December 20, 2014, 01:07:15 PM

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 - AudioGlenn

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 24
181
Have you used it in a live situation yet? Dark venue like a wedding reception or another event.

Also, I just realized that I shot at my cousin's wedding on 12/30/12 with my gear.  It wasn't a paid gig for me so it didn't come to mind when I replied.  I just shot for fun while the hired photographer did the actual work.

yes it was dark on the dance floor. yes, I used my mk3 and 600 (and an addtl of camera flash).  No, I didn't feel any lag in the AF.

182
no i haven't but i think a pitch black room with no lights on in the middle of the night is pretty much the same thing as far as lighting conditions go.

From what I read the distance of the object lit by the af assist seems to have a significant impact on the focusing ability, next to the lens used... and your "pitch black" setup might sound like a worst case scenario, but not that's necessarily true because in real life the camera has to deal with varying combinations of af and real light.

good point.  I was focusing on something about 5 ft in front me.  I was able to see the AF beam through the camera because it was so dark and the red really stood out.... and yes, when I say pitch black, I mean pitch black.  no street lights shining in through a window... nothing.  pitch BLACK.

so anyways, i tested again with as much distance as I could in the same room... the longest dimension of the room is about 30 feet so I just pointed at the wall 30 ft away, even though i couldn't see a damn thing, waited for focus, and shot.... AF worked fine, like I was in a well lit room.  the wall was far enough away that I sure as hell couldn't see the AF beam on it.  Focus was fine.

I have other thoughts on variables that might be tripping people up:

1) what lenses are we having issues with?  I used both the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS II... both at 2.8 when I did my "testing".  Maybe f/4 lenses are having a harder time seeing the AF beam in low light. 

2) Also, would the color/pattern of what you are focusing on in low light contribute to the camera having a hard time.  For example, if the subject was RED in color, or even had something with red tones in it, maybe there wasn't enough contrast between the subject and the AF beam from the 600.

3) Maybe the problem is in the speed lights and not the 5D mk3.  Low batteries maybe?  maybe without fresh batteries, the AF assist beam isn't bright enough.  or maybe some of the new 600 ex-rt units (remember those are new too) have issues

I'm just trying to find a way to re-create the issue that people are having.  There's obviously enough of a problem (or two) with this combo that a lot of people are noticing a significantly slower focus speed.  I for one cannot re-create the problem.  I swear, it's just about as fast as if i was focusing in broad daylight. 

Can any of the other people who have the issue reply with the lenses they've used, the subject/color they're shooting, and try it with different speed lights with fresh batteries?

183
Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 07:33:36 AM »
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.... by far

184
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Reikan FoCal Pro with 40 STM
« on: January 13, 2013, 04:13:06 PM »
Question:  Is FoCal really necessary after Canon calibrates all your stuff to work together?  I just got all my stuff back from them and everything seems better without any AFMA at all!

185
no i haven't but i think a pitch black room with no lights on in the middle of the night is pretty much the same thing as far as lighting conditions go. 

186
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 13, 2013, 04:10:15 AM »
well... i want one....and currently cannot afford it!  haha

the comment regarding those who cannot "afford" it was....well... not nice

that said, I sold my EF 50mm f/1.4 after I got my 24-70 2.8 II.  I really liked the (50mm) lens at 2.8 and smaller apertures but it didn't look that great at wider apertures so I figured, if I was gonna stop down to use that focal length, it was defeating the purposes of having a fast prime.  I'll save up for the 50 1.2L and use the 24-70 in the meantime.

187
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Reikan FoCal Pro with 40 STM
« on: January 12, 2013, 03:40:25 AM »
I just AFMA'd my 40mm today with FoCal and got "excellent" result confidence.   

What I did notice (and I didn't put this all together til now), the 2nd lens I tried, my 35mm f/1.4 L, couldn't get decent results after 3 attempts.  I'm wondering if the battery (which was at 80% after I was finished with the 40mm) or camera body temp had something to do with the ability to get good results.

When I used FoCal before, the first lens I tried always got "excellent" results (shown on the printout under "result confidence").  but none of the lenses after that ever got that rating (usually good to poor but never excellent).

188
I can't seem to duplicate this issue.  My 5d mk3 and 600 ex-rt work just fine in almost total darkness with the AF assist beam firing.  It locks focus faster with the beam than without it.  i tried focusing on my solid black surround sound speakers in total darkness and everything works just fine.  maybe I'm just lucky.

for those of you with issues, i wish you luck in finding a solution.

189
Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA advice sought
« on: January 11, 2013, 03:40:23 AM »
@Neuro:  Is the-digital-picture.com YOUR site?

Goodness, no.  Bryan Carnathan run's it...

oh ok.  just wondering.  I go there all the time to check out lens reviews.   

anyways, thanks for always having great input on the forum.  I notice your replies on almost everything I read on here! 

190
Reviews / Re: I'm amazed by my 5D Mark iii
« on: January 11, 2013, 01:34:18 AM »
Yes, I love my mark 3 too.  I'm pretty bummed right now without my camera.  (It's at Canon Service for calibration for another week).

191
Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA advice sought
« on: January 10, 2013, 04:25:34 AM »
@Neuro:  Is the-digital-picture.com YOUR site? 

192
Lenses / Re: which one
« on: January 08, 2013, 08:02:38 PM »
@AudioGlenn  ;)

This is why I like this forum, glad you are liking the 8-15.

=)  Yes, I too am loving this forum!  I've grown a lot in the last year just reading everyone's opinion's and thoughts. 

Here's a favorite of mine of my nieces at my cousin's wedding last week using the 8-15mm.

193
Lenses / Re: which one
« on: January 08, 2013, 02:35:50 PM »
consider the 8-15 fisheye!

I went through the same decision last month and sold my 10-22.  I liked it for the distortion but couldn't use it on my 5d mk3.  24mm on FF is wide enough for my uses.  For the ULTRA wide look, I really like the 8-15 at 14mm or 15mm.   if you need to "de-fish" it, it's pretty easy to do in Lightroom.  Also, it's in between the price for the 17-40 and 16-35!

Just a thought

194
+1 for Syl!

195
Lenses / Re: Your "precious" lord of the red rings is?
« on: January 07, 2013, 02:01:49 PM »
70-200 f/2.8 IS II....my precious

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 24