« on: June 27, 2013, 09:54:18 AM »
At 24mm, the focal length closest to shat I most often shoot, FoCal suggested no changes be made to AFMA.
I'm hoping for a EOS 5D Mark III style body at a price point close to that of the Nikon D800. Can't see it happening given that the EOS 5D Mark III is already more expensive this. Spec compromises would likely be required, being a landscape photographer a less sophisticated AF system (or even MF) would suit me. But I expect i'm in the minority here. I have also never used the HD video features.
I would like to get feedback on some of my images for in camera and pp critisim both good and bad. Any suggestions?
I had my 40D converted by LifePixel - they are great! One thing I ran up against pretty quickly, tho, is that a lot of lenses, in particular the 16-35 I was hoping to use for landscapes, have a nasty PITA "hot spot" of reduced exposure in the center of every shot [due to the way IR reflects inside the optics]. I'm currently looking at the Sigma 15mm to use on WA shots, since it is reportedly better. It would pay to research your current lenses before you commit to IR.
The 16-35mm is indeed not recommended for IR work. Here's a link on which lenses are suitable or not for IR photography: http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_infra_red_IR.html
Many thanks for the lens list, that's great information.
I use LR to do this.
In the library view I choose the metadata tag at the top of the page and I can see in an instant what the distribution of FLs for a set of images.
I used this to justify NOT buying a lens when I see that I rarely use a certain FL in a zoom.
As for Bridge, it will show the info (I think)in the sidebar at the left.
Like this below.