Posts

RLPhoto · Dec 11, 2013

Too bad that is so darn expensive and I'm a manual type of guy when I decide to pull out the strobes anyway. Not saying it isn't very cool to have TTL strobes but it's a matter of time before we get TTL Einsteins.

Zen · Dec 11, 2013

In-silhouette shots like Iron-t's are conservative, understated and certainly NOT sensual/sexual. But they certainly tell the story. His is a dynamite shot that conveys inner peace in the Mom to be, and a gentleness that we all envision Moms to have. Couldn't be a better pose. There are many variations on the theme, of course, but the silhouette is the way to go. For those ladies who may feel unlovely or are a bit shy about appearing in that condition in a photo, the silhouette gives a measure of anonymity that a full color head on shot would not.

Wish I had done this with mine, but alas, I did not.

Good luck.

Zen

Dec 11, 2013

I have used WEX a few times and phoned them a couple of times as well. They are not simply "Box Shifters" as many would believe. I prefer a High Street camera shop, but when that is not available, the WEX offer a very efficient and professional service in my experience.

tolusina · Dec 11, 2013

Consider also, tethered focus stacking on a tripod. Obviously only good for stationary subjects.

ashmadux · Dec 11, 2013

The eos M already kicks out great images (a bit noisy, but manageable) so its more in terms of getting used to the touchscreen vs say, a g12/15/16

For me, the M does not replace the g12- even though it takes better photos. the g12 is much more practical to stash in a large pocket or in areas where its tight- not so much for the M. Even today, i carried the M +22mm, and my g12, which i can use for zooming in if i need to.

When traveling abroad, or city adventuring, i always carried one camera with me- again, the g12. i can walk with it in my hand (or swinging a bit), its fairly durable, where the M feels like a good ping would jam something up. Add the invaluable swivel screen, and you have a pocket warrior that just rocks.

J.R. · Dec 11, 2013

AcutancePhotography said:
copy/past

That's what I was talking about.

mackguyver · Dec 11, 2013

The other key is WRITE speed. Lot's of the 90mb/s labeled cards don't write at half that speed. So it's great that the photos download to your PC faster, but the write speed in camera is most important. Always check the write speed before buying.

MrKorney · Dec 11, 2013

I have a buddy who really enjoys doing time-lapse photography and high frame rate video with his GoPro but not that interested in straight still photography (even though time-lapse is technically stills converted to a video). What kind of gear, canon or not, would you recommend to get a more professional looking finished product. The GoPro is great for all that it can do but its quality only goes so far. Thanks!

Click · Dec 11, 2013

+2 Thanks for sharing.

chas1113 · Dec 11, 2013

Yes. I got pulled in by it. Long story short, Canon shipped an old 35mm f/2 at the $200+ price. I called immediately and confirmed with the rep that my invoice showed an IS version and he concurred, but wouldn't do anything but pay for the return shipping. Lens went back, credit card charges reversed. End of story.

I'm not saying it's bait-and-switch, but it WOULD be a good way to move old inventory, wouldn't it?

Menace · Dec 11, 2013

Well done CR

jrista · Dec 11, 2013

Rista Jukku said:
jrista said:

Marsu42 said:

jrista said:

So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.

Click to expand...

Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Click to expand...

Oh, its definitely there...I see it clearly. Same crap I have in my 7D, too.

Marsu42 said:

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

Click to expand...

I'd say "Than Canon could have delivered"...past tense, the 5D III is only a couple months away from it's second birthday. I also believe that Canon would be incapable of producing any higher resolution sensors on their current fabrication process, and I believe in two years time, they could have improved.

Marsu42 said:

What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture ...

Click to expand...

Aye, which is in significant part due to the considerable improvement in banding. Horizontal banding was pretty much eliminated, and vertical banding occurs in these "soft" vertical stripes, rather than the harsh kind that occurred in sensors prior to the 5D III and 1D X. The more random, "natural" appearance of the noise, rather than a patterned, unnatural appearance, greatly helps in it's elimination.

As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files). Compared to LR, DXO tools result in what I would call about two thirds of a stop WORSE noise performance strait out of camera. Compared to DPP, it is more like a stop worse (I do have to say, as much as I hate DPP's UI, it produces the cleanest noise output for Canon RAW files of ANYTHING, free or for pay...it's really too bad Adobe has't looked into Canon's own RAW demosaicing algorithms.)

I don't know if it is an intentional bias, or just a fundamental lack of interest in properly supporting Canon. I have given DXO's tools several dedicated tries, but in general they are lacking, they seems to be far slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible. All things being equal, that isn't surprising. Canon is not a DXO supporter, DXO has never given Canon much time or interest (it is often months or even years before DXO will test certain Canon cameras, whereas they will test Sony and Nikon cameras right out the gate, as soon as they can get their hands on a few copies.)

If you want the cleanest RAW conversions, DPP can't be beat. It's standard deviation of noise is about two thirds to half that of LR, and a full order of magnitude better than anything I've tried from DXO. (The only thing I DON'T like about it is it doesn't deal with aliasing as well as LR...edges come out of LR with this clean, crisp look, whereas you can clearly see stairstepping and in some cases moire a lot more often with DPP.)

Click to expand...

Because they DPP have a lot of noise reduction going on for the Canon cameras, take a look at noise reduction and real resolution and you see the difference between DXO and DPP. DPP are masking off a lot of resolution in different frequencies.

And your statement that DXO doesn't handle Canon files good as Nikon are pure nonsense, it requires a clean signal from the beginning and Canons CDS are not good as Sony/Nikon due the read out.

Um, DPP doesn't do any NR at all unless you apply it yourself. DPP, fundamentally, is just a basic RAW demosaicing engine. It's demosaicing isn't even all that great, and the results are usually more detailed/sharper than Adobe Lightroom, however that comes at the cost of some increase in demosaicing artifacts and some aliasing.

DXO, on the other hand, while it can be sharp, is NOISY as hell. It is clearly not a Canon issue, because both LR and DPP produce less noisy results than DXO without any additional processing, with DPP being the least noisy and sharpest. The problem with DPP is it doesn't do much...it isn't an image processor, it is really just a raw converter. You demosaic, maybe tweak a few basic sliders here and there, and save to TIFF, then process, but you lose a LOT of editing latitude that way.

jdramirez · Dec 10, 2013

dak723 said:
If you went to a store and looked at both lenses, bought the cheaper lens, then when you got home found out that they had put the wrong lens in the box - the "L" lens - would you have kept it or returned it? The answer when purchased in person seems obvious. The "online" answer should be the same, in my opinion.

Not exactly the same situation... but it seems apropos to fill you in. So a company I bought something from online mailed out my order and I received it and the credit card info was evidently screwed up. They asked that I fix it so they could actually charge me for what I had already received.... oh... lo and behold... I did. So rather than ignoring their request I did the honorable thing. Go figure?

So how much was it you ask... $300 so not exactly an L, but it is a chunk of change.

RLPhoto · Dec 10, 2013

privatebydesign said:
So first curtain and clockwise or second curtain and anti clockwise, and what are the definitive points proving that?

As for my work, I haven't avoided the question, I will not post it here on CR, that is the answer, the same answer I have given you many times before. I don't care if that is unacceptable to you or if it means you, personally, consider my posts worthless. The points I make are normally easily checked by anybody with an interest in the specific area or technique under discussion but are often misrepresented as "deal breakers" or "issues" when often they are not, that is why I am sometimes so stubborn.

It isn't my fault that after all this time you still believe that in dance shots there is a difference between first and second curtain sync, even though I have explained why, in simple terms, there isn't; it also isn't my fault you can't see the logic and professionalism you get from normalised results by profiling your cameras/lenses/flashes. But believe me, in time, you will, I was way more "knowledgeable" and stubborn when I was your age than you are, and we didn't have the internet to prove it!

Now in the name of peace in the forums I suggest we stick to the subject of photography, I do that way better than personal relationships with people I have never met and who clearly have no respect for my opinions, even though they can't actually disprove them.

Sometimes I am wrong, if you believe that to be so then don't attack me, educate me.

More Knowledgeable? and Suggesting to stick to the subject of photography? Hmmm... A Bit hard to wrap my brain around those two thing's w/o any photography from yourself. XD

mackguyver · Dec 10, 2013

Looks like M.ST was banned or closed his account...

Haydn1971 · Dec 10, 2013

70-300L traded for 70-300 non L, 10-22, 1.4x extender, 50 1.4 and a bit of cash - overall, very happy - I'm rid if AF hell, the image quality at longer lengths has improve, I'm a tad sad to lose the 50mm but hey ! I've still got my 135L

Happy days

DanielW · Dec 10, 2013

Thank you very much, Don!

Skulker · Dec 10, 2013

neuroanatomist said:
Skulker said:

Marsu42 said:

Skulker said:

I start with the assumption that Canon know a lot more about making cameras than I do.

Click to expand...

That's the spirit, I'll remember to nominate you for the "Canon compliance of the year" award ... but you're correct, not every design decision is "crippling", but as it happens this one is different because ML has proven that auto iso with flash is no problem at all - you can use other iso settings manually, so there is really no reason why the camera shouldn't be able to select the iso according to the ambient light as usual and then let ettl decide the rest.

Click to expand...

You mean as my 1Dx does, as I just pointed out. ;D

Click to expand...

I guess your 1Dx is different from my 1D X.

The issue at hand is when a Speedlite is attached, Canon cameras default to ISO 400 when they are set to Auto ISO. Are you saying your camera does something different?

I'm not sure if mine is diferent to yours? Send me yours so I can carry out some tests if you like.

I use a 580ex11 on camera or on an extension lead., and most of the time it defaults to ISO400. But sometimes it goes to ISO6400. The manual indicates that it will go to ISO1600. I freely admit I'm out of my depth with flash. I hardly ever use it and find it a bit of a black art. Why the owl shot I put in this tread was at ISO1600 and the one next to it was at ISO400 I have no idea. There is a color cast to the owl so maybe the flash was overheating?

can0nfan2379 · Dec 10, 2013

I have a few Zeiss ZE manual focus lenses.....no special settings on camera, just manually focus and press the shutter. Not sure why your Samyang would be any different.

Standard said:
I know this may be very simple to many of you using the 5D Mark III but I can't seem to figure it out so your help is greatly appreciated. I've spent a good few hours flipping through the manual and scouring Websites but can't seem to find anything.

I find myself at a lost today trying to take some architectural/environmental shots with the Mark III and the Samyang 14mm. Try as I might, I can't get the camera to take the shot. Pushing the shutter button does nothing. I have gone through the Live View menu and tried adjusting the various settings but they haven't helped. I have the camera on a tripod using Live View, ISO at 100, aperture at f/16 and is using both manual focus magnification along with hyper focal techniques. Normally, this is a non-issue with my 5D Mark II which I have been using exclusively for landscape/environmental photography up until today.

What I believe the problem maybe is that the camera is trying to focus with AF rather than letting me manually focus BUT since the Samyang 14mm lens is a fully manual lens and do not have a manual switch, I can't change to that to let the camera know that I want to focus manually.

What am I doing wrong? Do I need to activate mirror lockup (I'd assume that Live View is a better option since it reduces/eliminates vibration)? How do I go about setting the camera to manual focus?

Any help in shedding light to this is greatly appreciated.

EDIT: I've just tried this with the Canon 24L and was able to take shots. This helps confirm that the issue lies with setting the lens to AF/manual but how does one goes about using manual lenses that do not have AF/manual switches with the Mark III?

privatebydesign · Dec 10, 2013

Second the night zoo, amazing experience, make sure you do some of the walking trail in there too not just the bus.

Taxis are cheap, if there are two of you it works out similar to the bus, if there are three of you a taxi is cheaper.

I liked China Town much more than Little India. If you like urban stuff the kids ride BMX and skateboards in some of the underground linkways between the shops, but it is 100% safe everywhere.

Got to go to Raffles and have a Singapore Sling, even if you are not a drinker, and the peanut shells on the floor as well as all the stuff with history in there make for a very atmospheric place. Some of the high rise bars give spectacular views over the city at night.

The Merlion is weird! But the walk around the waterfront very nice, good restaurants, great photo ops, etc. Awesome aquarium at Sentoza too.

The place is not a closed in, tight, type city, it is the kind of place where a 24mm can work better than a 16mm, if you understand wheat I mean. There is space, it isn't Hong Kong or Delhi!

dolina · Dec 9, 2013

I'd very keen in owning one if one were to be sold.

Jesse · Dec 9, 2013

Thanks, never used that site before, definitely very useful.

Mt Spokane Photography · Dec 9, 2013

I found that lenses which I thought were not very sharp suddenly became wonderful when using Focal. At first, I tried home printed charts, patterns on my monitor, and got different results all the time. Lens Aligh II improved things a lot, but FoCal nailed it.

However, its not a simple process to do it right, and you can make things worse by fooling around.

Marsu42 · Dec 9, 2013

syrcular said:
I mainly shoot either street photography portraits or studio or location portraits. With my street photography, speed of autofocus is also key.

You wrote it yourself - if af speed and size (street) is your preference, better be critical about the Tamron... best check it at some shop for yourself, it has a "two phase" af lock that slows things down a bit. A good(!) copy of the Tamron otherwise is a fine lens and the wide end is very wide other than Canons 24-70ii, but for regular f2.8 shooting is has heavy vignetting and lacks sharpness to the edges (if the latter matters at all).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=788&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Marsu42 · Dec 9, 2013

syder said:
I'm not sure what competition you're referring to Marsu - the only affordable cameras that do RAW are the Blackmagics, and they're so far removed from a DSLR that they can't be compared. And if you think a BMCC is cheap because the body doesn't cost much you're wrong. Once you add all the extras you're looking at paying more than a C100 for a far less versatile camera (but which does provide higher resolution images with a lot more colour information).

Thanks, since I'm not into video I really didn't calculate the "total cost of ownership", I'll consider this in the future. As for shooting raw, I don't suggest you do it all the time because of the large data rate and slow processing time - but it should prove invaluable to have the potential for select scenes? As for the workflow, things seem to have improved recently because you can directly import the new ML raw format into Premiere CC (if you can afford it, that is...).

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics