If you're writing to separate cards, you cannot.

BenSL65 said:

I am an enthousiastic hobby-photograher. I am going on safari in September and am looking for a second body.
I have a 5Dm3 as primary camera and plan to take with me my 24-70 f2.8 ii, 70-200 f 2.8 ii and 300 f4. In addition to that, a 1.4 converter (iii). A large oart of the photography will be in low light and I understood from the camp that 300mm with 1.4 converter should offer enough reach (the latter of course especially on a crop body).
I was hoping that the 7Dm2 would be available on time, but this is not the case.

I have been thinking about the following options:
- 7D, crop, eventually sell afterwards, eventually buy used
-70D, crop, newest technology, less weather/dust resistant, might be useful after the safari as well as relatively simple and small camera with fill-in flash and wifi
- 1Dm4, 1.3 crop, better image quality in low light, weather sealed

- or, the most expensive and probably most worryfree option, buy a 1Dx and eventually sell the 5Dm3 afterwards???

I would appreciate you advice.
Ben

Click to expand...

And why exactly are you getting a 24-70 for a safari? Get a prime for landscapes. Choose the focal length of the prime appropriately.

If you have a FF, (as you do) get a crop camera to get you reach.

alexanderferdinand said:

@ Krob78: bad luck, you have got a bad copy.
I had a hard time even thinking about buying a third party lens, after using almost 30 years only Canon.
The drive is louder, but extra sound like you described seems to be a serious damage.
I have read many reviews on the net before buying, Tokina seems to have issues with quality control.
So I choosed to order it from a place, where I can send it back with no problems.
I wish you good luck with the replacement.

Click to expand...

Thanks Alex, I did send it back however I decided not to opt for a replacement. Although it was mostly good, the weight was really absurd and I decided I didn't want to "try" another one, so I ended up with another Canon L lens... I picked up a 17-40mm L and it works great, just like I knew it would. Surprisingly and conversely, the 17-40mm L is amazingly light!! Almost too light for my liking!!

But no flare issues, nice color rendering, sharp. Price was excellent at only $625 for brand new in box. I use it mostly for interior Real Estate work, so f/4 isn't an issue as I'm shooting it primarily indoors at f/5.6 and f/8. A little wider would have been nice but the lens will pay for itself very quickly with a couple of shoots.

I wanted the 16-35mm f/2.8 but decided with rumors of a new wide angle being announced later this year (hopefully with IS), I decided to pocket the almost $800 difference and I'll take a look at the new offering when it comes out... If it doesn't surface, I'll think about upgrading at that time. For now, other than the amazing lightness (feels cheap), of the 17-40mm, I'm set...

rogerb said:

thank you rpt and eml58.

Click to expand...

Any day

Dylan777 said:

littlewildcat said:

The FF Sony RX-1 and RX1R is out now. Will Canon have one like this soon ??

Click to expand...

If Sony releases FF compact body(similar to RX-1) that allow user to swap lenses, I will sell one of mine 5D III + lenses to build smaller system.

Click to expand...

Sony is listening. http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/strong-indications-about-the-nex-ff-release/

neuroanatomist said:

Artie's subjective evaluations are convenient, because he can change his mind, even contradict previous statements, and it's all 'ok' because it's subjective.

@jrista - I have both the 1.4xIII and 2xIII, and after the novelty of f/8 AF (with effectively a single point) wore off, I usually use the 1.4x, and only rarely the 2x. YMMV...

Click to expand...

Spot on..... +1 here.

TeenTog said:

Lol. If by 'most of us' you mean people here on CR, I'd say we're not at all representative of the 'general population'.

Click to expand...

Haha sorry Neuro I meant general photographer population

Click to expand...

I suspect that the general pop does know what features they need or why. People buy for the wrong reason, heard something, gift, ...

I just think it's an issue of technique, not camera.

Click to expand...

For sure. While a camera may help in a few ways, I think that settling down and really focusing on using your camera to its potential would really help. I have a T3, which in many was sis similar to what you're using, and I would like to upgrade to a 70D soon. However, I need to remind myself that I can still get fantastic shots with my camera, and remember: the best camera is the one you have in your hands.

Not sure why. My 1D X saves AF mode and Drive mode with the C# settings. Perhaps try clearing all settings (Tools Menu 4)?

cqphotographics said:

So I know this lens has been criticized for having back focusing issues and the new version supposedly fixes those problems. However the prices for these lenses used and in good condition seemed to make sense. I shoot lots of landscapes and video so auto focus isn't' the biggest deal but ideally a lens like this would allow me to shoot more portraits and events, anyways thats beside the point.

Is there a good standard way to put this lens to the test and check how well the focus is functioning and how sharp it is?
I shoot with the 5D mkII which also doesn't have the greatest AF abilities.
But i'd just like to know if theres a good way to go about evaluating the lens because if it isn't up to par I can send it back and try a different one.

Click to expand...

Just set it to f/2.8, aim it at end, mid and long at an angle at a crack in the sidewalk using single center point AF. If the DOF doesn't seem centered properly then adjust it in the AF manual AF calibration settings for that lens and keep adjusting until it seems centered properly. If you need much different values at long vs mid vs wide end then send it back as only the very newest bodies can adjust lenses for long vs wide end.

I've never tried these but it looks like an awesome way to get your 5D3 underwater safely:

http://www.outex.com/

This is great news. I'm new to Resolve and have been struggling a bit, so any improvements to the workflow are welcome.

Unfortunately, a much bigger problem I've been having with Resolve is that it performs none of the automated corrections/adjustments that ACR does. In my case, this means my unprocessed 5D3 RAW images have intense chromatic aberration across the entire image.

I asked how to fix the CA on both the BM and ML forums. The responses I got seemed to suggest that most colorists improvise their solutions. I certainly understand why Resolve doesn't automatically fix this yet (it requires a huge library of lens profiles). But the prospect of creating my own CA fixes for about a half dozen lenses gives me pause. At least they could have a tool that puts you in the ballpark (or a tutorial... or something helpful).

Far as I know, the two major advantages of Resolve over ACR is speed and dealing with motion. ACR has no motion capabilities; which obviously means it's not a pro tool. Period. But ACR does have one big advantage, which is that it takes about 2 seconds to get near-perfect grading on any random, low-motion footage.

The frustrating thing for me is that most of the Resolve interface and tools look pretty straightforward and manageable to learn. But there's a few stumbling blocks that even experts struggle to help me with. Oh well, suck it up I guess.

mb66energy said:

CarlTN, thanks for your comments!

And for the info about astrophotography:
* I never heard that this is a common "method" for good images - but now I remember a talk about
an mathematical method called "triple correlation" to suppress atmosphere effects
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-22-24-4028 (the abstract is helpful as
general information)
They used a sequence of 100 or 1000 images and analyzed the set to gain Hubble-like resolution
without traveling into an orbit ;-)
* I never kept in mind during my video filming about the missing mirror motion - but that is a
good argument. Especially with my 25 year old Manfrotto 190 Pro tripod!
(Now I have a hangup between 190cxpro3 and 055cxpro3 but I think after realizing 4000mm
after your comments I will tend to the sturdier 055cxpro3!)

Michael

Click to expand...

Michael, I'm glad I could help in any way. Actually you know a lot more about astrophotography than I do, so I will be happy to learn from you!

I really do like how your image shows very subtle shadows of even the shallow craters present in the center of the image, far away from the sunset shadow part! Impressive because the shadows there are small anyway because the craters are shallow, but then also because the angle of sunlight falling on them, makes the shadows even more slim.

Have you heard any more about the upcoming comet "ISON" that is supposed to be so bright this fall, and how will you photograph it? I hope it's not a dud...it was thought it might be brighter than the full moon!

What he said.

Pretty much you'd need to swap out all/most electronics, plus some mechanical modifications to accommodate the different ones. There's lot of flex-cables which makes it slightly easier than just PCBs, but still not really feasible.

So in theory it could be just possible, but not within reasonable effort.

Ouch!

Happily the few minor scratches etc on my bodies are not really worth taking pictures of.

I'm not too bothered that it doesn't have image stabilization. I don't feel OS is really needed until around 50mm(80mmFF) on an APS-C camera.

1vHS
forget which film but it was cross processed and pushed a stop or two.

neuroanatomist said:

I have both. For travel, I recently got the 70-300L - better IQ than the 100-400, much more convenient size.

Click to expand...

I think this is the better question - either the 70-300L or the 70-200 2.8 ii.

I also have both and the former is much more portable. Depends really how much of a difference 2.8 will make to you.

Both a camera body and a lens have tolerances and inaccuracies to their autofocus. Sending a lens in for adjustment when your images are fine runs the risk of making them worse. FoCal AFMA software will do a good job of checking AF accuracy, assuming you have a camera body with AFMA. There are some other FoCal Pro tests that will indirectly point up issues like decentering.

Re: Long lens support -- Wimberly vs RRS Gimbals -- Experiences & recommendations?

neuroanatomist said:

johnf3f said:

Have you tried with a 2x TC on a MkII lens?

Click to expand...

No I have not, is there a problem balancing these? I don't have any Mk2 lenses but had an opportunity to have a play with one - very nice too! I am now lusting after a 600 Mk2, but even if I sell a lot of kit it is still out of my reach for now! If there is a problem balancing them then perhaps a suitable foot would be a solution.

Click to expand...

The MkII lenses are much lighter than their predecessors, and one reason is the elimination of the protective meniscus lens in front. That shifts the lens' center of backwards, but the tripod collar/foot is in the same relative position. It's fine with the bare lens and a 1-series, but problematic with a 2x TC and/or extra weight on the body (I sometimes use an ST-E3-RT to trigger a 600EX-RT with a Better Beamer on a bracket with a long, forward-angled extension). If you used a long lens plate (Wimberley P-50) attached so it extended quite a ways back, that would likely be fine. The RRS replacement foot dovetail extends a bit behind the mounting screws on the collar, and with the 1D X plus 2xIII on the 600 II, the back of that foot is even with the back of the 80mm clamp when correctly balanced - any more and it wouldn't be using the full clamping surface.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. I thought it wouldn't be a problem with the long Mk2 lenses as when I tried the 500 Mk2 it didn't look like it would be an issue, however I didn't try my extenders.

If you love Macro and now have the 70-200 f/2.8 II, I would suggest you take a look at the Canon 500D close-up lens. It's a 77mm filter thread that attaches to your 70-200 and allows you to pull focus as close as 15".

http://youtu.be/6LFiMKiOMgc
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A001_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html

Drizzt321 said:

Especially if you get ones that are UDMA7, even if they aren't 1000x or anywhere close. Reason is that the UDMA7 spec includes support for the TRIM command, which means the camera can tell the card when a file has been deleted, so it can go ahead and clear out those flash blocks ahead of time, instead of at the time you are going to be writing to it. This can drastically improve write times if the CF controller manages things properly.

Click to expand...

That's easily worked around. Don't delete large numbers of photos on the camera, and after you've filled a flash card, write ones across every bit in every block, then format it. A flash cell must be erased and rewritten only when bits go from 0 to 1, not when they go from 1 to 0, so your computer will take the performance hit of erasing all those cells when you write 1s across every bit, and you won't have to wait for them to be erased while you're shooting photographs.

Of course, to do this efficiently, you'll need to know the flash page size so you can stomp an entire page in a single write operation. Otherwise, you'll waste erase cycles unnecessarily.

There should be tools out there to do this already. If not, you can probably write one in about ten lines of C.

Thanks, thats very interesting.

In all fairness I'll provide some shots taken at ISO400 (upper row) and ISO640 for comparison. Processed with ACR, RAW downsized to sRAW size. No noise reduction was applied.

Image #1 is a 100% view of an image area.

In the 2nd and 3rd image I used a 400% magnification. It's interesting to see, that the RAW images still have a higher noise level at those low ISO values compared to sRAW. The gain in resolution in the RAW files is visible on a pixel-peeping level. The RAW images resolve shadow detail better in these images for example (see image #2, lower row). Well - there must be some good things in RAW too, right?

Image #4 shows the full images.

Now it's up to you to draw a conclusion.

Kind regards,
Th.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Click on the attachments and other options link below the text box when you post. That will let you upload a small image (800 X 800) ??
I'm curious as to how you could use a 44mm flange back lens on a 44mm flange back camera and get infinity focus, it would not focus to infinity unless the adaptor had zero thickness, or unless you modified the lens by replacing the mount.
M42 lenses with their 45.5 mm flange distance are commonly used on Canon EOS bodies. Some M39 lenses had 45.5mm flange back distances, I don't know about the Pauxette.

Click to expand...

Hi,

thenk you for the input, I try asap.

The solution is easy.

The EF-mount is wide enough to remove enough material from a commercial Leica-EOS-Adapter (or a M42-EOS-Adapter with an additional reducion-ring M42/M39) in a smaller diameter then the EOS-mouth and have a stable adapter as good as before, if you find an adapter made of a very good material. Therefore we use only brass adapters and none from aluminium.

There is not very much metall remaining between the machined area of the adapter and the mouth of the EF-mount - but enough. It only works because of the very small dimensions of the Paxette-Lenses, they dive in the EF-mount, to use a imaginable metapher.

Joerg