Posts

paolotaverna · Jul 30, 2013

for me to move
1- A lot better dynamic range at least 2 or 3 stops (light years away from Nikon). And good performance(no noise!! at low isos

2- Continue improving focusing speed and accuracy (transferred from Nikon and canon as still lots to do!!!!)

3- Include native stuff like interval shooting, time lapse,...just the basic and simple things really!

Something that would never happen...sensor statbilzation?

jasonyork · Jul 30, 2013

Re: Ends this Weekend! Dodge & Burn T-Shirts & Canon Rumors Toy Drive

I recently order this T-shirt online. Pretty nice Collection.

Tailored shirts

Kerry B · Jul 30, 2013

For me both the new extenders are better than the Mkii versions, especially the x2 which shows a considerable improvement on the old ones. I am not sure that you will see a huge increase in image performance unless you use one of the new fluoride coated lenses. I have the 300f2.8 mkii and using extenders is now a non brainer.

Forget about lab reports, in real world shooting using extenders on zoom lenses is never as good as when used on a fixed prime lens.

Granted there is only a small difference in image quality between the Mk2 and Mk3 extenders but any improvement is better than nothing. Knowing what I now know I would buy the new Mk111 extender in preference to the Mk11 when used with the new prime fluoride coated lenses.

I can only go by my own experiences and say that the 300mm lens with the new x2 extender when used with a Canon 5dmkiii is better than using a bare 300 on a Canon 7D. Just goes to show what this combo can produce.

can0nfan2379 · Jul 29, 2013

Just wondering if anyone has any experience with this gimbal?

http://www.promediagear.com/Katana-Gimbal-Head_p_8.html

Cheers,

Ryan

privatebydesign · Jul 29, 2013

docholliday said:
1. That's not a 1Ds I'm talking about - it's in reference to PLURAL 1D cameras

2. Ever rebuilt a leaf shutter? From the sounds of it, not. When you've rebuilt a few dozen leaf shutters, then we'll talk. Try rebuilding a few Prontor Hasselblad lens shutters from a CF or newer. And then, give a few LF Copal #3's a working.

3. Yup, a leaf shutter opens from the center and closes to the center - EXPOSING THE FRAME EQUALLY at high speed. Whereas, a FP would form a slit because the second curtain is already moving before the first curtain is completely open. Congratulations, you pass a basic physics lesson.

4. Get some real lights - we'll talk when you start to use Broncolor and have some really high speed flash with ultra short durations that can keep up with high FPS. The pulsing of HS sync reduces your distance, hence coverage and for motion, it isn't consistent. Therefore, firing ONE burst of light at a subject will freeze ONE frame of the motion. On top of it all, you would actually be able to get some light > 50ft.

You can keep arguing your (lack of) point. Those of us out here who actually get out and use our equipment will just keep on going using our (to you obviously useless) leaf shutters in daylight with great results, just like the example above.

BTW, let's see you HS sync a H5D Hasselblad if it had a FP shutter. Good luck. Your sync speed would be something like 1/30s. The larger the sensor/film, the longer it takes to get the shutter curtains moving. So, yes, there is a reason for LS in modern application.

Anyways, have fun with your theories and spewing of internet-obtained info. The rest of us will now go shoot some actual pics with our gear...

1: If you meant 1D's then it might have helped if you had written that, you didn't however, you wrote 1Ds, that is another camera altogether. I am supposed to guess when you make errors?

2: No, I never built a rocket or a helicopter either, but I can tell you exactly how they work.

3: Not according to this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_%28photography%29 read the bit under diaphragm shutter " Effectively the shutter acts as an additional aperture, and may, for example, cause vignetting or increase depth of field, undesirable if shallow focus is being used creatively."

4: Only at low power settings, which has been my point, you know, one of the several you just don't get. Turn your top of the range Broncolor A4S 3200 heads down to 3Ws and you get 1/8,000 pulse, still slower than a Profoto at 1/12,000 @ 4.7 WS, and they are both slower, though more powerful, than an Einstein at 1/13,000 sec at 2.7WS. OH, AND YET AGAIN, THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT HSS, IT IS ABOUT syncing at high speeds, NOT CANON"S PROPRIETARY HIGH SPEED SYNC MODE.

Here is a picture taken by a leaf shutter camera, a five bladed shutter with the lens wide open at high speed. I think this suitably demonstrates another one of my points.

jdramirez · Jul 29, 2013

It sucks when things are too good to be true.

I saw a Lotus once for something like $12000... and I was thinking... why would you sell a $60000 car for the price of a cheap kia... And of course the answer is... you don't.

lee · Jul 29, 2013

5D mark3 is an excellent camera

LetTheRightLensIn · Jul 29, 2013

You could export 16bit per channel TIFF sRGB (very few little video software is color-managed so pretty much sRGB plus gamma 2.2 is the way to go for video unless you are doing something special for a very select and particular audience; and saving as 8bits per channel doesn't give you much room to adjust anything in FCP so using 16bit out might help). Not that sRGB's tone response is NOT gamma 2.2 so you will want to do a step where you convert to custom gamut (based off of sRGB only you chose gamma 2.2). Otherwise, and I mean maybe FCP actually could handle it some MAC stuff is more deeply color-managed, you'll probably get a tone shift compared to what you edited in LR and what you see in FCP or at least to what FCP outputs unless it knows how to convert from sRGB TRC to Gamma 2.2.

wsgroves · Jul 29, 2013

Thanks for the kind words all. Appreciated!
@Mt. Thanks a lot =o
@Andy. Those are awesome and very sharp.
@Jason. Yea I cropped them for my site which uses 1080p pix so its hard to crop 16:9.

Drizzt321 · Jul 29, 2013

If they were exposed years ago and only now being developed, you might get some really interesting stuff given they probably have degraded a good bit now.

Unless you want to start shooting film and scanning it, I'd avoid buying a scanner and scanning them in. It can be tedious, and it takes some time to start learning how to do it right.

Erik X · Jul 29, 2013

The "Comparometer" at Imaging-Resources is very nice, you can compare sample images from two cameras side by side.. Unfortunately no 70D images yet

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Review 100D:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-sl1/canon-sl1A.HTM
erik

sanj · Jul 29, 2013

Sporgon said:
sanj said:

Spokane: I am making notes here and reading up stuff. 5 days before I leave I will make my own .pdf and print it out. I have download various different manuals. Great tips...

Distant Star: Yes, I am bit conscious of my Indian accent. It is not over the top, I have travelled the world and interacted with foreign crew members but still the fear of not sounding perfect to the Brit, Americans etc. I will be on the watch out for the 'moments'.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about speaking English with an Indian accent ! Us Brits are totally used to that ! If your speech is as your writing then it's probably better than mine. Honestly, a non issue.

Thank you so much for calming my nerves down. Actually you right, this is not much of an issue. My accent is not over the top at all...

cayenne · Jul 29, 2013

northbyten said:
...... no need to push your opinion on others.

Isn't that kind of a necessary part of having a conversation?

If no opinions are "pushed"....this forum is gonna get mighty quiet.

tron · Jul 29, 2013

Zv said:
24-70 f/4 IS? Really?? Optically better is technically correct I guess if you use 24mm.

True.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

LewisShermer · Jul 29, 2013

the skin tones are all crappy! arghhh. daft computers.

albron00 · Jul 29, 2013

check the instruction manuals
you can find online int .pdf file

LetTheRightLensIn · Jul 29, 2013

distant.star said:
.
I know there are charlatans with cameras all over the place. And I know this isn't a forum for ranting about bad "photographers," but let this be a caution that if you don't have definite skills (and most here certainly DO) that it's not nice to take money from people for bad pictures.

Recently a member of my family I haven't seen in several years gave me a CD full of jpg images taken by a "professional" photographer. This person was paid $100 for two hours work taking pictures of two teen-age daughters and a couple of family portrait shots out on a seashore location. She dumped all the image files on a CD and gave them to my family member. She had been "recommended" by a hair dresser my aunt uses. Looking at the photographer's Web site she indicates she went to art schools and shot for magazines for several years. I wasn't exactly sure what my aunt wanted when she handed me the CD and asked me to "develop" the pictures and select the best 10 for printing.

Overall, the images are awful. Out of focus, grainy, even badly tilted horizons. The photographer used a Nikon D800 with a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 lens. A little research suggests it is an inexpensive lens that has a reputation for generating noise on its own. The shoot day turned cloudy with a breeze and misty rain. Setting were typically ISO 2000 around f/4.5 to 5.6. Flying hair can be a good effect, yet this photographer made no attempt not to have it flying across their faces. There are dogs in some pictures (on laps, being held, etc.) and they look scared -- a look I've never seen in a dog's eyes. I was angry when I looked at the pictures and realized she took money from my aunt for this. She even had the audacity to include a document releasing the images for print -- but reassuring that she retained all rights.

When I talked with my aunt she finally admitted she was deeply disappointed with the pictures. She thought perhaps she may be wrong and the pictures really were good, but she wanted me to see them. I had to confirm for her that bad pictures are simply bad pictures. I did soften it by suggesting maybe the photographer was trying for a "soft focus" look with the girls. Also, maybe the tilted horizons were purposed to add "drama." I told her there wasn't much I was going to be able to do but that I would pick the best 10 and have them printed by a good printer.

I cleaned up the files as best I could -- sharpening, noise reduction, horizon straightening, etc. The lens even had mustache distortion that had to be corrected! Then I sent them off to Bay Photo for printing on metallic paper. I'm hoping for the best.

Sorry for the big rant, but bad photography is unfair, and it makes me angry. Not only is the $100 (plus cost for printing) gone, but the expectation of great pictures of cherished family members has also been stolen. The kids and their parents don't live on the seashore, and they can't be reassembled for a do over.

I've often encouraged inexperienced photographers here to take opportunities given -- but only with the explicit understanding that clients know what they can expect. If you're going to present yourself as a seasoned professional, you must produce professional results!

agreed, that said $100 isn't exactly a lot for two hours of shooting and, if it had been for carefully sorted and processed RAWs which would take hours more to do, it would be insanely cheap

what is bad is that many of that type get more clients and press than some really skilled people with solid equipment, but a lot of it is just how much gumption and what sort of a promoter you are, as with well I guess many things in life

mwh1964 · Jul 29, 2013

How about the 400 + 2x extender. I am on my way there and I do hope a 70-300L + the 70-200 + 2x EX will do the trick. I would love the 400 though but money wise that's not an option short term. Enjoy your travel first and foremost.

Jack Douglas · Jul 28, 2013

AlanF you've nailed it.

We've made our compromises for good reasons as have others who prefer alternate lenses. I'm just happy to provide first hand personal information on why I'm satisfied with the 300 so that it helps others make their decisions, including a mild defence of the 2X III extender.

Jack

CanonMan · Jul 28, 2013

Hi. Thanks for the reply.
According to the manual the Evaluative metering uses the whole frame. It seems that when I use the center AF point it seems to change to spot metering but obviously this cannot be true. I think !!!

Marsu42 · Jul 28, 2013

sagittariansrock said:
Those are advantages of an OVF over the LCD screen.

Correct, because this thread is about the 70d-style dual af.

sagittariansrock said:
However, those no longer hold for a proper EVF (except for battery consumption).

I'm also very sure evf will surpass ovf sooner or later, with equal optical quality plus many added features. But imho this point isn't reached yet, every time I look though a Sony "pro" camera with evf I'm getting the creeps, the image simply doesn't come close to what I see with my bare eyes.

sdsr · Jul 28, 2013

It depends what you want to do with it. I seldom photograph things that are moving around fast (and if I did I would probably use my 135L instead anyway), so the fact that the 100L isn't always very fast doesn't matter to me and the IS is very useful as light goes down when I'm not taking real macro photos (I seldom do that, either). A huge advantage to me of the L is its obviously shorter MFD - I may not want to take a lot of macro photos, but I often want to get close enough to take portraits of small things - flowers, kitten faces, etc. - and the three feet/one meter of the 100 f/2 often isn't close enough for me. Never having used the 100 f/2 I can't comment on its bokeh, but it's pretty wonderful on the 100L and, since you can get closer, you can get more blur in the background.

I had hoped to find comparisons on-line of 100 f/2 vs 100L with photos, but perhaps I didn't look long or carefully enough. But I did find this, which compares 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 & 135 L which, if nothing else, might nudge you towards the 135L at some point (or not):

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=222419

As for the slow focusing of the L, well, it's all relative. Provided you stay within a narrowish range, it can be near-instantaneous, but if you switch from, say, a subject that's two feet away to one that's 20 feet away, it probably won't be and presumably (I've not tried) won't be fast enough for fast-moving sport where the distances keep changing significantly. The only time it's given me a problem, with considerable hunting, was in photographing some glass sculptures (hard to photograph in the best of circumstances) in a field late at night where the only source of light was the dim internal light in each sculpture. Manual override proved useful then (using the focus limiting switch would doubtless help too; I keep forgetting to use it). I've no idea of the f2 would have done any better.

jdramirez · Jul 28, 2013

BL said:
while i absolutely adore my 85 II for portraits, i end up using the 100L more often than not for baby pictures because of the really long MFD on the 85

I noticed that yesterday when I was messing with the doll. Outside of my 8mm and the 24-105... I won't be able to get all that close... but I guess that is what happens when you sell a lens that didn't really have to sell.

GaryJ · Jul 28, 2013

Sabaki said:
I keep imagining slapping my macro lens on this camera and using my finger to track insects etc on the touch screen for critical sharpness.

We May Dream

Sporgon · Jul 28, 2013

LetTheRightLensIn said:
jrista said:

People should just get out and take pictures...

Click to expand...

We do though, maybe even especially us DRippers. I took 360GB of photos over the last six weeks!
And 500GB of HD video!

Good job you weren't using a 75mp camera then .......

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics