Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 18, 2013, 04:40:50 AM »

Yes the 300/2.8mk2  from  canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements

and much more importantly it works well when you use it to take real photographs. 

Had a good time with mine today.

Do you use it with the 2x converter at times?

Also im close to ordering the 500 lens foot to put on the 300 for comfort!, i hope that it will fit....
Since the 500 comes with both a small and big foot , and the small one looks identical to the 300 foot I am kinda anticipating it will!

Will provide a bit more comfort for handholding with my hands

I've used the 2x TC with the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II, and the IQ is phenomenal. Even with the 2x TC, it is still one of the sharpest lenses on earth. Sharper than my 100-400mm at is BEST, by a long shot. Background blur is also dependent upon the ENTRANCE pupil, so even with a 2x TC, your background blur is effectively the same as an f/2.8 lens...so it is a fantastic combination. You really couldn't go wrong with it.

Dear Sir,
Thank you for this posting! I really needed to hear this from someone using the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II together with the 2x TC.
I was reminded that Bryan C in TDP maybe for first time admitted that the 2x TC III from Canon together with this lens was useable.
Of course that is based in the top-notch optical quality from the lens itself because we all know that all flaws and weaknesses from the lens that is in front of the TC will be also magnified.
Thank you jrista for all your postings!
Wish you a very good weekend!
All the Best!

C

2

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 08:14:07 AM »

REGARDING  TESTPICTURES I have seen he's test pictures before, http://www.the-digital-picture.com, totally out of control  and no declaration in how many meters etc to the test  target, different combos are optimized for different distance.Different super telephoto lenses are optimized for different distances


So here are a real measurements from real MTF test, and by Hasselblads MTF lab IN GOTHENBURG  and for  the magazine  Foto here in Sweden. They conclude , there are no difference between for example 400/2.8 , 500/4  600/4 FROM NIKON AND CANON,   (sorry Krille you can sue me for showing this sides from your excellent Photo magazine FOTO)
THE 4 TESTED LENSES ARE EQUAL  NOW you  can believe in what you want regarding one or others companies sovereignty and about  for example  fluorite glass and there are a lot more companies than Nikon, Canon  how can build decent lenses . example Zeiss.Leitz, Sigma,Pentax, Tokina,Tamron  etc etc
Im sorry that Im  erasing yet another myth
And if Jrista or Neuro  want to discuss Hasselblad credibility in their measurements, I suggest that they directly address Per Nordlund  via e-mail, he is the lens expert  expert at Hasselblad

pictures taken from the magazine with a iPhone

Hello sir!
Thank you for publishing this page from the "FOTO" magazine! Excellent and I hope no one will sue you for this! :-)

So from this page I can read that the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is "one of the very best lenses we (ever/so far) tested" freely translated from the page.
Not really understanding the concept of what this is about: " the higher frequency 40 cycles/mm" where the page text tells that for both 500 mm -tele lenses the curves are substantially lower than for the 300 mm - lens.
The test shows that the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM also gives a better IQ with a small amount and also giving better contrast (compared to the Canon 500/4 II and Nikon 500/4 (10 cycles/mm),  but the differences are not significantly big between the 500/4 and the EF300/2.8L II.

In addition the text from this page also, states that the 500mm and 600mm lenses from both Canon and Nikon are optically totally like-valued (lik=same + värdiga=value) [when translated from Swedish.]
I hope my short direct translation from Swedish language into English, might help you native English speaking  in order to convey what this magazine FOTO test, is stating in their test with only short text.

Wishing you all the very Best and happy shootings!

C

3

Lenses / Re: Andy Rouse Reviews the EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x

« on: May 17, 2013, 06:09:52 AM »

Another review on the Lens from an Aussie Pro Photographer, Joshua Holko, some interesting comparison comments regards the 200-400 and the Series 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8


http://blog.jholko.com/2013/05/14/canon-200-400mm-f4l-is-pre-production-sample-lens-review/

A short note - about the Joshua Holkos, comparison seems to be between the new Canon EF 200-400mm/4L IS USM vs "300mm F2.8L IS" and so I suppose he is comparing the new zoom with the version I 300mm F2.8L IS? The new 300mm F2.8L IS II USM is to a degree better than the version I according to Bryan C (the-digital-picture.com)

4

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:49:41 AM »

Sales drive revenue. Revenue drives profit. Profit is a major driver of share price and shareholder value.  Share price and shareholder value determine whether a public company thrives, survives, or fails.

Betamax was better quality than VHS.  VHS sold better. Betamax failed and was abandoned.

On a more DSLR related note, Olympus came out with 4/3 format. It was going to be a worldwide standard. Many things about thier cameras were ahead of what the Canon and Nikon crop bodies offered at the time. They had beter user interface, beter weatherproofing, arguably better sensor performance, and faster autofocusing..... and where is it now? ( 4/3... not micro 4/3 ).  Sales sucked, product not stocked by retail stores, death spiral, gone.

Well, the Olympus E5 got a DxOMark Overall Score of only 56.  That must be why it didn't sell. 

Personally, I've never paid a lot of attention to Dx0Mark scores. A lot of people fixate on sensors, but it seems far more important to deal with more important stuff first. I tend to shoot in good lighting conditions so I don't have a fanatical worry about ISO scores.

To me, the most important aspect of a camera system is the AF system. An in focus picture beats an out of focus picture. I don't care how much dynamic range or megapixels are involved.... Focus is of paramount importance.

My second criteria to look at is the glass. It does not matter if you are shooting anything from a rebel to a 1Dx, the resolution of the glass has to exceed the resolution of the body if you are going to push things to the limit. With the higher pixel density, this is far more important on crop bodies than FF bodies, but when a high megapixel FF body comes out, make sure you have top notch glass of you will get soft pictures. Stick a 100L Macro on a Rebel and it will take pictures so sharp it will amaze you.... put a $200 kit zoom on a rebel and you get mush.

My third criteria is good user interface.... gotta be able to control things on the fly and in a panic.... stepping through menus does not cut it.

New sensor? Yes it's important to me, but it is far from being everything to me. I use camera systems, not components in isolation. It is very important to me that whatever system I am using comes from a stable and profitable company. If they are loosing money, they run the risk of going away, and that leaves me with a shelf of orphan glass.

+1

A short-note!
As always, the greatest image quality will quickly be negated by focusing errors. AF accuracy is extremely important for the the combination of DSLR and the lens in use - especially AI Servo AF accuracy.
And not to forget especially with a shallow DOF (Depth of Field), even small focusing errors will ruin the shot.
Also - if you need to use a Extender with your lens - Canon has stated this: " "These new extenders (version III) have been designed to provide faster autofocusing and improved autofocus precision with compatible EF lenses" and "Each extender also features a newly developed microcomputer that increases AF precision when the extenders are used with a IS Series II EF super-telephoto lens." [Canon USA]
So then - we should bear in mind that the Canon USA press release does not specifically say that the series III extenders would deliver better image quality (though features were added that could) - but that they would deliver better AF performance.
-  Although the AF improvement will not result in better than the optical capability of the lens-plus-extender combination, better AF performance does indeed deliver better image quality overall and that is crucial!
Happy shootings to you all!
C

5

Lenses / Re: Canon 500 F4 IS vs Canon 300 f2.8 IS II

« on: May 12, 2013, 05:40:57 AM »

Hiya,  I think you made the right choice with going with the 300mm f/2.8L IS II.  I had the 500mm f/4L IS for about 2 years and it was good, but the 300mm f/2.8L II has a clear advantage in IQ.  The new IS is awesome and there is a new mode 3.  The AF speed is stellar with the new Mark III teleconverters.  I use the 2x III on the 300mm and the images are super sharp at f/5.6 (wide open).  Pared with a crop sensor camera and you have a beastly setup.

Needless to say...I also picked up a 600mm f/4L IS II which mostly lives with a 1.4x III or 2x III on it.  It works great too, but I still think the 300mm f/2.8L IS II is the sharpest.  I don't think I will ever get rid of the 300mm unless for the replacement version. 

Best of luck and happy shooting!

+++1
Thank you sir for this enlightening notes from your experiences from using the EF300/2.8L IS II USM! The combination of EF300 II with both Extenders III and with the addition of the remarkable sharp EF600mm f/4L IS II USM is so far the ultimate combination to capture birds and wildlife.

(As a little side note - of course we might wait and looking for, if Canon will upgrade - the old EF800/5.6 I to maybe a optimized new Canon EF800mm f/5.6L IS II USM? ... but today these two new version II lenses mentioned above, is maybe the best options to bring outdoors, with you for the best results also together with the both Extenders version III!

Wishing you all the very Best and many many great keepers!!

Spring Greetings from Sweden!
C
(PS. BTW, I have recently placed an order for the new EF300/2.8L II)

6

Lenses / Re: Canon 500 F4 IS vs Canon 300 f2.8 IS II

« on: May 11, 2013, 09:12:39 AM »

I think I'd opt for the 300/2.8 II with the pair of TCs.  Only thing I'd consider is if the loss in FL means you end up with too few MP for your output format if you crop (e.g. 420mm cropped to the FoV of 500mm).  AF tracking will be better, you have a lot of flexibility, too. 

Caveat on my advice is that I've no direct experience with either lens (except a few shots taken with a friend's 500/4 MkI).

+1

(my 2 cents)
The new Canon EF300/2.8L IS II USM is maybe one of the best lenses to be combined with Canons new versions III of their TC ´s, and also according to the comparison you already made between 300 II / 500 I in regard of IQ, the IQ will be in favour to the new version of EF300/2.8L IS II USM, which also have the autofocus module optimized, and it give you a much lighter rig, and therefore also more easier to transport, and handholding, and has better flare resistance etc I would also opt the same, as Neuro said, and go for the EF300/2.8L II before choosing an old version with old IS etc.

I have been using the version I of the EF300/2.8L IS USM with both versions-III of the Canons new extenders and I am quite pleased with the results - and having the new version would certainly be even to a degree better even if you use the new extenders with the lens. Other comparisons shows that the EF300/2.8L II is even sharper but not by much than the new EF400/2.8L IS II USM and that goes to the favour for the 300/2.8II when the extenders are used.

But you might need to test this combination first sir!
Also to maybe take into consideration, is that, the MFDs (Minimum Focusing Distances) is 78.7" or 2000mm for the 300 II vs 177.2" or 4500mm for 500/ I. This is important if you are really close to birds for example in a blind or hidden in a vehicle.

I wish you many exciting and great coming shoots!
All the Best!

7

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for a 180mm macro?

« on: May 10, 2013, 05:36:37 AM »

 
 

I've been using a 135L +1.4xII for stage performances lately with great success... not to hijack the thread, but would adding an extension tube to it allow for a usable macro combo?

Dear Sir,
 
Adding my two cents.....
 
I am mainly using the excellent EF100/2.8L IS USM Macro, (bokeh/versatile/excellent IQ) but also the EF 135mm f/2L sometimes with the ExtensionTube ET25II and sometimes with both ET25II+ET12II.
 
The latest addition will be the the Canon 500D Close-up Lens,  to be used together with the Canon EF 135mm f/2L, ( but I am still void (I have placed and order coming soon) of a step-ring-adapter to use the 77mm Canon 500D (using it on my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II, because, if you are carrying a non-macro lens, and you want macro capabilities, without the added weight and size of a macro lens, the Canon Close-up Lens 500D could maybe be a perfect option for you in these cases?
 
Anyhow -  the quality of the pictures taken for example with the Canon 100mm Macro Lens I suppose will be even better compared pictures using the Canon 500D Close-up filter.
 
I have not used the excellent lens of Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro.
The closest long-focal-lenght-macro-lens that I have used is my excellent yet non-L-lens the old Canon FDn 200mm f/4, together with an adapter FD to EOS, on my 5DMkII during the last spring season, and I like what that lens can do!
 
However having the EF 50/2.5 with the Life-sizer, the EF100/2.8L IS USM Macro, the EF 135/2L and also the EF300/4L IS USM and in addition the both Extenders III//Extension Tubes II, I do not see the real benefit of even adding the great Canon EF180/3.5L Macro lens to my lens collection today! (The 180mm is quite heavy and you need to carry of lot outdoors if you also have this lens in your backpack).
 
But if I would not have any of macro lenses from Canon, I still think that my first choice, would most likely be the new Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.
This lens is an extremely fun lens to use! It combines excellent image quality with a useful focal length, a relatively small/light body, fast/quiet AF with 1:1 (1x) macro capabilities, - and HIS (Hybrid Image Stabilization).
But it depends what you prefer to photographing!
However the Sigma 180/2.8 might be interesting but it is quite heavy (3.6 lb (1.63 kg)).
It would be nice to test this lens because of its abilities to create a beautiful bokeh!
Wish you sir the best choice that will suite your needs all the way!
 
Greetings from Sweden,
C
 
Adding one photo captured with 5DMK3 + EF100mm f/2.8L IS USM handheld with f/2.8 ISO640/handheld resting the camera body on the ground.

8

Lenses / Re: New Tilt-Shift Lenses in the Wild [CR2]

« on: May 05, 2013, 01:11:02 PM »

I'm thinking of soon (after saving a bit more $$) getting my first TS lens.

I was thinking of going for the 24mm one.

Would this be the best choice to start with? I don't have any primes near this focal length, so it would be something good I was thinking, for regular AND TS photography. And I figured it is good and wide enough for landscapes, building shooting...maybe even for commercial real estate.

Arguments out there pro/con for me on my first TS lens?

This is probably the best TS lens to start out with.  It works well for building exteriors and for general purposes.  It has generally been my second most used lens on vacations after my 70-200/2.8 II.  Unlike the TS-E 17 it accepts filters (well, you can technically put filters on the TS-E 17 but it is expensive and a bit bulky) and has minimal flare problems.

I also own the TS-E 17.  It is a nice lens but not as sharp as the TS-E 24 II and flares badly.  It also has a huge bulb in the front to protect.  It is definitely a wonderful lens and my primary lens for interiors, but the 24 is much more versatile.  Note that some people buy the TS-E 17 and put a 1.4 extender on it.  Yes, this will work, but you will lose sharpness and will still have the glare issues.  I would never do that.

Dear Sirs,

About TS-E 17mm f/4L I often come cross to the same conclusion, that is something like this,  that the Canon TS-24mm f/3.5L II is superior to the wider one TS-E 17mm.

However my experience is quite the opposite.

I have both lenses and I have used them both side by side, for about two years now, with my full frame EOS.

The IQ with TS-E 17mm has been by a fair degree sharper compared with my my TS-24 II.
I also use the TS-E 90/2.8 which can be used almost like a macro maybe better to call it close-up-lens, and I have also tested this 90mm TSE with the EF1.4xIII,
 and also with Extension Tubes II.

• But the most useful of the two wide angle TS-E´s , is still the Canon TS-24mm f/3.5L II and it also takes filters such as graduated ND filters.
( But please do not forget - it is manual lens! But you can use it as a "normal" 24mm-lens with very good IQ if you do not shift-nor-tilt it! As soon you do that you need also to do the exposure all manually but if not shifted nor tilted your camera can measure the light situation correctly.)

About the TS-E 17mm f/4L in use I can tell you that you need to always think twice when handling this lens and surely some extra care is required to keep
that bulgeous glass pristine and without scratches!

I think that the difference between my two TS-E lenses might be only maybe because my specific one of the Canon TS-E 17mm seems to be a top-notch one.

But of course if Canon can make even a better TS-E 90mm f/2.8 maybe with the "L" sign I would maybe even be interested in an upgrade.

These are my poor 2cents.

( LOL@Neuro´s comment about the TS 12-400mm f/2 pancake!!! hahaha! a good one!)

Wishing you all here happy shootings! It is spring season here in Sweden but delayed by almost three weeks!

All the Best!

C

9

Lenses / Re: About a REPLACE MENT FOOT RRS LCF-52: Foot for Canon EF300mm/f2.8 IS-II

« on: April 29, 2013, 04:33:49 AM »

Where are you managing to buy Really Right Stuff from in Europe Charl? (I understand you reside in Sweden currently kind sir!)

Dear Sir,

Sorry for not visiting this site the past days so I missed your question - but I am glad that you already got the answer where in Europe you can purchase the Really Right Stuff,
 - yes I too buy from Germany based Internet seller:

http://www.augenblicke-eingefangen.de/


Wishing you all the Very Best!

Happy shootings!!

Charl

10

Lenses / Re: About a REPLACE MENT FOOT RRS LCF-52: Foot for Canon EF300mm/f2.8 IS-II

« on: April 24, 2013, 11:58:16 AM »

The Kirk foot doesn't look very comfortable to use as a handle. Basically, you can't go wrong with Really Right Stuff.  I've got the LCF-53 for my 600 II.

Dear Sir,
Thank you once again for your excellent advice!
I fully agree - if investing in the best then why also not add the best suited and best in function additional equipment to make the lens even better overall!
I always love to read your reliable and wise advice and accurate information sir!

Wishing you sir, and of course your whole family all the Very Best and in addition also many nice and happy shootings, in the nature during the coming spring- and summer seasons,
 with your excellent range of great and high quality photographic equipments!


Charl (Sweden)

11

Lenses / Re: EF 200-400 f/4L IS 1.4x Available Mid 2014?

« on: April 24, 2013, 08:08:10 AM »

I've used the Nikon Lens myself on a D3x & D800 (Borrowed), at less than 3.4 Kgs, it's a good Lens, 200 end very good, 400 end less so, and the Nikon Teleconverters, forget them, how is it that Canon, who I feel make the best Long Lenses on the Planet, cant get their Crap together on this ??

Excellent point.

The Nikon 200-400 f/4 weighs 3.36 Kg. The Canon 1.4X TC weighs 225 g. Combined, that's 3.58 KG.

Are we supposed to believe that the company that makes a 400 f/2.8 that weighs a mere 3.84 Kg (compared to the Nikon version that weighs 4.6 Kg) is making a brand-new 200-400 that's actually heavier than a decade-old Nikon plus a teleconverter? And is going to cost at least half as much again as the Nikon version? Really? A $3,000+ premium for a built-in teleconverter that weighs more than the competition's offering?

This is quite the embarrassment for a company that's just revolutionized the supertelephoto world with its hand-holdable Great Whites. It's a big step backwards, and not one that I think anybody would have expected.

Here's hoping it's just a fluke, or that the rumors are misinformed...but that we're even discussing this at all is very much not good for Canon.

Cheers,

b&

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your excellent thoughts.
About the approximate weight of the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x I have twice handled this lens - first time with a 5DMarkIII and the second time equipped with the 1Dx camera body.
At the same occasion I also handled the EF500mm f/4L IS II USM and the bigger "brother" EF600/II and was surprised that the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS 1.4x was somewhat in the same weight range that the both bigger supertele primes!
I would not think it is heavier but maybe maybe a little lighter than the EF600/II but not by much.
But again I would have needed a digital small scale with me but I did not have a scale with me on the both occasion.
By the way I find the EF300/2.8L IS with EF 1.4xIII/2x III extenders to be quite versatile both with 7D and 5DMarkIII because of my back-injury I am more mobile outdoors with a bit lighter total weight.
However when capturing BIF that sometimes flying TOWARDS you - a zoom will be quite handy but then I use the excellent EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM with my 7D and sometimes with the EF1.4xIII and I do not think it is too much hassle to actually,
change or remove the extenders - when you are used to do that it is done in none-time and of course I usually plan my photo excursions so I am prepared with two camera bodies one handheld and the other on a tripod. But this is of course normal when it comes to wild-life-outdoor-photography!
Wishing you all Happy Shootings! Here in Sweden the spring season has lately had some real approach!

//Charl

12

Lenses / About a REPLACE MENT FOOT RRS LCF-52: Foot for Canon EF300mm/f2.8 IS-II

« on: April 24, 2013, 07:40:42 AM »

Dear Forum contributors and wise adviser!


Not having any experience about replacement foot I am about to purchase the Canon EF300mm/f2.8 IS II USM and I am considering to right from the beginning purchase a replacement foot for the lens.
However there is a few to make the choice of.
But I am mostly into the RRS clamps and ballheads and tilt head from RRS.
So please is the RRS the best option?
1. a RRS LCF-52: Foot for Canon EF300mm/f2.8 IS-II Cost in Euro: 111.90€
Or should I instead choose one of these:
2.  A Jobu Quick Release Lens Plate Replacement Foot LF-C504M2 - Euro 99.95€
or  3. a Kirk Quick Release Lens Plate LP-59 for Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS II USM Euro  78.95€ incl. VAT


All look good but somehow I am a bit tempted to go with the Really Right Stuff LCF:52 with the weight of only 68 g!


I would very much appreciate your thoughts and advice if you have time and interest in this question about replacement feet to tele-photo-lenses.


Wishing you All the Very Best!


Charl (Sweden)

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III and 300 2.8 II hit rate for sharp pictures very low

« on: December 30, 2012, 09:02:12 AM »

Hello,

I have a 5d III and the 300mm 2.8 II.
According to test this combination should crate fantastic sharp photos, but I have really big problem that to get sharp pictures.

I normally use the center focus point as single focus point.
I realized that objets that are more than 10 - 15 meters away the hit rate is very low.
I did go through the AF menu from A-Z but I found no solution. AFMA made everything only worse.

I attached one picture of many, that are all no really sharp. ISO 100, 2.8 1/4000



Thank you.

Best Regards,
Flo

Hello Flo!
Thank you for adding this one photo.
The quality of light seems to be mostly left-sided-front-light that gives less contrast to your exposure.
As also mentioned by an other forumposter the dept-of-field is really thin using a 300mm with wide-open f/2.8 on a full-frame-camera.
If you examine your photo you can follow WHERE the focus are locked - look at the cliff and the dry-vegetation and tree branches and grass.

If this was my photo I would have photographed it in .CR2 (RAW) and then doing sharpening in DPP and maybe making other adjustments in order to get a out the most of this photo of the "Lion-King!"
What I have experienced is that my .CR2-files directly from 5DMKIII are dramatically sharpened by simple small adjustments using Canons own DPP.
Maybe you could try to re-adjust your wild-life photographing!
Also how do you point your AUTOFOCUS and do you LOCK the focus for example on the eye of the animals?

Be sure that your focus-lock-point is absolutely placed on the critical area of your main subject in your exposure. And maybe also do a re-exposure even a as a second exposure of the same view in order to have your Keeper when you examine your files at home after your photo-sessions - the memory cards do have a lot of space today! :-)
Your equipement are really really high-quality and should not make you disappointed!
How about a calibration-check at the Canon´s own service for both your DSLR with the particular lens together and yes to upgrade the lens to its latest updated firm-ware!
I really wish you Flo the very best solution for your excellent combination of equipement!

Happy New Year 2013!

All the Best!
/Charl

14

Lenses / About using the Canon Drop-in Circular Polarizing Filter PL-C 52?

« on: December 29, 2012, 11:56:52 AM »

Hi Forum Readers!

About the use of the Canon Drop-in Circular Polarizing Filter PL-C 52
I am a bit interested in how often you actually use this filter and in which situations you find the desirable use of the Drop-in Circular Polarizing Filter PL-C 52 with your tele-lenses from Canon?

The benefits may be the many?(I am considering if this filter would be part of my equipement?) but there is also this fact of a light loss of up to 2 stops, but maybe a fast glass like EF300mm with f/2.8 would be the right lens to be equipped with this filter? Is the filter-effect affected if you are using the lens stopped down (like f/8)?

I am mostly interested in the end result,what the Drop-in Circular Polarizing Filter PL-C 52 can add to your photographs compared to photos without this filter.

Anyone here who maybe like to share something, about your experiences, when you are using this filter?

Wishing you all a very good new year 2014!

Greetings to you all!
Charl

15

Software & Accessories / Lightroom 4.3 the Adjustment brush stopped reacting after the update?

« on: December 15, 2012, 01:56:48 PM »

Hi all!
My first question in this category here on Canonrumors Forum -
Background:
I am using Mac OS X Version 10.6.8 and I did recently updated my LR4.2 to the last update version LR4.3.
By this update the Adjustment brush stopped reacting! When used it saves the history and the "dots" BUT makes NO adjustments to the .CR2!
I have tried to revert all presets to the Standard settings.
Tried all possibilities I could find in order to set all to standard presets.

So I wonder if some one else has experienced this same unwanted change, when you updated your LR4.2 version to the  LR4.3 or latest version?

Do I need to uninstall the LR4 and reinstall the LR4.2?
I would appreciate any help for solution - if there is any solution present?
(By the way, I also did check out the Adjustment brush settings that the flow and density was right)

(I have even search the ADOBE LR4 Forum without finding any advice for a solution!)
Wishing you all a very nice week-end!
And greetings from a snowy winter Sweden! (Still snowing quite heavily right now!)
[/size]Charl[/font]