The best way to post a image is to post a link to it on your image server, something like flickr, smugmug, zenfolio, etc.

If you upload, make sure your image is no larger than 800 X 800 pixels. Normally, a image that size will be a small file, about 300KB. Its likely that your image was somehow corrupted during the upload and jammed things up, since CR usually reduces oversized images up to 4mb.

Create a duplicate of your image that is reduced to 800 X 800 and give it a different name. Try with that.

Are you at the wind up? Lots of bluff and bluster, I don't think any answer is going to be good enough here...

racgordon said:

Also at the most the need is going to be for a 1:2 or 1:4 reproduction ratio (assuming a 24x36 imager).

Click to expand...

It's worth noting that the reproduction ratio is irrelevant in terms of imager dimensions, all that's doing is cropping the projected image circle, the projected 1:2 or 1:4 ratio will be the same at the focal plane whether you are shooting on film, 135 format digital or APS-C cropped digital (or even APS-H digital)

The sensor crop is relevant in terms of effective angle of view, and this in turn determines perspective and working distance, and therefore depth of field, but it has nothing at all to do with reproduction ratio.

In practise this is less important these days for most users as digital cropping, large screen projection / high resolution printing can usually get you to where you want to be.

I'm struggling to think of any 'macro' lenses that will actually deliver 1:2 max these days, probably only the Canon 50mm f2.5 springs to mind. 1:1 macros are usually marked for 1:2, 1:3, 1;4 etc.

I think you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We aren't doing drum scanning here, so you don't have to calibrate daylight film to flouro light, a grey card is all you need, shoot RAW and you can even play with it in post, at 16bit pull downs.

As for shadow noise, this really does ring troll alarm bells. QUITE LOUDLY.

Apologies if I'm wrong. Say hello to photoshop. Say hello to Adobe Camera Raw.

Your old way of working is dead. Set whatever you buy to adobe RGB from camera to software.
Calibrate your monitor.

Wrattens etc are dead.

If I've got you wrong I apologise. There are just some cues to your writing and archaic terminology that seems to be either trying to test our knowledge or expertise, or is at the wind up.

Maybe moderate your tone and you'll get more kindly moderated answers.

I think there would have to be some permanent elements to adjust for added distance to the focal plane, then the swing in elements.

Thank you for your comments.

This is my first very short movie. There is 2077 images. I made ​​the film below. It is much simpler...

http://youtu.be/dbp2xBhOrzg

Next movie...

OnOne Perfect Resize will help you to enlarge to very large,their Genuine Fractals does an amazing job at keeping artefacts at bay.

One more of the same dog, same setup.

Voigtlander makes a 20mm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/676633-REG/Voigtlander_BA295AC_Color_Skopar_20mm_f_3_5.html
and a 28mm
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/890581-REG/Voigtlander_bd296e_28mm_F_2_8_SL_II_Lens_Canon.html
(as well as a 40mm like Canon).

They seem to be well built and highly rated, but the downside is they are manual focus only.

Vossie said:

You sell your organs cheap. An average kidney should be able to yield you more that $1000!

Click to expand...

It's all relative.

mustafa said:

roadrunner said:

The current Canon lineup at 50mm is abysmal at best..........

Click to expand...

Isn't this a bit of an exaggeration? To what purpose?

Click to expand...

You're right, it was a bit of an exaggeration. I apologize for that. I try to stay away from responses like that =)

More realistically, I should have said decent at best. I don't feel that would be an exaggeration. I'm a wedding/couples portrait photographer, so my needs don't cover everyone's needs. The Canon's 50mm F1.2L's weather sealing, while nice, isn't really completely necessary for me.

Here's my run down of Canon's current lineup, and why I refuse to make another 50mm purchase until they refresh it, or until Sigma comes out with their new 50mm.
Canon 50mm F1.2L - Great build quality, but the optics aren't up to current standards. Note, I did not say the optics suck, but they could clearly be better. This is a recurring theme across all their 50mm lenses right now though. Also, the price is far to high for me to even consider over their much more reasonably priced 50mm 1.4.

Canon 50mm F1.4 - The best value out of the line up, I would say, but it is still softer than I would like for making a purchase in 2013. Also, the autofocus is in need of an update. All-in-all, a decent lens.

Canon 50mm F1.8 - A great lens for the price, but at $99, just about anything would be a good deal. It is just as sharp as it's more expensive siblings, has abysmal build quality, loud and slow-ish autofocus, and not the best looking bokeh. I own two of these.

So yes, it isn't abysmal. But I would say it is in need of a refresh, and very soon. I'll make due with cheap, toy-like build quality of the 50mm f1.8, but I will definitely buy a new 50mm if and when Canon chooses to release one. I would much rather buy from Canon than Sigma for a few reasons, the 35mm is the only Sigma I own, but if Sigma were to release a new 50mm on par with the 35mm, and they priced it $400-$500 cheaper than the 50mm L, I would definitely purchase it.

Hopefully that clears up my post a bit with less exaggeration.

dirtcastle said:

mustafa said:

roadrunner said:

The current Canon lineup at 50mm is abysmal at best..........

Click to expand...

Isn't this a bit of an exaggeration? To what purpose?

Click to expand...

If you look at Amazon lens sales, Canon 50mm lenses are at #1, #5, and #38. The Sigma 50mm is at #65. I'm not saying sales is everything. But clearly the market doesn't agree. And I'm not saying Canon's 50mm lenses couldn't benefit from improvements (they each have shortcomings). Canon's 50mm f/1.4 might be delicate, but it's gotta be one of the best deals ever.And, not only is it sharp as hell, but it's IQ and bokeh have serious character.

Click to expand...

Like I said to Mustafa, I did exaggerate a bit, but I don't think the top-selling lenses on Amazon is really indicative of quality.

For example, I even mentioned I own 2 50mm 1.8's myself. While a great value, it's poor build quality, focus, and bokeh quality aren't awesome. Sure, it's awesome for $99, but I'm looking from a professional perspective here.

Same goes for the 1.4. I think that is the best value out of Canon's lineup, but like you said, I feel it's build quality, auto focus, and corner sharpness could be improved quite a bit.

Canon's 1.2 is soft in the corners and extremely expensive. If you need this lens, you need it. But for me, I don't need weather sealing. It is nice, but not necessary, and I just don't feel like that justifies the cost over the 1.4.

As for Sigma's 50mm being #65? Good. I've used that lens, and I liked it better than all of Canon's... when it worked. Consistency was shoddy at best, they definitely have some quality control issues there. Basically, I'm not happy with the 50mm landscape across the board, which is why either Sigma releasing a 50mm Art on par with the 35mm Art, or Canon releasing a new 1.4 would make me very happy.

Thats good news. Glad I was able to help.

I bought it in the media markt

Thank you for your helpful messages ! I'll take the B+W MRC F-Pro !

I don't want to skip the filter because I will occasionally use the 6D for hiking/mountaineering in bad weather conditions.

mkabi said:

What other equipment are you using? Other than the 5D mark II and magic lantern?
Lenses, stabilizer?

And at the beginning, was that in mid-evening or did you grade it that way in post?

Click to expand...

The clips at the beginning are graded to look like eavning, they are shot late afternoon..
I used an home built glide cam gimbal stabilizer. The lenses i used are the EF 24-70 2.8 on the stabilizer, the Samyang (rokinon) 35 mm 1.4 and 85 mm 1.4 on tripod for the rack focusing.

ScottyP said:

It seems everyone on the face of Earth wants a 50mm that is as sweeeeeet as the Sigma 35mm.

My prediction as to why they haven't yet released same is that Sigma wants to incorporate OS/IS into the lens. Maybe that takes more time to perfect? Any way you look at it, Sigma is KILLING it.

Click to expand...

Not Me, I've been screwed too many times by Sigma. Maybe they are waiting to see if their lenses work with the new dual pixel live autofocus. Sigma has had poor reverse engineering of Canon's AF system, and it can stop working anytime Canon upgrades it or adds a feature.

Although I'm looking to upgrade from my Canon 70-300 IS, due in part to the lack of reach and less so, because of the drop off in image quality beyond 200mm, I'd argue that for the money, the 70-300 IS is a cracking lens, take a visit to your local independent camera shop, grab a few shots with it, then compare with the 70-200 f4 non IS - personally, for your budget, I'd err towards the 70-300 because it has IS, however, if fast moving subjects are your thing, I'd err towards the 70-200 f4 non IS. The 70-300L is nice, but then it's 3x the price of the 70-300 IS

Snook said:

There are plenty of video reviews out there where you can hear the differences for yourself to help decide which you prefer.

Click to expand...

Thank's for the tip. I checked a lot of videos on YouTube and Amazon. I guess I'll be getting the Rode Videomic Shotgun Microphone with Rycote Lyre Mount.

sdsr said:

I recently sold mine, in excellent condition and with only <20K actuations, on ebay for $1325. Weirdly, the buyer was a camera store in NY. I wonder what they did with it....

Click to expand...

Maybe they sold it in a package with a 24-105, a cheap flash and the fleeced some tourist.

Kernuak said:

msmith0807 said:

Thanks for the input dr croubie. I use a local company http://www.posterjack.ca for all my printing and they seem to do a real good job. They offer a 20x30 print on glossy photo paper for $19.99. So by that logic asking for something in the $40 to $60 range would be fair.

I should really look into getting a decent quality photo printer for quality test prints, but for now i suppose this is a viable option.

Click to expand...

I think pearl or lustre would suit your image though, while glossy would kill it.

Click to expand...

+1 I have a large format epson too and I find lustre to work well with a lot of images, especially when people have seen the image on a computer screen. Matt images can sometime seem a bit dull if your used to looking at images from a screen all day, whilst glossy can be too far the other way.
I'm not knocking the other papers at all, as different images work better with different paper types [one of my fav prints is on matt paper] but just stating lustre/semi gloss is probably going to be the safest bet for you.

Grumbaki said:

The need for speed makes me shoot Av.

Click to expand...

+1

Mort said:

So a big thing to consider is the price. I can get the 24-105 for $200 less plus a $500 rebate. Is the f/2.8 really worth nearly $700 more than the f/4 of the 24-105? (By the way, I am planning on buying a 35/50/85 f/1.4/1.8 with the money saved. Prob the 85 1.8 or the Sigma 35 1.4)

Click to expand...

Well it's up to you whether it's worth it. The 2.8 will get you better isolation/bokeh for portraits and creative purposes. It will also be much better if you are going to be doing much indoor/low light shooting with it. It is quite a bit sharper and has much better image stabilization. But it is quite a bit more money. Many of the reasons to pick the Tamron over the Canon will be mitigated by your buying those primes, so it comes down to convenience & cash.

By the way, a HUGE +1 on the Sigma 1.4. It's also big and heavy, but oh so worth it.

Canon 580 EX II with Large Rogue Flashbender and diffusor cam right, small Rogue with diffusor cam left. Placing the panels closer to subject really gives off a nice light IMO..


EOSD4489 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Vossie said:

It's a nice lens butnothing spectacular. I find myself using it much less than I used the 10-22 on my previous crop body.

Click to expand...

Got exactly the opposite experience here, leaving my 10-22 accumulating dust. I could never get those lush greens correct. CA maybe? In comparison, with my 16-35/II it's night and day. Of course you have the FF vs crop factor, but now I shoot UWA to my heart content. Even when the 14-24 surfaces, I think I'll keep it for its versatility. Added bonus, it becomes 26-56 on crop if you keep one. Terrific for street photo.

There might be some more discount as time goes, but as they say, if you need it, just buy it.

I bought it finally. $800.

Price not bad for a UW(2009) L lens. (compared to similar item online)

I tested it thoroughly from f2.8 to f22, 24mm to 70mm. Also shoot into bright light too. Doesn't seem to have any issue. I will use for a while before sending it for repair after I have saved up enough money.

After repairing, I may be able to sell it for $800 to 900. They cost of repair will be considered the rental for this L lens.

BTW, I do lend and borrow things but if I do any damage to them, I will be responsible. lol

pedro said:

Hope this hasn't been posted before...

http://thenewcamera.com/fujifilm-and-panasonic-new-organic-sensor-coming/

Click to expand...

Four times the dynamic range and 1.2 times the sensitivity...... and you can rest assured that this is the most favourable scenario that they could come up with.... wonder how it performs in the real world.... and on cold days...

1.2 times the sensitivity is not a very big change... and they don't say who they compared it to... was it Canon, Nikon, sony, sigma???

4 times the dynamic range is a decent improvement..... 2 stops... but you could use split pixels with a different gain on each side to get WAY more than 2 stops of gain...

I don't trust marketing departments claims....

Not my luck week
For refurbish canon need an account ...When i try to create it says
"Login Information:

Our systems are currently undergoing maintenance. We apologize for any inconvenience. Please check back soon."