I ordered my Tripod Mount Ring C (for the 70-300L) from UniquePhoto, as they were the only ones who had it in stock when I wanted it. Also my first (and only, so far) order with them, but they delivered.

I wonder if the same people who don't "like" DRTV also don't think that Top Gear does realistic car reviews? ;D ;D ;D

Canon1 said:

Nice looking bird Anil. What lens and camera body were you using?

The images all look pretty soft, which may have been due to the high ISO or if your lens was not calibrated... or depending on what your focal length was too slow a shutter speed/instability.

If you were using a fast lens you could have easily widened your aperture to achieve a faster shutter and lower ISO.

Compositionally I suggest you try to de-center your subject a little. You can either crop some off the left side of the image or compose in camera with your center point on the head of the bird. It is generally appealing to allow more space in front of where a subject is facing. This is just a general rule and in many cases is broken successfully, but with your images I think it would be beneficial.

Looking forward to more!

Happy shooting.

Click to expand...

Hi Canon1,

Body 5dM3: Lens 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM + 2x TC III

thanks for the inputs , will try for sure

Anil George

JPAZ said:

Like I said, I was too far away and it was early in the morning but here's the best I could do when I saw the Drango. I played around in post and finally decided the silhouette was the best option. I like your shots much better!

Click to expand...

You need a 600mm to reach that bird , nice attempt !

anil george

Yes, Dear Friends.
Our 3Th. day at Bryce Canyon National Park.
Enjoy.
Surapon

Here's a few I took today at the Chicago Botanic Gardens, nothing too serious, just trying the lens out.

So I tried the passport idea and got these two; the blues moved more in the histogram than the reds did, which surprised me. They're AdobeRGB so if they look screwy import them to LR or try Firefox.

Jim

jonathan7007 said:

...I still don't like the passive black-box feedback. The 1Ds Mark3's I use are a little slower in some of the darker situations but I love the positive feedback.

Click to expand...

The issue is the transmissive LCD, which cannot be side-lit at as steep an angle as the etched screen of older bodies.

london is a close-up city, so for a travel kit with the sl-1, I'd take the new 10-22 and the 40 pancake. It would
almost fit in my jacket pocket. If I thought I would be mostly indoors, I ditch the 40 and take whichever 50 I
could afford.

Thanks for all for you great advice and time.

I found many of you were not sure what I was trying to achieve/ show in this picture.

I tried to show the flowers along with the environment.

The sky was cloudy all day

100 said:

LetTheRightLensIn said:

100 said:

At 24mm the EF 16-35mm might be nearly distortion free but it also has the worst border and corner resolution wide open at 24mm and it has the worst chromatic aberrations throughout the aperture range.
Image distortion is not the only factor in image quality. With good lens profiles minor image distortion is not a big deal.

Click to expand...

16-35 f/4 IS at 24mm has less CA of all types (including longitudinal purple fringing) than the 24 1.4 II or 24 2.8 non-IS (I don't know about the 24 IS CA; I know the 24 T&S II has low CA)

Click to expand...

I meant the EF 16-35mm has the worst chromatic aberrations at 24mm compared to the other focal lengths of the lens.

Compared to other Canon lenses the border CA of the EF 16-35mm at 24 mm is good (the TS-E 24 II is better though), but the EF 16-35mm is outperformed on Border CA by something like the Sigma AF 12-24mm at 24mm.

9VIII wrote: They could take this exact lens formula at 24mm, remove the zoom capability, and you'd have one of the best 24mm prime lenses on the market.

If you look at image distortion that might be true but there is a lot more to a lens. The point I tried to make is that you might get one aspect nearly perfect but that usually means you have to compromise on other aspects.

Click to expand...

But as you say it still has among the lowest lateral CA at 24mm of any lens AND it has almost zero longitudinal CA at 24mm (not many places mention that nasty type of CA)

I tried this at a Sony Center yesterday and I'm really impressed...

msm said:

jrista, I don't see how this press release quantify performance. It says nothing about SNR or DR etc, it doesn't even try to claim that the sensor is competitive in those regards. It may also require hardware around it which is not feasible nor practical in todays cameras. For instance to read out and process all that data would require a lot more readout channels and processing power than what you see in a 1DX today.

Press releases may also typically be written by PR or marketing personnel written for other purposes than to scientifically describe their findings.

As for patents, I don't read them but they don't actually give any data about how well actual their actual implementations perform do they? Without that data we can not tell if its awesome or not. What seems great on paper might be bad in practice.

Click to expand...

SNR and DR aren't the epitome of sensor performance, though. They are only factors of sensor performance. Both are heavily affected by readout noise, and it's been demonstrated that column-parallel ADC designs produce less read noise, by at least two companies now (Sony and Toshiba, and I believe other high end sensor manufacturers have similar designs in the works as well). Canon described some kind of hyperparallel on-die ADC for the 120mp APS-H.

Assuming the silicon process was the same generation as the cameras of the time it was released, it's logical to assume it has the same fundamental characteristics as the 1D IV. The 1D IV had around 45% Q.E. and the same DR limitations as all Canon cameras (due to read noise). I see no reason to assume this sensor would be significantly different in those fundamental statistics at worst, better if their highly parallelized readout offers similar improvements as Sony and Toshibas. Canon silicon hasn't really changed much over the years...the most significant improvements each generation are a few percent jump in Q.E.

Your also misunderstanding the point of using a column-parallel ADC. You actually DON'T need as much processing horsepower to read out more pixels faster when you hyperparallelize the ADC units. The problem with having too few units is each unit MUST be high powered enough to handle the hundreds of thousands or millions of pixels they have to process. That means higher frequency, and it also means more attention must be paid to the design of those units to limit the amount of noise they add to the signal (and even then, they are noisy parts because of the high frequency).

By using one ADC unit per column, each ADC can operate at a lower frequency. The lower frequency immediately offers a benefit in terms of read noise. Other techniques, such as moving the clock and driver off to a remote area of the die (like Exmor), you can reduce noise even further (Exmor took it one step farther, and used a digital form of CDS, which they claim was better than using analog CDS...however ironically they added analog CDS back into the mix with later version of Exmor for video cameras...now they do both analog and digital CDS). You trade die space for the ability to operate at a lower frequency and power. With a 180nm process, that's a no brainer. This HAS BEEN DONE...both Sony and Toshiba have working CP-ADC designs built into their CMOS sensors that are actually used in consumer products. Sony has a number of technical documents that explain how they achieved exactly what Canon describes in their 120mp APS-H papers and patents...low power high speed readout of high resolution sensors via hyperparallel ADC.

So, even though Canon's 120mp APS-H isn't in an actual consumer grade product that we can buy, it uses technology that mirrors products from other brands that we can buy, and that have been tested. The most telling are Sony security video cams that use Exmor sensors, which can operate at very high frame rates in very low light...they are not only doing high speed readout with very, very low noise and relatively high DR, they are also doing processing with image processors that are packaged to the bottom of the sensor, and wired directly to it.

To be strait, I am speculating a bit, but it's very educated speculation. It isn't like it's just 100% completely unfounded drivel.

msm said:

For instance Foveon sensors seem like a great technology on paper does it not? No CFA wasting away 2/3rds of the light and no demosaic algorithm interpolating data and making images soft in 100% view. Yet in real life Foveon is outperformed by standard CFA sensors, it gives the resolution but does not perform well in other aspects. Real life performance is what counts and Foveon sensors don't have it (yet, would like to see that change).

Click to expand...

As for Foveon, I think your incorrect in your assessment. Foveon only "fails" at ONE thing: resolving power. There have been debates in the past on these forums where Foveon fans claim that because it has a 100% fill factor for all colors, that it has as much or higher RESOLUTION than bayer sensors. Those claims are wrong, as bayer sensors get largely the full benefit of the raw sensor resolution in terms of luminance...they only really suffer in color resolution and color fidelity (both areas where Foveon excels).

For what Foveon is, at it's REAL spatial resolution, they are actually very good. Their red channels are a little nosier, but their blue channels are less noisy than bayer. No surprise, given the layering order of color photodiodes in the Foveon. Even though image dimensions/resolving power for Foveon is lower than in bayer sensors, those smaller images usually exhibit high quality. I do think that color fidelity with Foveon cameras is superior to what I get with my Canon DSLRs (I just like my resolution too much to give it up ). So I think it's unfair to claim that the real-life performance of Foveon is bad or even poor. For what it is, it's real life performance is very good.

The only drawback of Foveon is it's resolving power...and I truly believe that Sigma has done Foveon a big disservice by trying to upsell it as having more resolution than it really does, or somehow claim that because it gathers full color information per pixel that upsampling it somehow beats bayer sensors for resolution and detail. Actual real-world examples that do exactly that have proven otherwise. Foveon's problem isn't that it's bad technology...it's that Sigma owns it, and Sigma doesn't have the marketing power nor the R&D budget to really make Foveon shine and become a highly competitive alternative. Sigma is much more a lens company than a camera or sensor company, IMO. I do believe it COULD be highly competitive in the hands of a wealthier corporation that could more richly fund it's development.

Thank you very much Vossie...

Great idea this thread. Since the kids are at their grandparents for a week, I'll post the most recent I have.

Shot at 1.4

I did a bunch a few years ago that work great as desktop wallpapers, text really pops off of them.
Spring Blur by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr

Autumn Blur by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr

Dusk in Autumn by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr

Dusk in Autumn by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr
Autumn Blur by dawgfanjeff, on Flickr

Great shot!!! Have a happy and safe Fourth as well

Re: EOS 7D Replacement & Telephoto Lens in September [CR3]

lilmsmaggie said:

neuroanatomist said:

Sabaki said:

CR3 makes this near real...right?

Click to expand...

Real. Just like aliens.

Click to expand...

Aliens are real. The rest of us are just figments of their imagination.

Click to expand...

Of course they are real. They cross the border in their droves every day.

entlassen said:

Looking for opinions into the Honl vs Rogue gel kit systems. Pros/Cons of one over the other. Any feedback would be appreciated! Haven't invested in either system yet.

Also, I am wondering if anybody here with a 600EX-RT actually uses the included gel holder? I know that if you use the official Canon-cut CTO that the speedlite will supposedly auto-detect its existence and modify the flash exposure. What happens if you cut your own gel and stick it into the holder? Anyway, I'm just wondering if anybody actually uses the Canon gel holder for real shoots or if it's just a gimmick.

Click to expand...

I feel you pain with the Canon "gel holder". I'm sure there are some people out there who like this thing but you can safely put me in the "Canon made a great flash and messed up with the gel feature" camp. It does work, but not well and it's niggly and takes too much room in the gear bag when you're hauling a bunch of flashes around on a shoot day.
I used to just cut my own gels and tape them on. As most others have already mentioned, you're then saving a ton of cash by buying a large sheet. You're also not limited to the two gels Canon's holder recognizes. Although, you can use other colours but have to ensure you don't cover the sensors under the flash head and change your WB manually as you normally would with a gel.
I have shelled out for a set of Rouges lately as they were on a great sale and now instead of taping, I've got a set of silicone bands to hold the gels on. As far as I know, the gels are made by Lee and have been durable so far for me. Nothing against any brand that uses velcro but it's a personal thing with me that I don't like anything velcro.

I got some great little containers for these types of things at a Japanese housewares store called Muji.

I don't think the brand is that big in the US but I see they do have stores in New York and California and an online store as well. Don't know about Canada though.

Tip: the really suitable containers are actually in the Health and Beauty section, as opposed to the Storage section. But they're really well made - soft flexible plastic, not brittle - and the right size for small items.

http://www.muji.us/store/health-and-beauty/containers.html

$1.25 to $2.75 for the small boxes.

The place is like the Japanese Ikea!

I'd check you haven't damaged the floor.

Frodo said:

I have one of these lenses.
The focusing ring is very smooth and there is no backlash. I think you would feel backlash when twisting the focus ring back and forth.
It is true that there is variability with the position of the distance scale in relation to the actual focus. My first lens was about 1cm off along the distance scale. The focus ring seized and I got a new one under warranty - this one is spot on.

Click to expand...

Tks Frodo for the info. Good to know there r good copies out of the box...

Thanks guys!

Northstar, I think the flash you mean was a boat going past! It came past pretty quickly but I think it was a fishing boat and when it was heading out it had a huge floodlight pointing directly towards the shore where I was.

Miah, I used a Canon 6D with Samyang 14mm f/2.8.
I took over 400 shots over roughly a 3 hour period, each shot was a 25 second exposure at ISO 6400, f/4 (f/2.8 wasn't giving me great IQ) and then there was a 1 second interval between shots. Just used a basic intervalometer I got off eBay a few years ago.

I got one to fill a void in my L lens coverage. Price versus performance was my main choice. I am really happy with the choice.

B-29 Super Fortress "FiFi" Cockpit © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

NASA glider sunset Edwards AFB V3 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Canon 5D Mark III & Tokina 16-28 f2.8 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Richard Branson's new spacecraft.