6 months later. They aren't designed to be pushed to the edge continuously - just in short bursts.

There's obviously more granular reasons why high end gear is what it's worth. I'd take a Supermicro workstation board over any Asus "workstation" board. I'll take SCSI and SAS over any SATA. I'll take ECC RAM over unbuffered. I'll take Panaflo, Nidec and Delta fans over any gamer box Thermaltake fan - faster, doesnt' fail and higher RPM capability. I'll take a solid rolled 16Ga steel case over some pretty plastic gamer case with windows - the shielding is better. And, I'll take my Wacom Intuos w/ mouse over any "high dpi" gamer mouse.

If you're playing around with your computer, then anything is fine. But, if it's something you want to rely on day after day, get the job done and the money made - buy gear that isn't designed for gamers. You don't want the vid card to be the weak link in your HP workstation - don't put cheap tires on your high performance car.

Oh come on some of those gamers play day and night with games that push graphics card as hard as heck.
Quadros even used to be exactly the same cards, just with some features disabled through software (after that got hacked so much they put internal locking firmware, some may have more memory or extra running but there is nothing radically different about the HW).

7

Software & Accessories / Re: Recommended Video cards for use with Adobe Premier...?

« on: June 17, 2013, 11:28:37 PM »

In case you did not see this, it basically repeats docholiday's response.
 
http://www.nvidia.com/object/premiere-pro-cs6.html
 
Be sure to check the power requirements, you might need a amazingly big power supply which then means better cooling.

You don't need a quadro though. Nvidia and Adobe are just in bed so they try to make it seem like you need a Quadro. There is a simple text file where all you do is type the name of your graphics card into it and then instead of just one or two non-Quadros, basically any reasonably powerful GeForce card works (of course you need to meet min memory requirements and such and a wimpy card could be slower than a good CPU, but a good GeForce helps a lot and costs a lot less than Quadros).

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: would it be better to use a 5d mark 3 for manual focus rather than a 6d?

« on: June 17, 2013, 11:24:47 PM »

Would it make any difference?

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

I personally remplace the stock focussing screen of my 6D with a custom Ec-B screen, which has a split-screen. It really works well, especially for macro, and it was easy to install.

Cool they went back to that for the 6D. I hate the 5D3 screen. That is the one bad thing about the 5D3 compared to all of the other Canon FF bodies.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?

« on: June 17, 2013, 10:05:08 PM »

this was taken from his microblog. He then deleted it and seems someone from his company filed a complaint about what he posted. This looks promising!

yeah, you don't hide/take-down stuff if it is innocent/fake.

unless you are having fun

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?

« on: June 17, 2013, 10:01:35 PM »

Looks like a 3 to me...but if they were trying to keep it secret then why would they make a strap for it instead of just a standard canon one?

+1

And would they really have straps made up already for a 2014 product? And again, what test camera goes out with a strap advertising itself?

Something isn't adding up.

11

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 17, 2013, 12:21:38 AM »

24-105
24mm f11

no correction applied

all were raw processed so CA (lateral only, longitudinal CA left as it (it basically has none though which is why you don't see any)) correction was applied (but no distortion correction)
24-70 II
38mm f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8541/8697162572_fc6627d1a0_o.jpg
24mm f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8532594727_7cf3016f21_o.jpg
24mm f/4.5:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8080844890_ee3cf61987_o.jpg
24mm f/11:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8191/8080859646_10b351fbce_o.jpg
24mm f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8080838687_7552869720_o.jpg
(and for comparison, same shot as above only this time 24mm f/8 but with the 24 1.4 II prime):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8080843159_853749e6c2_o.jpg

(those were fairly easy scenes in that they didn't have stuff near the camera along the bottom corners, granted, the shot you took had quite tricky placement of object depths in comparison, so it's hard to compare to these)

24mm f/8?, also a touch on the easy side with how DOF of objects was:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8084425985_be471a8de2_o.jpg

I think this was 24mm, f/8, might be up to f/11 though:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8311/8072868487_04c1782f98_o.jpg

this is 70mm center frame, 100% CROP!, f/2.8!!:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8080844677_1f77373981_o.jpg
(although I must say that at the long end the field curvature doesn't make the edges anything to write home about even at f/8, although it's already mad sharp wide open in the center, at the edges my 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-300L are better at 70mm)

for kicks, samayng 14mm, at probably f/8??:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8347/8245600470_e6efd64038_o.jpg

12

Lenses / Re: 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

« on: June 17, 2013, 12:03:47 AM »

Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes?

I'm thinking I might even hang on to my 17-55 for now and run both lenses for a while and see how I get on.

Cheers and have a great weekend!

I will say none of the three 24-105 I tried had good edges or corners at 24mm even at f/8 or even f/10. From what I saw the 24-105 seemed to handle charts better than real life scenes with complex DOF, it depends what you shoot though. Only the 24-70 II and 24 1.4 II got that. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 had sharper corners and edges at 28mm f/8 than the 24-105L too. But the 24-105 can be had for a low price these days. I suppose you can worry about Tamron QC, but then you can worry about it for many lenses. My first copy Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 were good. My first 17-40L was bad and 24-70 II had . My Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was good. So it's luck of the draw all around I'd say.

True about the lens lottery thing. My 85 1.8 had way too much CA even up to f/4 yet people raved about that lens. As someone who likes backlit shots it was pretty useless. And I had a Canon 10-22 that was a bit soft though some say it is sharp and better than a 17-40L, I disagree. Even at 17mm it performs quite well and it's a great lens for the price. If I ever need ultimate sharpness in a WA I'll opt for a TS. I'm not earning much from photography to justify it yet.

I'm sure the Tamron is a great lens, I just don't like the way it zooms and I heard AF Servo is hit and miss. Plus they're a bit harder to sell. I'll take my chances with the Canon. And in any case I'm sure it'll be much better than the 17-55.

For the 85 1.8 I assume you mean Longitudinal CA where it gives that purple friging (or green behind the plane of focus)? Yeah that lens is very much known to have a lot of LoCA. I'm a bit surprised it was so extreme even at f/4, I mostly shot it f/1.8-f/2.8 when I had it. Yeah white sports uniforms under indoor lighting was enough to get purple showing all over, never mind back lit type stuff. It was relatively free of lateral CA though and mad sharp.

17-55 is basically an L so don't expect the 24-105L to be some miracle compared to it (I think it is actually a bit less sharp comparing both on same aps-c body) and on FF it gives fuzzier edges, even f/8, than the 17-55 does on aps-c (talking wider end of each). But maybe it'll be good enough for you. The price is excellent for it now and it's not much risk to try.

13

Lenses / Re: Why no lenses like 35-135mm anymore?

« on: June 16, 2013, 11:56:55 PM »

often I wish there was a lens like 35-135mm f2.8. there are many situations where I don't need to be wide or telephoto, but there's no time to switch 70-200 to 24-70, for example.

I know these zoom lenses existed once upon a time. but as far as I know there isn't a pro f2.8 version of such lenses. anyone knows why no one seems interested in making these?

Most people liked to be able to go wider, back then zooms were tricky to design and going below 35mm made it a lot trickier so I think they were more apt to start at 35mm, with modern lens design it was easier to make zooms hit 24mm (although still tough to get a really huge ratio so they cut the top end down a bit) and people liked that better so they made those instead?


That's my guess.

14

Software & Accessories / Re: Hdd/SDD storage for trip

« on: June 16, 2013, 10:20:13 PM »

Another option is the $229 Acer Aspire One with 320GB included. Only USB 2.0 support. 2.9lbs. It plus external drive for an additional 1TB-2TB is still under 4lbs and total price $299 for 1.3TB of HD space (with 1TB WD passport).

15

Software & Accessories / Re: Hdd/SDD storage for trip

« on: June 16, 2013, 09:59:50 PM »

I tried an earlier version of the Hyperdrive Colorspace UDMA and although the interface was a bit clunky, it worked flawlessly.  It contains a rechargeable batteries so that it works on its own or plugged in.  Does not require computer to work.  Just turn it on, plug in the card.  Looks like the new versions do wireless transfers as well (I didn't look into these however).

To save money and configure my way, I purchased the empty unit and a compatible hard drive elsewhere.  Easy assembly.  I used the device for a 12 day safari for thousands of raw photos and didn't fill up a 500 GB HDD.  Theoretically, you could bring a second HDD if the first one gets near full, and change it out.  This does not have RAID capability however.


http://www.hypershop.com/HyperDrive-COLORSPACE-UDMA2-p/hdu2-000.htm

sek

thanks

I wonder if understands exFAT formatted cards and what it does if it hits upon non-standard files, like Canon ML RAW video. I assume it just tries to copy over any all files, but you never know.

I thought I saw someone say something about it got confused by certain types of advanced CF cards thoughm but perhaps not.

It is nice and small and light, although you can get a laptop with 500GB drive for only $20 more. Still the size might make it great for most people. And you plug in a cheap extra large capacity drive.

For someone wanting to do stuff like me, transfering lots of ML RAW, 27MB/s means like 36min or so to transfer each 64GB over. And I wonder if it wouldn't get confused by UDMA 7 cards or exFAT cards and how you could verify non-standard files had even transferred at all.

EDIT: hmm sounds like it only supports and transfers specific formats, so great for stills only shooters, but if you do DSLR video, even internal, never mind non-standard, I fear it wouldn't even attempt to transfer the files at all, so definitely no good for me then

seems like it is samsung netbook (2.8lbs unit alone although you still need to add an external HD) and live with 45 second takes and hope it recognizes all your cards or the ASUS at Best Buy for $269 (model:  X401U-BE20602Z; 4.1lbs).