Posts

PhotoSimon · Oct 17, 2016

That's a fair point Mikehit - how you view the image will make all the difference - viewing the same full size, uncropped image should not make any difference

KeithBreazeal · Oct 17, 2016

Add the standard mileage rate and it gets better.
Pretty much spot on article.
No major publisher has stolen my work- which speaks volumes about my photography.
When I sell a photo to a web site, it's a small file.
I have been asked several times about donating or just use permission. I have a rule- if it's a non-profit that
has some redeeming qualities, I will consider free use. Other that that, I have a good & fair rate.
My video archives for broadcast has a fixed minimum of $1,000 for a full license.
Don't undercut yourself, but don't lose a sale over your ego.

Jack Douglas · Oct 16, 2016

East Wind Photography said:
Jack Douglas said:

Thanks very much Go Wild; I love enthusiasm! I'm working my butt off to learn the 1DX II in spite of my 6D handicap.

East W I sure hope you are wrong since that would seem a big blunder by Canon.

Jack

Click to expand...

Oh dear how do I tell my wife I need to spend more money!

In control systems a servo feedback control system can handle speed variation and that's what I assumed, that there were measurement and feedback parameters that made it controllable. I know a stepper motor is a whole different beast.

Jack

Not a blunder, just what the STM motor was designed for. Prior to these new camera models, the focus speed setting was not prevalent. Photogs were wanting faster and faster af speeds....then folks complained it was too fast for video and wanted better control.

Again, canon wants you to buy the equipment for your needs....and of course extra equipment for each.

Besisika · Oct 16, 2016

JoFT said:
My MkIV is not for sale. I love it... As you might see herehttp://bit.ly/2ct4Oso

Welcome to night panning! One of my preferred hobbies since I got my 1DX II. Have fun with yours!
With the focusing system you can go all the way down to 1.2 at 1/10th sec on a monopod.

YellowJersey · Oct 15, 2016

The Panasonic LX10 looks like it'll surpass the RX100 series due to the inclusion of ibis plus a faster lens (1.8-2.8), and is less expensive. I don't know about the video quality, but I only shoot stills. The LX10 comes out in November. I could very well go for it over the RX100 V.

cpsico · Oct 15, 2016

If this camera follows the trend of highest IQ in the smallest full frame form factor I am all in for this camera. I love photography but sometimes big huge cameras and lenses steals a bit of my joy when at family parties, hiking, or just enjoying the day. This is where my 6d is my favorite camera. There are many small compromises on this camera. but sheer joy of photography for the purpose of beautiful images is not one of the 6d's shortfalls. I look forward to the next evolution of this camera. It is my most loved camera without it being my most capable.

deleteme · Oct 15, 2016

OK, Canon relevant proposal here:

I use TS-E lenses a lot.
How about an adapter that is also a 1.4x TC?

We then get a ready made ultra-wide TS-E lens (using the 17) on a MF 50MP sensor.
We could also use other TC compatible lenses on the GFX.

Of course I would like to see how much better the GFX is compared to the 5DSR.

Jack Douglas · Oct 15, 2016

East Wind Photography, thanks for that. I'm going to change it to the whole region. With the 6D the non-cross points were noticeably poorer.

Jack

privatebydesign · Oct 15, 2016

colinrb said:
I think a 200-600mm f4-5.6L would be very large, heavy and expensive.

Having used the 100-400mm MKII for a few months, I would rather see another upgrade than the above, as follows, make it an f4-5.6 (I hate lenses that don't have full stop maximum apertures, and this the only one I have ever had), the long end needs a little improvement in quality, then build in the 1.4x extender as the 200-400mm f4L.
You could then zoom from 100mm to 560mm without having to carry an extender, and for me would cover a better range than the above lens.

Canon made a full frame 150-600 f5.6L, you can buy them on eBay for between $3,000-$10,000. It is manual focus and even the youngest ones are over twenty years old.

P.S. This one has been converted to EF from FD mount.

Don Haines · Oct 14, 2016

solaris said:
Hm - sitting over here in germany I tried to get a sneak preview on the 60Da on photokina exhibition in cologne years ago - surprise, surprise - canon invested only in stupied people running around - no 60Da - no information - nothing. Wasted time at all... :-\

Anyway - since I purchased years ago for my 60D a so called clip-filter from Astronomik I stumbled over this article

http://www.astronomik.com/en/news/astrophotography_with_a_unmodified_canon_6d/

trying to find out if purchasing new 5d IV makes sense or not (by the way: has someone compared a 5D III (USB 2.0) with IV (UDB 3.0) about downloading astro images via USB - and how performs WIFI ???)

Article describes experiance of a NZ astrophotographer finding that 6D has a quite good H-Alpha sensitivity compared to other cameras - since the 60Da has problems with shifted colors / balance a potential astro-camera should be a 6D-based one with selected sensors and a removable IR-filter - replacing it by a sort of clip-on filter so that an amateur can switch quickly between different filters - or place a camara without filter behind a filter wheel. Result would be a 6D able to be used as "normal" DSLR and as astro-camera by removing quickly the filter. Another 60Da piece of crap makes no sense at all...

...if a 7D-based camera makes sense I dont know since 6D is APS-C and 7D is Full. So 7D chips by 99% have same poor H-Alpha sensitivity then other cameras - except 6D. Split-brain benefit: Full frame - many telescopes do not have a large enough focusser (diameter) so that vignetted pics are result - i.e. FF resolution is wasted.

Frank

The basic advice given out for years in photography is that if you are going to shoot in low light conditions, go FF. Since astrophotography is the king of low light photography, it would make sense for an "A" camera to be based on the 6D.....

RayValdez360 · Oct 14, 2016

rrcphoto said:
AvTvM said:

Meatcurry said:

Therefore the designers of the 5D3 would have had to have had foreknowledge of the W-E1 design/specification in 2011/12!

Click to expand...

and the 5DS / 5DSR designers did hav that foresight, right?

It is just a few lines of firmware code, nothing else. ML can do it. Canon should be able to do it. They just do not WANT to. Because of GREED, GREED, GREED.

Click to expand...

wow .. imagine that .. a company wanting to make money.

what the hell is with that?

So you support greed I guess. There is a difference between making a profit and just being greedy. Greedy to the point that they cant do a simple line change even for a price but make you spends thousands on a whole new product just for a small feature. I have a 5d3 5dsr and a 5div but i know canon is greedy and will admit it. I like to save money if possible. Do you?

turtle · Oct 14, 2016

Sometimes these things are a total mystery. I had one with Eos 3 film bodies and the 85mm f1.8 EF. Neither of the two bodies I had in Afghanistan would focus accurately with either 85mm f1.8 I bought. I tried one lens, got a replacement and it was the same. What's odd is that focus was perfect through the viewfinder, but miles out on film as distance grew. The greater the focus distance, the greater the error and by 5m it was about 3m out! At minimum focus, it was fairly accurate. At, say, 3-5m the error was so huge that even stopping right down could not account for the massive error. I had used both Eos3 bodies on lenses from 24mm to 200mm and they were performing perfectly in all cases. In all my years I had never experienced anything like this.

At this point I could not understand how both 85mm f1.8 lenses could do the very same thing on BOTH my Eos 3 bodies and the error occurring defied reason. How could the image be perfect on screen, the camera lock focus perfectly at all distances and the actual negatives look like I had focused in a different county?!.... yet when I changed to ANY other lens I owned, everything was peachy perfect. It all pointed to the lenses, but how? What?

In desperation I ordered a 85mm f1.2 L II and that lens was perfect on both Eos 3 bodies. It later proved to be just fine on the Eos 1nHS body I had (but not with me at the time I was trying the 85mm f1.8 lenses). Years later I bought a third 85mm f1.8 for my 5D III and it too is perfect on my digital bodies.

I never did figure this one out and nobody has ever been able to explain it to me either. I went through about ten careful test rolls trying to find something to make sense of and it drove me nuts. Here I am bringing it up seven years later! It makes no more or less sense than your problem with the 5D Mk IV!

I got my portraits in the end (you can see some here:http://www.thomasstanworth.com/afghan-heroin-not-for-export/) and I absolutely love the 85 f1.2 L II as a result. Maybe it was meant to be

Mt Spokane Photography · Oct 14, 2016

There are at least two ways to help out with overheating.

1. A better heat dissipation path which drains heat away faster. This is difficult to do when you have in camera stabilization because the sensor must be free to move.

2. A improved sensor that generates less heat, sometimes just manufacturing techniques can reduce heating even if the sensor design is the same. Sometimes, two different sensors off the same assembly line may generate different amounts of heat. That's why computer processors are graded into different speeds, the ones that generate less heat can be run at higher speeds. They all come off the same production line and are tested for their ability to operate at higher speeds without overheating. Sony could be doing that as well, and selling lower performing ones to someone else.

Without some sort of design analysis or testing of several randomly selected bodies of each type, its hard to know if its just a sample difference, or a improvement. I'd expect some sort of improvement, but it will take more information to be certain.

chrysoberyl · Oct 14, 2016

CanonFanBoy said:
Don, would you go for an EF 400mm f/4L IS USM with the blue goo at about $2.5-$3.5k? I know this is pure speculatory dreaming, but would it hold appeal for people in your opinion?

It would appeal to me. You should do a poll...

superfortress · Oct 14, 2016

Spam Removed by Moderator

Viggo · Oct 14, 2016

IglooEater said:
Gorgeous shot Viggo! Really hoping to have a daughter someday- My two sons are cute, but a daughter is special somehow.

Thanks! I have a son as well, and they're both amazing

so lucky to have one of each !

unfocused · Oct 13, 2016

Don and Mt. Spokane make a lot of sense to me.

I'm not expert, but I do know that I've never had a problem with Canon and Adobe playing nicely together. Admittedly, I'm not an early adopter, but it seems like whenever a new camera is released, it's only a matter of days before Adobe has software that works with the camera.

I suspect that's because they cooperate and Adobe doesn't attempt to hack or work-around Canon's core programming.

Ozarker · Oct 13, 2016

Mt Spokane Photography said:
There are some third party tripod rings that are stronger and may be a good choice, RRS and Kirk are the ones I've looked at.

This is good to know. Thank you Mt. Spokane.

old-pr-pix · Oct 13, 2016

Didn't someone on here post a template? Maybe even mackguyver? Might be worth reposting or adding a link.

Trouble is these Wratten filters are made by Kodak and sold under license by Tiffen. Anything other than real common varieties may be hard to locate. For example, B&H lists the 89 series (infrared pass, visible block) but has no stock.

John2016 · Oct 13, 2016

DigitalEdgePhotography said:
I find the 5D4 to be a fantastic camera body. Most of the features and 'specs' that people are complaining about will never be realized. My customers could care less if my camera has all the latest bells and whistles. And I certainly don't need them just to brag about having them.

All my customers (and I) care about is stellar image quality.

And the EOS 5D Mark IV definitely delivers.

Interesting how both "worlds" are "split". For Videographers 5dMkIV is the biggest disappointment in years.
Google it. Fact is: The 5D was always for photographers. I don't doubt the Mark IV is a very capable stills camera.

@"Most of the features and 'specs' that people are complaining about will never be realized."

For Still or Video?
For video Sony just destroyed the 5dMKIV and 2017 is just around the corner. (Sony A9R and A9S and Panasonic GH5)

Refurb7 · Oct 12, 2016

That is extreme. But then some people collect all sorts of things. Might as well be old cameras.

Ozarker · Oct 12, 2016

privatebydesign said:
pwp said:

Solution is to be a bit prescient, and gang up two flashes on half power or three or one-third power. That way you're unlikely to stress the flashes plus get rocket fast recycle times.

-pw

Click to expand...

Having hit the power limit on six ganged 600's I am taking another route. I had thought the Profoto B1 would be my answer but at only 500Ws it isn't that much more powerful. But the new D2 at 1000Ws running off my PCB Lithium Extreme gives me ETTL, HSS and more power than I could run, via the Canon route of 15 units, in a single head, it also gives me all day use via mains or hundreds of full power pops or up to 20 flashes per second for a fraction of the cost of all those 600EX-RT's. Not that I will sell the RT's I have, just there are many options now that integrate with all native functionality.

And you are quite correct, which is why I abandoned my quest for fifteen 600's after I got the 7th. Contrary to what people say, ignorance is NOT bliss. Grrrrr... :'( Lot's of money thrown out.

douglaurent · Oct 12, 2016

neuroanatomist said:
douglaurent said:

My favourite part of this thread is that I was remembering Canon did release a 750D and 760D with and without articulating screen - as I couldn't imagine that they indeed only released an alternative version of a camera just to eliminate a top display and rear wheel.

Finding this fact again maybe shows best which confusing path Canon has taken.

Click to expand...

It shows nothing about Canon or their path, it merely shows that you are confused.

If it comes to cameras I own, features and main conclusions I have absolute clarity. Unfortunately each day there's new annoying facts to be discovered about Canon products (and it helps to forget about them). Today's discovery:

The lens on the XC10 says it's a 24-240mm. In fact the real focal length is 9-89mm, and equivalent to full frame for photo it's 25-250mm and for 4k video 27-273mm. 24 or 27 is always a big difference when it comes to wide angle shots. In any event the numbers on this fixed lens are pretty useless. A daily blog could be filled just with Canon fails.

chrysoberyl · Oct 12, 2016

For caves, definitely a fast wide prime. Plan on off-camera flash; steam (illuminated by on-camera flash) from one's breath can really mess up shots.

Oct 12, 2016

Why? I suppose because you're not actually focusing when the image is captured. Similarly, the selected AF point isn't recorded in EXIF if AF isn't active at the shutter press.

Of course, the only time you need the AFMA recorded is if you're actually determining the adjustment value manually.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics