In the interest of adding to your confusion...I would check the specific printing company's equipment.
This method sure looks interesting..."Adobe® Extreme Printing" and Progressive Printing with a DCS Direct Jet Flatbed Inkjet Printer

John Strung said:

Personally, I use live view, set the shutter to a 20 second delay and fire it using the infrared remote.

But in this case, I still thing the blurriness is caused by thermals rising from the canyon.

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, John. I would never have thought about the rising thermals. Thanks!

Thanks for all the great responses. Peterson generally recommends putting the foreground elements very close - f/22 is pretty much necessary when you do that.

polarhannes said:

Instead of focussing to infinity you could focus to the hyperfocal distance which can increase the effective DOF. You most probably already knew that and still need more DOF, but I thought I could mention it. Of course this does not deal with all issues, especially if your foreground is pretty close.

Click to expand...

I have tend to shoot most of my landscape shots at f/8 or f/11 focusing at or near the hyperfocal distance for the lens (or estimating 1/3 into the shot if I don't have time to look it up with a zoom lens). I plan to experiment with Peterson's f/22 method, maybe improved composition can help make up for loss of sharpness and sharp edge/halo effect in some cases?

notapro said:

I've replaced the batteries, and everything is perfect again. How nice to have so easy a fix. I'm glad you suggested the battery possibility, Studio1930.

Thanks to everyone who's chimed in on my question. This forum is a wonderful place.

Click to expand...

No problem. I have a set of triggers that sometime lag a bit with weak batteries as well.

I got some 380 custom brackets thing. I think it is the best bracket ever for anything.

Photog are one of the types of geek that can be buff and tanned. Take advatage of it. Sell the f4, use the f2.8 work out.

ed24 said:

Hello CR crew,

I'm in the market for a nice 35mm prime, pref some thing old with a little character. I purchasea Carl Zeiss 2.4 Prakticar PB mount and unfortunately it striked the mirror on my Canon 5D Mark III. Anyone know of any nice 35mm lenses that work well on this body? Full manual is fine as I'm mostly shooting video over stills.

Cheers,

Ed

Click to expand...

Canon 35mm is soft but has creamy bokeh

Sigma 35mm is super sharp but has very busy bokeh

Zeiss 35mm is the ideal all around, almost as sharp as the Sigma with better bokeh than the Canon.

That's all there is to it.

neuroanatomist said:

Robert Welch said:

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

Click to expand...

Not sure whether to be frustrated or grateful after reading this. I'm getting the 24-70 II, and had planned to sell my 24-105 this week. But you've got a great point - the flexibility to go from wide to a headshot is very useful. I'd not use it outdoors (where I prefer fast primes to blur the background), but rather indoors with a backdrop and monolight+Speedlites in softboxes. In that situation, I'm stopped down a bit because I've got plenty of light and no need for background blur, and as you say, perfect sharpness isn't usually necessary or even desirable.

If nothing else, I suppose I should hang onto the 24-105 for a while.

(By the way, I'm grateful - thanks!)

Click to expand...

I'm suprised you take that long to pull trigger on the sharpest zoom. I don't see the point keeping 24-105, unless you want to collect dust with it ;D

I check out a new camera or lens with focal almost immediately. Its a good tool if used correctly to help determine if there is a issue.
I didn't have a issue with my 5D MK III from the first batch, but Canon was churning them out, so a inexperienced assembler or tester could have let a bunch thru that were not up to snuff.

Its a software fix, Canon puts the camera on a test fixture tethered to a pc runs the calibration tests, and writes updated parameters into the camera firmware.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I've decided to keep it and convert to IR if/when a replacement comes to market that I deem a substantial enough upgrade to retire it from everyday use.

I searched the forums and see that Oben Tripods have only been brought up once and it was about 2 years ago, hence my post.
I am looking at picking up a new tripod this Friday and B&H has this Oben carbon fiber tripod on sale (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/768034-REG/Oben_CT_2300_3_Section_Carbon_Fiber.html.) I was hoping someone on here may have had some/any experience with the Oben brand as there really are no reviews of these and even customer ratings are hit & miss depending on the model (some have no ratings while others have a bunch.)
My questions concern the Oben brand and tripod features in general.

• First, the weight rating for this tripod is 10.4lbs. Is that how much the head/legs combo can hold, or is that the weight the head can hold without fear of creeping?
• Second, are twist lock legs better than flip locks or is it just a personal preference thing?
• Third, the head included has a single adjustment lever and I'm wondering if that will be something I'll kick myself for later? I don't do a lot of video (some I guess) and mostly do handheld for shots of the kids, so not sure if I would really need separate knobs for pan and tilt? The tripod would be used more for landscapes/cityscapes/astrophotography.
• Fourth, what of the Oben brand? Does anyone on here use one? Are they any good? I know I can't expect rock solid results for the price, but if the legs are good I can always get a better head when I can afford it.

Sorry for the long post with all sorts of questions, but I don't like having buyer's remorse when I can't get in my car and drive it to the store for exchange/return.

neuroanatomist said:

sagittariansrock said:

neuroanatomist said:

since the RAW image has to be acquired and converted to jpg even when shooting RAW only.

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

When a RAW image is captured, a JPG conversion is done in-camera to create a small preview image, and that JPG preview is saved within the RAW file container. That JPG preview is what you see on the rear LCD of the camera after the shot, and importantly, it's what's used to generate the histogram data and the highlight alert if you use those features.

It's worth knowing, because many people think that the in-camera settings are totally irrelevant if recording RAW images - that's mostly true (long exposure NR is an exception), but if you make exposure decisions (e.g. ETTR) based on the histogram, the settings for Picture Style (contrast, etc.), ALO, HTP, white balance, etc., are all applied to the JPG preview image and the histogram data/blinkies, and that can affect your exposure decisions. Some people actually use a modified Picture Style that makes the JPG image more closely resemble the RAW file in terms of exposure.

Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense now that you've explained it. Thanks, that was very helpful.

My experience between AB, Einstein, Hensel, Bowens, Norman and assorted Chinese strobes was that the color was virtually identical at medium to full power with color shifting on all (except Einstein) as the power went below about 1/4 or 1/8.
For almost all my work I need higher outputs so the color shift is not really an issue.
The differences for me lay in size, modifier mount and maximum output.

The ABs are great value but I note inconsistent output at low settings. I also do not like the mounts but otherwise a great tool.
I have friends with Dynalite and have admired the compactness and quality of the units. They are very happy with the quality of light.

A note that I would make is that the ringlight is rated at 3200Ws maximum INPUT. The images above were powered by the 2000 Ws power pack. It is no slouch but it does not deliver 3200Ws.

ideaworx said:

I am shooting with 70-200mm II 2.8 and 85mm 1.2, both pretty snappy lenses.

Click to expand...

Dump the 85L f/1.2; it is probably the worst lens for what you are describing.... though very high quality, it is notoriously slow in AF performance. 70-200 f/2.8 II you list is a good fit. If you absolutely must use a prime, then use the ones with faster AF's depending on what is available to you.... 85 f/1.8 or 135L or 200 f/2 etc all come to mind. 200 f/2 is rather pricey and not in everyone's bag; the other two, especially 135L autofocuses quickly and is a longer medium tele.

But putting autofocus aside, as RLphoto suggested, prefocusing in the zone may be a better bet.

And, take shots in burst mode. While 5D3's 6FPS may not be blazing fast... it is probably better than taking single shots. Best of luck!

hi
I have the same issue
has anyone discovered what makes this strange buzzzzzing?

If you're talking about a 2 shot (+12 / -12) or 3 shot (+12 / 0 / -12) horizontal panarama (2.5:1 aspect ratio), the resulting effective image sensor size would be 60mm x 24mm, or an effective crop factor of 0.6x (24mm would become a 14.4mm; 17mm would become a 10.2mm).

If you're a 4 shot (+12 at 45°, 135°, 225° and 315°) for an approximately 3:2 aspect ratio photograph the resulting effective sensor size would be 53mm x 41mm (53mm x 35.3mm when cropped to maintain the normal 3:2 AR) with a crop factor of 0.68x (24mm would become a 16.3mm; 17mm woud become an 11.6mm).

If you own the 70-200II already, just add the Mark III 2x tele converter.

If not, the 100-400L is canon's best offering at the moment for decent birding.

FWIW, I just calibrated my 17" macbook pro's screen (last model made)- and it said it only covers about 78% of the Adobe RGB space. So, I don't know how beneficial editing in Adobe RGB is if you can't even see it!

Side rant: I really hate the reflective screens on the new macs now. My last MBP had a nice matte screen.

If you can trade in the 60D and not lose $$ I would do it.

For sports, the extra FPS and AF will definitely make a difference. Most of the best action occurs in a sub second window. Getting 4 or 5 shots vs 2 or 3 will give you more keepers. My experience is that noise on higher ISO can often be fixed in post, but out of focus shots can't be salvaged - so AF matters.

If the 70D is announced in a couple of weeks (if you can believe the rumor here on this site), the 60D is likely to lose value quickly. The 7D will not drop in value much as it is already at the lower end of it's price curve, and I suspect it will still have advantages over the 70D in AF and FPS, & build, but not in IQ or high ISO noise. It is hard to determine the pricing of the 70D, but Canon's trend has been to price all their new products significantly higher.

neuroanatomist said:

charlesa said:

I have an opportunity to sell version 1 of the 400 mm f/2.8 L, at a profit! Not sure whether to go for 400 mm f/2.8 II or 200-400 (but second option entails a wait of n months and a cost of n euro!). Ideas?

Click to expand...

Given the choice between a vaporware lens and the 400 II, I'd pick the latter. Unless you require the flexibility of the zoom for framing, the prime will almost certainly offer better IQ and it will be a stop faster, plus you can use a 2x TC if necessary.

Click to expand...

Thank you neuro, could possibly wait a bit more and see if that 200-400 mm surfaces any time soon, but last I heard photogs at the Olympics had access and the lenses looked close to a final version... but Olympics are now 8 months old and no news of the lens. It would help with the framing as you say, but in the end, a prime is a prime.

I have all 3 of those bodies. I would go with the 7D or 5D3 and would not get 2 bodies. The 7D is still a great camera and great for sports/wildlife in so many ways. Of course the focus system on the 5D3 is amazing for that as well though you will not get the reach of the crop and it does cost more. I would go with either of those. The 6D for me lacks in many areas of the body and features although straight picture quality was on par with the 5D3.

I do have a comparison of the 6D and 5D3 if you want to take a look: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii

The 7D is amazing for the price for wildlife. You may purchase that while you save for the 5D3 or just get the 5D3 now. You will be happy with either of those. Skip the 6D and 5D2, both which will let you down for what you are shooting.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review

Taken from the Chelsea Bridge/Battersea Park area, with my 5Diii and trusty 24-105mm lens, following a visit to the (un)affordable art fair at Battersea...


Albert Bridge by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: 90mm, ISO 3200, 1/40, f6.3


Chelsea Bridge by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: as above except 35mm, 1/30


Battersea Power Station by RCARCARCA, on Flickr

EXIF: 24mm, ISO 6400, 1/13, f6.3

Thanks for stopping by...

Richard

I can only reiterate what others have said. B/W is one way out to some degree. Obviously shoot all manual for more consistent results. And then if you work for a specific band try to point out what the issue is (in a way that drummers or even singers can understand) and see if they let you place a few strobes in a strategic places. If they let you you can even gel them. Or see if they can have at least a bit of white from FOH.

I've actually gone the gelled strobe route once for a band that really didn't have any colored stage lighting. I know that usually strobes and live music are considered a no-no but it's all in the communication. I've been playing as a musician for many years myself we were never concerned with flashes going off really. Certainly less annoying than the sea of cell phone screens at today's shows. Whatever happened to lighters?

Thanks Wicked I think I will do that. I think the 135/85 on the 5D should cover all tele and shallow dof needs. Keep the 7D handy for any wide stuff.

Harry Muff said:

I just went on a bit of an expedition around the internet looking to solve this problem.




Basically, you can't.




It's password protected so Acrobat won't re-save it as a Word document or allow you to simply remove the watermark.


All the pdf to Word converters I tried either didn't work or made an almighty mess of the layout.




Oh well...

Click to expand...

No need to go on any "expedition", just download any one of the latest free PDF convertors and open the manual with that and you will not have the watermark show up, either on your system or when you print it out.