Ha - that's great, like no.1 as well.

I find it changes things a lot (not always for the better) when the subject takes to your hand, or the camera, or the light source.

SecureGSM said:

Jopa,

it does not work as such for Sigma Art lenses. it would be slightly detuned on the second camera. tried many times before. it works, sort of but not for all 4 calibration points though. it may work for some distances to your subject and miss for others. much worse on my 5D IV than on 6D.

Sigma 135 Art was the worst. I spend 3+ hours calibrating the lens to my 5D IV and gave up.
I calibrated hundreds of Sigma lenses in my life but this lens was an ultimate nightmare to calibrate. Sold it today. Sigma 50 and 85 Art are up for sale. I cannot be bothered.

Jopa said:

I'm also not sure if I need to calibrate for one camera and it will work for another one "automatically", or should I do it for both cameras (and my time will double).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sorry to hear this Alex. My 85 Art is more or less ok. The AFMA varies from +5 to +7 depends on distance which is acceptable for me (I keep it on the middle: +6 ). The only problem I have is focus shift, but I mostly shoot it wide open, so it's not a huge deal.

I remember you said all your Sigma lenses worked fine on the 6D, so I'm wondering if Sigma is still making the new lenses "AF compatible" with the older Canon cameras? Now when they started making calibration docks, theoretically they can offer some kind of profiles for different cameras. Yes, AFMA would still be required, but just one value, and the profile would take care of the distance inconsistencies (i.e. distributing one AFMA value with a certain ratio across the whole focusing range).

...and of course a mirrorless camera would solve all AF issues once and for all!

Fantastic set of photos. Are these stacked or not? The DOF is wonderful in the pictures with the egg sac.

Great photos of a very prickly subject. Nice!

Love these, tack sharp too.

AlanF said:

Don Haines said:

I think it is a bad idea.....

Drunk boaters drown a lot.....
They need to be rescued a lot....

This would be no different than allowing drunk cyclists....

Click to expand...

Drunk cyclists are a danger to pedestrians. Not many pedestrians walk on water.

Click to expand...

Drunk cyclists get run over.....
Drunk powerboaters run over canoeists and kayaks......

Drunk canoeists drown....and I hope that you never have to deal with finding a body floating in the river. It will haunt you forever. This thread is not funny, it is in very bad taste and brings back nightmares.

ktrphoto said:

I have both. If I could have only one lens I would choose the 24-70. In reality I have hardly use it since I got the 16-35. Many members have talked about the 16-35 being great for landscapes, but like a few other responders, I have found 24mm to be wide enough when out in open spaces.

I know this is a dormant thread, but I have a new point to make: the 16-35 comes into its own in towns and cities and for interiors, when even 24mm either won't include the whole of a room or, out of doors, does not let you back up far enough to make the shot you want.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ktr-photo/37134998502/in/dateposted-public/

Click to expand...

My 16-35 f/4L is my favorite lens for landscapes. I been without a 24-70 or 24-105 in my kit several times, but I'll never be without this one.

Well, a sad and nice day for me today. I had to sell my 200 f2.0 today since car repairs and cr@p. But it means I can buy the 85 IS and I’m really looking forward to it.

And I pray to the photo Gods that my curse is no longer with me. (If I ever buy anything new, and not used, it won’t work).

ElBerryKM13 said:

Who is this camera really targeted to? Whatever it does it might be on par to an iphone 8 or any latest phone.
Wish canon focused more on the pro market and release more 4k cameras or a new 80d with 4k.

Click to expand...

Come in, I phone has some 7 mm sensor. APS-C sensor is way superior. Sure it may lack some gimmicks like artificial background blurring but in basic photography there is no comparison.

17 is the best. Like love shower over you!

Talys said:

[When I say that it's academic, I'm talking about the specific, and very narrow case that I took a test shot of -- depth of field of a FF and a crop sensor, both with identical lenses, taken from exactly the same focal distance. On the full frame image, the depth of field of any part of the image available on the crop is identical to the depth of field on the crop image.

Click to expand...

You get less DoF on a smaller sensor if you use same lens. If you later crop the FF image then you will naturally get identical results.

But the only scenario that this would be useful for is if you had an 80D set up to take shots on a tripod, and it died; then you could swap in a 5DSr and get exactly the same shot, and just take the crop area. You'd get essentially identical depth of field in the images. The reverse is more likely, and even technically true but it's totally useless, because if you swap out a 5DSr with a 80D without moving and using the same lens, you'd lose 40% of your image, and one assumes that's not desirable.

I certainly don't mean that the understanding of focal length, aperture, distance to subject as it relates to depth of field is academic. It most certainly isn't!

Click to expand...

One naturally would use a different lens in the crop sensor or open the zoom more.

CanonFanBoy said:

AlanF said:

What does "more than $4,000 of use" mean? If you are pro, then you can measure your income from it and put a figure on your profits. If you are a hobbyist, like me, then how is the monetary value calculable - I have as much fun from my £700 lens as I do from my £7000? So, please explain $4000 of use because I don't know how to put a value on my use.

Click to expand...

You are right for the hobbyist, Alan. So true. I'm a hobbyist too.

There are people here that talk of using gear for a couple of years and then selling at a profit. Maybe so, but I think that it is very rare if it happens.

Click to expand...

I live in a large city and there is tons of camera gear for sale used on craigslist. Currently 1760 items tagged canon, from batteries, rebels, 5dsr, 1dx2, small, and big whites, from $1-9000. Lots of good deals to be had. I think I have only "lost money" on used cameras, as expected. Lenses I break even when I sell them, and many times have purchased used gear to make money on. It depends on the local market. If one lives hours from a large city and their town has 50,000 people there will be no opportunity to buy/sell. I have never purchased used gear on ebay.

Very nice series. Great job, keep up the good work.

Jopa said:

Some dude @ B&H complaints about nozzle clogging - that matches my usual experience with Epson printers (in the past). Wondering if that's just him or a trend?

Click to expand...

Indeed ... 'some dude'

I set out my own feelings about this aspect in the review, and what I've found different about the P5000 and what not.

Obviously just one example of a few months of regular but relatively light use.

BurningPlatform said:

Finally something to upgrade to from my trusted 5d mk 2. 4k and all!

Click to expand...

My 6S is still doing fine, so I'll wait a year or two. Like many of you, I'm not so likely to upgrade a phone because of the camera.

I have shot 4K with the phone, and it is not bad. I used the extra resolution to let me zoom in during editing and produce a good-looking 720p video without any upscaling.

Quick thoughts after scanning through the review, with close scrutiny of the sharpness tests (24, 35, 50, and 70mm), then viewing/reviewing several of the posted photos, including zooming in on several. Several of the shots do not look either focused properly or the shutter was to slow even with the VC engaged. So I can't tell if I'm critiquing the lens or the tester's shooting technique. Most of the architectural shots are tack-sharp, even out to the edges (real-world example). As opposed to their sharpness tests of book spines. (Which have terrible lighting.) To get a proper understanding of center and edge sharpness, in my humble opinion, it would be far better to test the same 4 focal lengths at the closest focusing distance of each, then at 15-20 feet, and at Infinity. And in a mixture of settings: indoor & outdoor, good & bad lighting, contrasty and drab, etc.

The lens is a winner. I have no doubts that one can capture excellent photos with it. However, I would not pair it with a high-megapixel model like the Canon 5DS r they did their shooting with. I would love to see the lens tested on a 5D Mk IV, the new 6D Mk II, and a 5DX Mk II. Would also like to see some results with an 80D and a 7D Mk II. In the same breath, you simply can't best the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Mk II - for a number of reasons. However, I'm also not a professional photographer, and so, feel that one can get exceptional images given the right lighting and camera settings with any of the current offerings and including the older models of each (Canon, Sigma, and Tamron). And don't forget, Tokina has a very well received (by an albeit limited crowd) newer 24-70mm f2.8 offering as well.

It looks like a video game. They want to compete with the PS4 ;D ?

Mt Spokane Photography said:

mostly weird communications from people I did not know or want to know.

Click to expand...

A pithy description of the Internet. ;D

My love affair with my 1D4 was short lived. For the reason discussed on this thread http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31766.msg646871#msg646871 I have sent it in to KEH (with a couple other items). I am replacing this and my 5D3 with a refurbished 5D4 (arriving in a couple days).

privatebydesign said:

I sold my 1D last year for $250.

It was a great camera, when compared to film cameras, but 4.2 MP was always a limitation and part of the reason for the dramatic gains in sensor capabilities over a short time period. The ISO performance stood up well when compared to film but that was it, again the sensor was outgrown technologically speaking very quickly. As was that dumb 1.3 crop that was not EF-s compatible so ultrawide angle coverage was non existent.

But anybody that uses one can't help but be frustrated with the non zooming replay, tiny screen the limited menu and whilst the IQ is good its nothing special and vastly outgunned by pretty much everything since.

As for the 'look' of the files. That is nothing more than the rendering programs algorithms interpretation, it is easily changed and if you take the time to make ISO specific camera profiles including color profiles and tone curves and apply them on import you can make pretty much anything look like anything else with no input or further time taken, it's digital for goodness sake!

Click to expand...

I think you may have missed the why I love this camera, I did state in my full article all the hurdles that need overcoming. But once that is out of the way there's no competing with the colour saturation and sharpness this camera has, no amount of software can make up for hardware limitations.
The same reason film still holds its own, is the same reason this camera can.
Once you get over not being able to crop, the rewards are plentiful. And as for the 4.2mp? I will be doing a follow up with how big it can print, I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised...

I will definitely agree with you that the lack of a zoom function on a professional digital camera is nothing short of a joke, and the 1D has the worst screen on earth.
But I was very honest about this in my article

https://www.flickr.com/photos/52057517@N04/36522983224/in/photostream/lightbox/

Tugela said:

Talys said:

Orangutan said:

I totally don't get the anti-AA filter fetish -- I'd much rather have microscopic softness than moiré.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you. Moiré will totally ruin a shot; softness you'll never see, won't. Plus, post-processing sharpening will completely eliminate the softness 99.999% of the time, and provide an acceptable result to most human beings 100% of the time; but if you get hit with moiré on something that matters, that you don't catch in the moment, you're screwed.

Plus, very few people really need 20+ megapixel files in the finished product. Once you reduce it, any softness will be gone, but you'll still be stuck with moiré.

Click to expand...

If you have access to the RAW files you should be able to correct for that anyway through pre-debeyering softening. AA filters were only really necessary in the pre-RAW era, and having them in the camera now takes way options you might otherwise have.

Click to expand...

I have taken tens of thousands of shots with my 5DSR of birds and have had only a handful of them being spoiled by Moire (and not really spoiled, just a slight amount that is only noticeable on high enlargement that you do don't see in small prints). I have had similar Moire from my 5DIV. I have had great shots from my 7DII. The 5DSR crops are simply sharper.

As for: " Plus, post-processing sharpening will completely eliminate the softness 99.999% of the time, and provide an acceptable result to most human beings 100% of the time". Sharpening increases acutance, apparent sharpness; it doesn't restore details that are lost by softness, ie get back the lost resolution because of blurring by the AA-filter.

Hi,

Here you can post photo's that are taken with the Irix 11mm Blackstone or Firefly. Hereby a couple of my pictures taken with the blackstone.







Keep the pictures comming!

Greets

Thijs

buggati said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

Here's a few pics from it.

Click to expand...

those pictures look beautifull

Click to expand...

Thank you

Ian_of_glos said:

stevelee said:

Would facial recognition focusing make sense for some of these situations or is that mode incompatible with some other setting you need?

Click to expand...

Well I never use live view for sports. Live view might be fine for landscapes where you have plenty of time to compose the shot, but for sports you really need to use the viewfinder. Also the phase detect AF points are designed to focus very quickly, which is what you need for fast action.
As you will have seen from the examples I posted yesterday, you don't often focus on a player's face. More commonly the AF system will pick up the ball or the good contrast between a player's shirt and his arm. Quite often the A'F point settles on the back of a player so in this situation facial recognition would be of no use.

Click to expand...

Face detection IS available with viewfinder focus on multiple Canon cameras.

And imo, it works very well quite often, but when it misses, it misses, and it will take a second to switch to a different AF-mode.