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

Brand B said:

Random Orbits said:

24-70 II, 50, 135L, 70-300L.
Week 1: 24-70 II, 50, 135L.
Week 2: 24-70 II, 70-300L.

Click to expand...

I'd second this. Just spent 2-1/2 weeks on a trip with similar circumstances and my older 28-70L and my 70-300L got me basically every shot I wanted. Didn't use any of the other lenses I brought almost at all.

Click to expand...

We are leaving tomorrow. I was thinking I would just take the 24-70 and 135 and 1.4 extender. But, after more thought I think I can make room for the 70-300 as well. I'd hate to miss some wildlife shots because I only have 189mm (135 with ext.) capability.

I'm still on the fence about the 50. It is great for low light and shallow DOF shots. But, I'm thinking the 24-70 2.8 can handle those duties, as I normally step the 50 down to f2 or 2.8 anyway.

Manual: http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300008700/01/pssx50hs-cug-en.pdf

No IR input directly. You can use a remote RF trigger connected with an E3-type plug - look for one compatible with a Rebel/xxxD body, there are several available from Satechi, hähnel, Vello, etc.

Sent mine to Canon Australia.

17 days later [2 days after there turn-over time] I recieved mine in the mail.

They said they had carried out the necessary repairs, no cost to me and I had my baby back. Also, it now has the black mark on the inside of the battery compartment.

paul13walnut5 said:

I picked up a camera because I was interested in the power of photography. I became interested in gear, but really a great image interests me more than a great new innovation.
...

Click to expand...

Great intro! Gear is tool, nothing more, nothing less ...

Now to the main theme:
I really enjoyed to read Bruce Barnbaums "The Art of Photography: An Approach to Personal Expression"
- the book title is "program". He tries to open all the dogmas of photography like "there has to be black and white in an image" or "you have to compose after the rule xyz".

Before I read the book I have defined photography as "pure photography" - results out of camera are real photography. But these photographs have NOT shown what I have seen, they have been without "personal expression".

Another important perspective of Bruce Barnbaum: It is nothing wrong with a photograph which shows a lot of detail/things - but it is not easy to create great photographs with a lot of stuff in it.

Here a link to Bruce Barnbaum's web site: http://www.barnbaum.com/barnbaum/Portfolios/Portfolios.html

... and a shot that I haven't liked in full color but after converting to B/W and manipulating the contrast curve (after reading Barnbaum's book) I really like it (Lake Garda, Italy, late spring):

14-24 f2.8

Glass ND's are multi-coated. That alone would worth the cost. When you stack multiple filters as you do in landscape shot, the reflection between filters are the worst offender to cause flaring

But I'm not sure if I can uderstand the topic, wideangel... that must be some special angel isn't it?

I am with BozillaNZ on this one.

I used APS-H for years, indeed I still have my original 1D, but when I used them the 16-35 was permanently on one, it is the best lens for the camera by far.

Now I know you said the 16-35 was out of the question, but what about a second hand 17-35 f2.8 or a MkI 16-35 f2.8? They can both be had for reasonable money, the 17-35 often around $500 on eBay.

Best bit is you lose the lenses pretty bad corner performance when using an APS-H so you win every way round.

Random Orbits said:

but the bigest improvement will come with your 50 and 70-200.

Click to expand...

I doubt the 50/1.8 makes a good ff lens, I have it and even on crop using only the center it's less than mediocre.

chasinglight said:

Thanks for your input. I have looked at the 5d2 and actually wanted it over the 6d for some of its features such as ergonomics and PC sync, but people still want a lot of money for 5d2s.

Click to expand...

Yes, again same here - I cannot find a used 5d2 on the open market that has what I'd consider an ok price considering shutter count and the improvements of the 6d. I just mentioned because you might happen to know somebody who'd sell a 5d2 for an ok price to "good hands" of an enthusiast.

Thanks for the comments and apologies that this went missing. Not sure what I did... Anyway, the picture is back!

Richard

Going off the Amazon description, this flash can't act as a master flash. The M mode is for "manual." It is not E-TTL capable, either.