May 24, 2013, 09:24:58 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 - EOBeav

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24
16
Software & Accessories / Re: CF card health
« on: March 28, 2013, 12:54:08 PM »
Thanks MSP. Weird, when I went back into Lightroom, those two photos were there, even though LR had told me it couldn't import them. So maybe things are ok after all. I'll run the full format, though.

17
Software & Accessories / CF card health
« on: March 28, 2013, 11:14:20 AM »
I just got back from a trip to the Oregon coast, along with about 450 photos. There were two on my 16G SanDisk (90MB/s) CF card that seemed to be corrupted. They were right next to each other, and they were the only two taken at that particular time. Is this a sign that my CF card is failing, or just a glitch of some kind in that particular session? Is there a way to test these things? I understand these things can fail at any time (this one has had about 11k shots on it). Also, I format my card after every time that I download to the computer, rather than just deleting my files. Any advice you can give me is greatly appreciated.

18
Lenses / Re: Best lens for this purpose
« on: March 25, 2013, 12:37:05 PM »
If you'll have enough space, the TS-E 90mm is the way to go.  If it's a room-filling table setup, probably the TS-E 45mm (or the TS-E 24mm II and a TC).

Thanks neuro, I was hoping you'd come along and comment. It's indeed a room-filling table setup. How much of a teleconverter? 1.4?

19
Lenses / Best lens for this purpose
« on: March 25, 2013, 12:18:06 PM »
I've been asked to video/photograph an HO model train set with my 5DmkII.  I'm going to need to rent a lens to get it done, though, as I don't think my 50mm f/1.4 is up for the job. I'm guessing some kind of tiltshift lens with a fairly short focusing distance, if there is such a thing, but I have no idea in what focal length would be best. Thoughts?

20
You are unlikely to get a better value for money lens than the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS). It was my first L lens and since then I've purchased only Ls ... It's addictive.

+1

Also, if you need more aperture for about the same price, you might consider the 135mm f/2 L.  I've only rented it, but it's awesome glass.

21
The first thing I would explore is whether your un-sharpness is due to misplaced focus or due to camera/subject movement.

22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: mirror lock up
« on: March 17, 2013, 05:16:57 PM »
so it seems that mirror lock up is in essence just a form of IS for fairly long focal lengths when locked off?

No. They're two totally different things.

Quote
i always thought it would be good practice for landscapes , to help achieve best sharpness, but it seems, its almost irrelevant for that from what im reading,my unscientific tests seem to point towards that for a 50 85 24 focal length for around 1/4 to 1/40 sec  so far.

Those would be focal length/shutter speed combinations that occasionally get used in landscape photography.


23
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: mirror lock up
« on: March 17, 2013, 02:44:52 PM »
I recently learned the value of mirror lock up from some knowledgeable individuals right here on CR Forum.  Bottom line: If you're at a long-ish focal length (like using a 70-200mm lens) and your shutter speed is anywhere around the 1/20 second area, you'd better put it to use. I learned my lesson.

Addendum: This is assuming, of course, that you're already on a sturdy tripod, with no other movement (wind, shaky ground, etc...) and you're tripping the shutter remotely. If you're not doing those things, then mirror lock up probably won't help you.

24
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:55:53 AM »
And for future reference (as someone else already mentioned), ISO 125 is not the best ISO for that camera body.  Check out this chart that shows the sawtooth noise produced by the type of amplifiers used in the 5D2.  You are better off at ISO 160.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#EOS%205D%20Mark%20II_14


Interesting, I hadn't seen that before. According to this chart, it looks like the sweet spots are ISO 160, 320 and 640.

25
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 09:06:40 AM »
Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

Actually, a 1/20 s exposure is right in the range of shutter speeds (around 1/60 s to 1/2 s) where mirror slap can result in the camera shake-type blur you're seeing.

Looks like I just learned something. I can now see where mirror shake would be a bigger issue at this speed/focal length than it would at, say 1/500 or going the other way, at .5.  Thanks to neuro, agierke, jason, et al, for setting me straight on this one. I'm going to read up on doing that with my 5DmkII.

26
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 12, 2013, 12:39:41 AM »
did you confirm that Mirror Lock was on? didnt see that in any of your replies. anyone else having issues like this in the future should understand that this is a likely cuplrit for camera shake at slow shutterspeeds on a tripod.

you also have to be careful of your own movement when making exposures like this. even if you are not physically touching the camera or tripod, walking around the camera position can cause vibration in the ground (depending on the surface you are on) and that can be transferred through the tripod and show up in exposures. this is not as likely outdoors but i have seen it happen on several occasions indoors when i or someone else walked by my rig during a long exposure.

Didn't use mirror lock. It might be helpful in some situations, but it wouldn't have caused this kind of motion blur.

27
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 11:27:32 PM »
So what ended up being the problem?

A few things come to mind:
  • I was in a hurry and hit the shutter before I let the camera completely stop vibrating after moving it
  • At least one of the legs was in some soft ground, so it wasn't 100% stable
  • I didn't turn off the AF after getting the focal point where I wanted it, shaking the camera that much more

That bridge hasn't moved for 80 years or so, so it had to have been the camera. It was just a perfect storm of events caused from me not minding the store.

28
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 10:13:33 PM »
Took your invitation to look at the larger pixel peeping image and for some reason that file looks pretty sharp.  The bridge is in focus and there is little evidence of blur.  Check it out and see if you see the same.

If someone else confirms this it would put the culprit in the post processing department.. maybe some kind of image depth or resolution downsizing.  Or maybe noise reduction is loosing the detail.

I looked at it as well, and its not up to expectations, it should be much sharper.  If your images are not sharper, something might be wrong.


Agreed, this has nothing to do with image conversion. The full size image I posted was just that...a full size jpg export from LR, unedited. 

Thankfully, I did a little test tonight and the lens is performing just fine. It was my own oversights that caused the blurriness.

29
Lenses / Re: Polarizing vs ND filter Europe trip.
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:12:58 PM »
Hi all,  I'm wondering if it's worth it to buy one or another of these 2 filter types for a 2 months Europe trip. I mean for landscapes and what would be the benefits of a Polarizing versus the ND etc. It would be a 82mm filter (tamron 24-70 VC ).. Thank you!

The bigger question is, what do you want your filters to do for you while you're in Europe?  Like neuro said, if you want to reduce glare, etc... get the polarizer. If you need to increase your shutter time, get the ND. I'm not a big fan of GND filters, so you'll need to get somebody else to convince you to get one of those.

30
Lenses / Re: Bridge not sharp - why?
« on: March 11, 2013, 06:10:03 PM »
Thanks to everybody who weighed in on this. I believe I have found the culprit and it is me. Yes, a higher ISO and/or IS would have eliminated this motion blur.  However, it wouldn't have happened in the first place had I taken the time to make sure everything was solid before I snapped the photo. That's what happens when you get in a hurry; you skip over some of the basics that you've been doing for a long time! All of the Canon 70-200 L's, regardless of aperture or IS, are really sharp, so that's why I was surprised to see this at first. I've used this same set up in creeks with exposure settings of .5 to a full second without any problems before.

In any event, I'll take care to keep everything still next time. Thanks again for the feedback.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24