October 25, 2014, 04:51:06 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 - TommyLee

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
61
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji x100(s) to Supplement an SLR
« on: May 15, 2013, 12:53:59 PM »
I use the 24-105 a fair amount...... pretty flexible

but when I want  to get MORE...
I use the 35 1.4 sigma .......and  the 135 f2... (maybe sub the 85L II)
...
get those two real bargains...if you want primes

THEN
I would vote for a stretch into the 14 L  II ....
14, 35 135 (or 85) ... is a VERY capable set

mostly...you'll likely use the 35 1.4 sig..... the best of these 4 lenses IMO...
135 f2 is second place then 85L II....
14L II is even more specialized and optional


yes the immediate avail of the 24-70 II zoom is nice...
but 35 and 85/135 ...and FAST is so nice to use

just my idea...
having used them all ............own all but the 24-70 II

TOM

62
Lenses / Re: 100mm f/2.8L with a diopter?
« on: May 11, 2013, 09:12:40 AM »
as said above 12mm and 25mm tubes... work great


63
Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around
« on: May 04, 2013, 05:06:14 PM »
if I may say
with a 5d3

a 24-105 is a great lens... for walkaround
24mm is actually pretty wide... and that lens is accurate and sharp too

but also you WILL have 'special needs'

super wide (I also sometimes bring a 14mm II...)
and for fast 'normal' the 35 f1.4 SIGMA...it really is better  than the 35L... used both  a lot...

then a 135 f2...
now you can do cafes'    at night... portraits with more blur...
and a 12mm ext tube... and/or a diopter lens ... ..for OCCASIONAL macros... they also work on 24-105...

and I keep a tam sp pro 1.4x TC...for some more reach ....with 135mm f2 ==> 189mm f2.8
 so now I have all the options

14mm,  24-105mm, 35 f1.4 fast, 135 f2/189mm fast... and some macro

camera and 4 lenses is a complete kit - IMO

start with the 24-105.. then .....consider a fast companion......like 35 1.4...
that pair is already almost a complete kit

maybe super wide 14m..........maybe fast tele (135mm)..

this really is a pretty complete kit...extended


I have ....70-200 (f4 and f28)  but they are bigger and heavier.... the others go out more...

back to 24-105............ the basic start point...add specialty things as you  go/grow

just my opinion

plus these are avail used..... and are medium priced lenses...

6D looks sensitive.. it will love the 35 1.4 (sigma OR Canon) and 135 f2 ...as you add them....
even from the used market...



TOM

p.s
I used to carry the hood from the 35L 1.4.... and use it on the 135 too.. saved space...handy
they are a kit in themselves..

then add 14L II
and the 24-105 is flex and quick response lens...

hope you get the 24-105 first..... then ONE specialist lens...at a time

enjoy


64
did it change your settings ...the firmware change?....
-----------
silent is same for me..
maybe it got changed to regular LOUD...?

like the focus point settings/selections DID get changed on me...
I had to go thru and check all the settings that I 'expect' on my dial...

microadjust seemed to stick though

the camera works
I had hoped for the red square on servo focus...but a weak hope..

and I wanted the CF/SD card shift when one is removed ...to be 'fixed'...
(when I pull the CF card and shut the door, AND THEN replace it, the camera used SD as primary...bugs me)
but that one is minor...
--------------------

the mental effect for me is
everything looks sharper...
and...I get an extra 3 mpg after I wash my car....

65
Lenses / Re: What exactly is a 100% crop?
« on: April 28, 2013, 06:51:23 AM »
drmikeinpdx

100% crop is like said here a few ways...
clip out a part of the full-sized shot...and dont resize it..

I use Faststone (a FREE photo utility you SHOULD have) for this stuff.. works great ...and on a series of photos keeps the same size you choose... for each consecutive pic...
in the 'Crop Board'  use 'lossless crop to file' 
you can set the size of the crop sample.....
the word sample is a hint....
... it automatically appends   _cr    to your native shot

so here is a recent Smith River Panorama ...with a 300x200 100% crop

hope that helps

TOM

I use Faststone to look over my RAW CF card sometimes... it CAN convert directly to jpg .. in a pinch...
it is VERY useful.....

66
ok

I JUST set the iec color profile as default

with  windows slight adjustment.... in Win calibration option..

THE LR edit screen ...now matches  Faststone raw to jpg, LR to jpg and camera lcd...

hand color same... LR gets background right AND LR edit matches LR jpg out

I had the dell profile set there... whoops

the iec may be old ...

but for uncalibrated old guys like me.. it seems to make it ALL match

and the colors seem right...

I guess I must have reset that or something....

I believe this is solved

thanks all

here are  three samples
only with a lot of hints to look at various things ...did I get there
thank you all
TOM

67
OK I HAVE SOME IDEAS from some hints here...

I SET my 5D3 from Faithful that had one click of saturation added...I set camera to NEUTRAL...
AND set LR  Camera Calibration to NEUTRAL... not adobe standard ...as before
so everything is neutral no added clicks anywhere

then I did a Faststone (CMS color aware)  RAW conversion to jpg
then a LR 5 RAW conversion to jpg....

and THESE TWO are surprisingly close... slightly red but LESS than the saturated (+1) setting on CAMERA

and finally the screen capture of LR5 edit screen..
LR5 edit is a little less red ...browner.. and cooler...

so some multi things confusing this...
I think
camera slid up one notch sat and maybe redder a bit too in faithful?...
anyway fast stone and lr 5 jpgs look about like camera screen..

so LR5 cooler edit is really whats off...
and I had likely bumped the sat on camera in reaction to the LR edit screen..

I believe I am getting closer
I learned to be careful what you tweak...on camera...

any comments - or a good thrashing of me  - are welcomed...

still need to understand why LR4/5 is 'cooler' looking....
than nature, ..... or nature 'seen by camera, camera screen, dell monitor, jpg from RAW via Faststone
and jpg from RAW via LR 5

I am still using the standard setting from dell 3011 as I think that is the calibrated setting...
but I am open to instruction here...

================
thanks everyone for helping me...discover the basic issue ... mostly solved now
TOM

68
RGF - thanks for help

yes I have the same suspicion as you here...

I start LR...having loaded RAW files to a FOLDER...I import them to LR 4/5(beta)  they both do this....
then ...for this problem I reset all and do a basic edit....
the edit screen shows any mods like lighting/exposure etc...

BUT
when I output to jpg  in a folder below the RAW files ...as I have done since LR 1.0....
I get 'redder' look to the file..
this is LATELY ..like past 2 weeks I believe...

I am listening to what is said though..

I FEEL I have some mod to output assigned in LR that compensates something

dell is in its 'standard' space but choosing adobe or  sRGB... the DIFFERENCE is still there...the monitor prolly ain't the issue - I think

just the DIFFERENCE between the edit screen in LR and the resulting jpg out...

whatever monitor is set to ...the difference of 'redder' should not be there....
in any monitor setting I see both pics ....and one is redder - the jpg

the thing is:
I see my natural hand color, see this color on the live view screen, save the RAW and see the natural color on the LR edit screen...
then conversion to jpg
yields reddish change...

all monitor, camera screen edits look natural UNTIL the jpg arrives

69
Drizzt321

yes sRGB I never use the other...
but BOTH pics are on the screen ...the screen capture looks JUST LIKE the LR5 edit..
and the reddish jpg output shows alongside the 'good' LR edit one

so it would seem to me the monitor is out of the equation.. JUST the process from LR to jpg

I view in Faststone...and both pics show this diff you see on your screen...
Faststone has color correction setting CMS system .......on/off it is the same...

thanks for thoughts
TOM

70
I have dell 3011 monitor ...fairly accurate...but uncalibrated to print etc
with canon 5d3 shots in RAW edited in LR 4/5(beta) ...

LR
process:  2012
profile :  standard
always have used the sRGB popular setting ...not the widder Adobe RGB
for some reason LATELY my jpg result is warmer ....more reds than the edit screen...

edit screen looks pretty close to what I see
I never print - I just want fairly close colors... to what I SAW when I shot,
what I see in edit screen....... and not some new 'reddish' output... on jpg

and for sure what I see needs to be what I get

I dont need absolute color accuracy ...for printing for example...
something is 'shifted' lately.....??

I noticed this in the last few weeks..
so I might have some setting in LR that I dont understand..

but I have not found any reason YET

if you have a clue for me
I would be grateful

I dont need perfect color accuracy..
i just post occasional pics to web...

but LATELY they got redder/warmer..
can you help


RAW EDIT before (LR 5 screen capture)
and then after jpg output ..as examples
flesh tones show the effect best - IMO

thanks again for your comments...
TOM

71
I would guess
 a small, effective, (relatively) inexpensive stabilizer system...

that would be very useful...



72
Lenses / Re: 35L or 50L?
« on: March 18, 2013, 08:32:00 PM »
also I am pretty sure the Sigma has lower chromatics than the 35L and the bokeh is about the same ....
that depends on the background distance ... and that may differ with different distances for each lens...
hard to test that I think

anyway
I like my Sigma wide open for these sort of shots
these were 1/50 sec so maybe some motion blur from the subject..
50L and 35L do not have this low chromatics.. in my experience...

and I ALSO believe Canon had to pull their almost released 35L II because Sigma was so good...
I will get the Canon 35L II if it is better...

73
Lenses / Re: 35L or 50L?
« on: March 18, 2013, 08:26:32 PM »
I never liked the 50 f1.2 the two times I tried it....
I tried to accept the vignetting, soft edges and chromatics... never got to the focus quirks...
but I personally don't care for 50mm over 35mm.... so it was uphill from the start

my 35L was pretty good @ f1.4.....and real good @ f2...
my sigma is as good as 35L @ f2....... but  @ f1.4..  and very little fringing/CA...
plus...perfect for a crop camera

However, I am SURE the 35L focused a just little bit faster and maybe more accurately...
I didn't try those two 35s together ....  and hardly ever for action shots

I did try the Sigma in a foot race yesterday...and DID notice I (I do mean ME) missed the focus a few times... so is it me, or my 5D3 settings or the Sigma...I dont know... I don't face those 'sports' situations that much ...so I am not qualified to judge.......this was a perfect situation for the 24-70mm f2.8 II  -  IMO
I'm almost certain mis-focuses were a combo of my technique(setting) AND the how the Sigma-5D3 work together

But the Sigma is - for sure - sharper than the 35L....maybe a stop ahead
I say get the Sigma 35 f1.4
I have been using it in low light situations mostly.....wonderful

you can almost get the sigma AND the 50mm NON-L for the 35L price....as already mentioned
I know I will get the 35L II when it arrives - if sharper and cleaner than the Sigma.....someday


a few race shots @ f2 from the Sigma (servo mode)



74
Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?
« on: March 04, 2013, 10:54:19 AM »
14L II as first choice
maybe the 16-35 II for added flex...
if I bring a second lens it will be 85L II....... as sun rises...

if summer/spring the second will be 100 macro
....possibly the macro is the only one ...if I specifically go out  to the gardens for bugs and flowers

if going to crowd-events the 14L II still first
then 135L or maybe the 70-200 f4/f2.8 II...where reach is needed
the Sigma 35 may go as third, if an opportunity seems to be there
(the first 2weeks I had the sigma it went alone...to force it on the world...as a test)

a low light kit for me would be 14L II, Sig35, 135L (and Tam 1.4x TC)

///////////

so I FIRST choose  the 14L II (with 16-35 zoom as a substitute)


75
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
« on: February 27, 2013, 10:04:16 AM »
this lens and the 14L are ALMOST all I need (and a camera body) ... maybe the Sigma 35

I was thrilled when they added I.S. 
same sharpness as the old one..... but now a bit more flex ...

don't use a tripod at all...not even with the old one

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9