Poor AMF numbers on 1.4 TC Mark III with F/2.8 L IS II USM and Canon 5D Mark III
- By gary samples
- Canon Lenses
- 8 Replies
if possible send in camera lens & ex together to be tuned or repaired
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:I have a friend who bought a 5ct diamond ring for his wife many years back. She is known to wear it in public when out shopping, etc. We asked her if she was not worried, and she just said that everyone believes its a fake![]()
Pookie said:Cheap, easy and superb... don't forget the 135L.
grahamclarkphoto said:Returns and exchanges
Halfrack said:Which version of the Odin are you using? The Odin II has an AF assist beam...
http://journal.phottix.com/photo-accessory-news/phottix-announces-odin-ii-ttl-trigger/
GMCPhotographics said:A 24-85 f2 is going to be huge, it's twice the brightness of the existing 24-70 f2.8, which will require a 4x increase in optical mass and probably weight.
The only on sensor phase detect AF I've been impressed with was the 70D. It really is sweet but even then it's slow.bdunbar79 said:Hillsilly said:Just wanted to point out that:-
1. DSLR AF points are heavily clustered around the centre, whereas mirrorless AF points cover most of the sensor;
2. Mirrorless AF sensors are more accurate (even moreso if you have to focus and recompose your DSLR due to the problems associated with much smaller AF coverage.)
I'm not very good at maths, but I get the impression that this formula suggests that mirrorless AF is inferior to DLSR AF? I would have thought it would be the other way around, with mirrorless AF far superior in every aspect except AF tracking.
Why do you say mirrorless sensors are more accurate? Traditionally they have been mostly contrast-detect which while more accurate than phase, is much slower.
Secondly, why do you think phase-detect sensors on sensor are more accurate? Traditionally they have been less accurate. Then you have the whole precision thing, with cross-types and dual cross-types, where up until now, mirrorless cannot compete. Think 1Dx vs. A7R II. Which would you pick if you had one NFL game where you were going to be paid $1 million.
Tracking is horrendous in mirrorless vs. DSLR's.
Since the 5d3 behaves better at high ISO, you are more likely to shoot at a higher ISO to avoid the motion blur, but at the expense of worse noise....niels123 said:Don Haines said:Things are never that simple.....
How much of the light entering the sensor is blocked by the electronics? This depends on the design of the sensor, the fineness of the lithography, and the number of pixels....
an approximation that is good at one end of the scale may not be good at the other end of the scale.... At low ISO you can "convert" to a standard number of pixels, but at high ISO, even though you can convert, the larger pixels can give you enough shutter speed to get the shot, so people start to change shutter speed and ISO values differently on a camera with big pixels than they do on a camera with small pixels and the comparison falls apart....
Because with more pixels you will quicker see motion blur? What would happen then if you take two identical shots with the 5D3 and the 5Ds. Then at pixel size (real 1:1) you do see motion blur only in the 5Ds shot. If you then "convert" the 5Ds image to 22 megapixel, do you then "lose" the motion bur?
dilbert said:If...
...if...
...might...
Now... tell me where I'm wrong
wsmith96 said:privatebydesign said:I have changed my travel kit many times over the years but it is currently, the 11-24, the 35 f2 IS, and the very versatile 100 L Macro.
How many kits do you have????
I was also considering the 35 f2 IS against the 100L. It popped back up on the rewards page. I was making a kit that would have the zoom range covered from wide angle to telephoto (10-22, 17-55, 70-200) then adding a macro and portrait primes (50, 85, 135). Having a crop camera, equivalent lenses would have been the 85 1.8, 50 1.4, and 35 f2 IS. But then I bought that 5D. There is something about a FF camera that changes your pictures. They seem more pleasing to me - especially for portraits. I can't put my finger on it, but FF pictures of people seem to pop more than they do with my 60D. My 60D does fine for wildlife and sports (front yard wildlife and children's sports) - especially when I'm limited on my telephoto end, but I find myself using the 5D for everything else now.
I guess it's a part of G.A.S. I was almost done with the kit I wanted and I did a bone headed thing like buy a FF camera. Now my wants for my kit are changing again![]()
I shot a my first wedding last weekend and had one shot that had three images in it, all telling beautiful stories. My lighting was good so the crops hold up reasonably well but with the extra resolution they would undoubtedly been better and more usable for larger prints in the album.Chuck Alaimo said:Don Haines said:privatebydesign said:Chuck,
The first time you lose a key shot because it takes you hours to not get rid of the moire in a brides veil you will wish you had listened to your inner voice. For weddings, where you just don't have the time to check and reshoot, I think the R is a mistake waiting to really kick you in the balls.
I agree. Experimenting with gear for a paid shoot like a wedding is asking for trouble...
True, I'm going with the S. Getting it a few days before the wedding so I can get a feel for it - I'll still have a md3 and a 6d with me so if I feel squimish I can always just use the familiar. But, I am looking forward to the challenge of using the 5ds....
StudentOfLight said:I can't afford to pay for a funeral for my 5D-III. I guess I will just have to keep on shooting with it :-[
HighLowISO said:What is that streak across the frame, was there something in front of the lens?