April 20, 2014, 09:26:32 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 200
16
Shouldn't be more than $899.  In fact, I'd probably still buy the Tamron for $1,299 even if the Canon were $899.

It needs IS and thus this one needs to be discontinued.

??
It should onyl cost $100 more than the sigma 24-105 f/4? and less than the 24-105L did until recently?

17
Software & Accessories / Re: updating to Maverick 10.9?
« on: March 06, 2014, 06:34:52 PM »
Now that Maverick has been out for a while I am wondering if all (most of) the bugs have been worked out?  Specifically is anyone having trouble running the EOS capture software/DPP/ or  CS6 Photoshop/Premier?

Thanks for any insights, 

Jeff


Don't do it if you have a non-retina MAC or anything but the latest MAC Pro otherwise you won't be able to use the hacks to drive UHD monitors! I actually got a MAC MINI to drive 3840x2160 perfectly! But it only works pre-Mavericks!



What hacks did you have to do?

I have a macbook pro, late 2011 model, non-retina.  I was able to drive a Dell U2711  at 2550x1440 merely by getting a thunderbolt to display port adapter to connect them.  Seems to work just fine with no "hacks" of any type.

Can you explain what you had to do to get yours to work?

Thanks,

C


I'm talking UHD (3840x2160 not 2560x1440).
My Mac mini has Intel 4000 graphics (and the hack should work for the slightly older machines with Intel 3000 graphics and perhaps in a few other cases as well). Intel put out UHD drivers for the chipset last year, but Apple kept their hardware locked down. And you also need to do some extra steps to enable scaling since there is no way direct way to make Mac OS scale nicely from the OS control panel itself (icons and text become crazy small without the scale factor stuff).

MAC PART:

OK, wow, actually got my MAC Mini to be able to support 3840x2160 or 1920x1080p HiDPI modes. It took a lot of searching and some hacking and some serious scares along the way though! And most google searches only lead you to partial solutions or talk that it's impossible. But 2 hours later it works.

I have no clue what Apple fans go on about how MS has no clue compared to Apple when getting UHD running on a regular MAC is so tricky and not directly supported in the OS. Direct support was only for 1920x1080p (which interestingly enough the Dell UP2414Q actually WAS able to scale to fit the screen and run at 60Hz, although it doesn't do simple scaling but interpolation so it's a bit blurry looking from the interpolation). And supposedly there is no way to make it work, even with hacks, if you have already upgraded to Mavericks, which thankfully I had not.

Once you do all the hacking though it appears, at first glance, to work quite well though and perhaps better than Windows although I can't yet say. I don't have much software for the Mac since I basically only use it for tablet development. Although Apple still has 60Hz support locked out for some reason running at UHD so you have to live with either 30Hz and UHD or 60Hz but interpolated by the monitor 1920x1080.

Anyway when I did these steps and used HDMI I got locked into a no signal mode and my HDMI port now seems to be locked out of working with this UHD Dell monitor, although the port still works if I use with other monitors that it recognizes as being different brand. And then I found that using DisplayPort it still works with the Dell even at UHD and I can get in and reset things for this monitor.

Anyway here are the steps:

0. Make sure you have NOT installed Mavericks! AFAIK it only works with OS SUB 10.9, at least so far. And maybe for extra safeties sake check to see what chipset your Mac has and whether you find out if anyone has had it working at UHD before or if you can find UHD support for that chipset on other OS, then it should be safe for sure I'd think.

1. use the DisplayPort and not HDMI connector.

2. Go here and follow the http://code.google.com/p/mac-pixel-clock-patch/wiki/Documentation to install the mac-pixel-clock patch to unlock higher pixel clocks.

3. Go here http://www.madrau.com/srx_download/download.html and download and install SwitchResX and select UHD mode for DisplayPort.

4. Go to create custom resolutions in SwitchResX and simple make a new 3840x2160 mode. Exit out of SwitchResX and agree to save changes.

5. Go here http://cocoamanifest.net/articles/2013/01/turn-on-hidpi-retina-mode-on-an-ordinary-mac.html and follow the instructions to turn on HiDPI mode options.

6. Re-boot. You will notice that the HiDPI modes offered by the OS Display preferences are stinking options, there is no 1080P natural scale factor option and the ones they offer make the screen shake and are too lo-res.

7. So go back into SwitchResX and you will now find a 1080P HiDPI option. Select that and then finally you have both UHD AND all the text and icons not being hideously small running even on a MAC Mini or other non-retina MAC (maybe much older models this won't work for, my MAC Mini is only a bit over a year old)

So wow even a non-retina, little old Mac Mini can drive it just fine! At least if it is fairly recent. In this case it was a 2012 model with Intel 4000 graphics. It should work at least as far back as the Intel 3000 chipped ones though.

Well, so long as you didn't go to Mavericks! Hopefully they will hack Mavericks too (although apparently Apple now signs the code block so I don't know, hopefully Apple will unlock UHD support themselves, feels like they just want people to buy new machines though hmmmm). You can only do it at 30Hz though as for some reason Apple doesn't seem to have 60Hz working when paired with quite a few of the UHD monitors. Mosts current monitors need a special dual displays as one driving hack and with some screens it doesn't seem to work with Apple for some reason so you need to drop down to 30Hz.

18
Canon General / Re: Why Image Quality isn't Everything
« on: March 05, 2014, 03:21:10 PM »

And don't forget Bigfoot, countless UFOs, and the Loch Ness monster. Poor photos can be iconic.

I got a snap of the Yeti on a one pixel camera! I love that single white pixel. It gets across the true essence of the Yeti and it was also accepted as solid proof by a leading cryptozoologist.

19
Canon General / Re: Interview With Canon Executives
« on: March 05, 2014, 03:18:48 PM »
How about this for a missed question:  It's been two Olympics and still no 100-400 mark 2?

Usually those shooters tend to use faster glass (although the slower AF on the current 100-400 probably doesn't help any and a Mk2 could fix that part at least).

20
Software & Accessories / Re: Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor
« on: March 02, 2014, 04:08:16 PM »

21
Software & Accessories / Re: updating to Maverick 10.9?
« on: March 02, 2014, 03:08:42 AM »
Now that Maverick has been out for a while I am wondering if all (most of) the bugs have been worked out?  Specifically is anyone having trouble running the EOS capture software/DPP/ or  CS6 Photoshop/Premier?

Thanks for any insights, 

Jeff

Don't do it if you have a non-retina MAC or anything but the latest MAC Pro otherwise you won't be able to use the hacks to drive UHD monitors! I actually got a MAC MINI to drive 3840x2160 perfectly! But it only works pre-Mavericks!

22
Software & Accessories / Dell UP2414Q UHD monitor
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:13:29 PM »
simply amazing!

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:11:46 PM »
I hope so! Just got the new Dell 24" UHD display and checked out some 4k videos clips. Whoa!!!! Out of this world! So awesome!

And yes that means all those downers who insist that 4k is just marketing nonsense hype unless you run 90" or larger HAVE LESS THAN ZERO CLUE. The difference is perfectly clear on my 24" monitor between 1080p and UHD video and it can be striking at times!

(And of course UHD is AWESOME for photos! They look so much more natural, like giant project slides or something without all the digital artifacts and pixels and such type look on 1200p or lower displays and the extra details really make things look so much more realistic.)

(Oh and text! Man the web looks SOOO much better since all the text now looks like a printed page!)

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Dual Pixel Tech Coming to the EOS 5D Mark III?
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:08:36 PM »
Didn't Chipworks or someone already do an analysis on the 5D Mk III CMOS? I feel like they would have noticed something like this.

Edit: Yeah, they did. Here's a link: http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

Also: https://chipworks.secure.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=CAN-EOS_5D_MarkIII_Pri-Camera&viewState=DetailView&cartID=&g=&parentCategory=&navigationStr=CatalogSearchInc&searchText=canon%20digic

I really think they would have noticed the different architecture if dual-pixel tech was present.


Yeah I couldn't possible see how they could miss it. I think the 5D3 sensor is too old.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:08:26 AM »
There is no way the 5D III is being replaced this year. Not a chance. It's a SUPERB camera, and the 5D II lasted closer to four years than three. I don't expect to even see CR2 rumors for the 5D IV until next year, and I don't expect it to hit the streets until the end of 2015/early 2016.

We will see, but no way can I see them waiting until 2016 to replace the 5D3!! And surely some sort of 5D3+ at the very least has got to be arriving late 2014 or early 2015.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:02:40 AM »
Even if 4k displays are lagging behind etc, I still think 4k is very desirable. Because 4k scaled down to 1080 should give a lot higher image quality in 1080 than I've seen from any of my DSLR's. Try comparing 1080p from a modern blue ray movie to what you get out of a Canon DSLR (except the 1Dc of course), the difference is huge.

Yeah. (Although ML RAW 5D3 video is quite crisp and is kinda-like a blu-ray.)

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:00:34 AM »
Didn't we go through the same thing with 2K video?

Nobody needs to shoot 2K video...
Screens aren't big enough to show it...
The file sizes will be too big....
There is no place for video in DSLRs...

Yet here we are......

+1

(and here I am on a new UHD 24" screen just this moment and believe me even at just 24" it makes a LOT of difference, wow!)

28
Lenses / Re: Strange AFMA results with canon 50 f1.4
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:16:58 PM »
I kept my old, NIB 50/1.4 and sold my battle-worn but reliable old one.
Silly me to do that without first testing the one in the box!

The new one has some strange behavior where it focuses perfectly, but only at certain distances, everywhere else it's either front or back focusing by as much as 2 feet at a 12 foot distance, for example.
This was tested using only center AF point on 3 different crop bodies, all with the same results and repeatable.
The old one nailed focus reliably, even if it did show a wee bit of focus shift when stopping down.
This newer lens is not even in the general vicinity most of the time.
Very disappointing and since it's well past warranty, I'm either fixing it myself or selling it.  I need it to AF, MF not an option for my intended use.

Anyone else have a 50/1.4 USM behave like that and what was the specific fix?
Perhaps it's a position encoder on the drive train that's not working properly?

Edit - fixed many typos.

yes, that is very common for this lens

you can try to have Canon adjust it, but the internal adjustments on it are weak

for some reason the 5D3 seems to make it focus more reliably than other bodies such as xxD or 7D or 5D2 (to a greater extent than the difference with other lenses)

the real fix may be when Canon finally releases and update with a properly designed AF or maybe the new Sigma that is coming out soon


29
Lenses / Re: Strange AFMA results with canon 50 f1.4
« on: February 26, 2014, 03:14:09 PM »
Having searched for this problem now it appears that this is common with this lens design. It suffers from focus shift with aperture changes.  :( what a pain.

So I've kind of settled on leaving it set to +10 as this seems fairly accurate at most distances and apertures that will be common to my shooting needs/style.

EVen worse, the stepping motor is not refined at all and it often slightly over or under shoots and it can't be adjusted precisely enough for f/1.4 shooting either and it tends to break and so on. Terrible AF mechanism in this lens. Optically it's just fine for a regular Double Gauss design though (although obviously pales by miles compared to an advanced and expensive Otus type design).

30
It's sort of a wash. The APS-C cameras often have higher density but you can get that back with an extension tube and if you take things really far DOF and so on become tricky so it's not quite like birding where you can always easily go for more and more reach.

I don't have time to get into it but the short of it is that is basically comes out to be a wash and you can use APS-C or FF DSLR equally well for macro stuff except in the very rare occasion so long as you have a few cheap extension tubes (and sometimes those won't even be needed) and if you have the MPE then it's really pretty meaningles between the two other than in very particular and tricky scenarios when you are really maxing out an dhave the ability and scenario that lets you max out without messing up.

The size vs mag vs diffraction vs noise and so on all just kinda balances out for macro, again don't have time to get into it, maybe someone has.

For stuff like distant birds though the aps-c cams with high density are hard to beat with FF though.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 200