iaind said:

PhyloGuy said:

1. Set up portable clean room
2. Put on clean room suit (otherwise known as a "bunny suit")
3. Enter portable clean room
4. Remove lens from camera
5. Unscrew cap from lens to be mounted
6. Mount lens
7. Screw cap onto originally-mounted lens
8. Exit clean room
9. Remove bunny suit
10. Break down portable clean room

This procedure is somewhat involved, but I have never gotten dust on my sensor!

Click to expand...

An easier solution for those with deep pockets is to keep a body permanently attached to each lens.

Click to expand...

+1 and an assistant per camera/lens combo to hold all of that gear. 8)

DB said:

jdramirez said:

PackLight said:

jdramirez said:

I have a theory about bokeh and how it relates to the function of the human eye and sexual desire. So no one steal my wild and crazy idea.

So if I may, when a person sees an attractive person they are sexually interested in, their pupils widen. I think this is relatively tantamount to a camera lens being wide open on the largest aperture. Consequently, we place our focus on the subject and the surrounding information is processed by the subconscious.

So when we see a still image with a very pleasing bokeh, it is the image which is conveying to the mind that they are seeing something sexual despite the pupils not dilating. It is a rough consideration... I'd like to test the theory, but I have no professors I'm on good terms with who would share an interest in the above... Alas.

Click to expand...

:-\ I thought the creamy bokeh of the 180mm was just the best. What is the implication?

Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't clear. Bokeh's mimic subconscious sexual desire. And since the iris is perfectly round, people gravitate to lenses which have more blades and again mimic a perfectly round blurring effect.

Click to expand...

@jdramirez You were crystal clear, in every respect. Perhaps PackLight by name is no coincidence, so if he is packing light, then perhaps the long lens is compensatory, personally I favor the EF 14mm f/2.8

Click to expand...

But the 14mm f/2.8 has very little if any Bokeh at all. With jdramirez's theory you would be gravitating to a lens that would mimic no sexual desire whatsoever. There are many commercials about this problem on late night television.

Definitely yes, it will be a major step for you. I did the same from T2 to 5D2 and I never looked back.

RLPhoto said:

tron said:

pwp said:

RLPhoto said:

Give me a 135L f/1.8 IS. The current 135L is already perfection, but IS and f/1.8 would only make it irresistible.

Click to expand...

+1
How do you improve on the 135 f/2? The only meaningful way forward is 135 f/1.8is. It's almost certain to be bigger. But it's unlikely to be such astonishing value as the current lens; it could not sell anywhere near the price of the 135 f/2 which is easily found for under $1k new.

-PW

Click to expand...

IS possibly. BUT, it would cost close to 2K$ and ... who would dare to sell his/hers own superb existing 135mm copy if Canon were to stop its production. I wouldn't ! In addition 1.8 is too much. I cannot find a real reason as it would skyrocket the cost...

Click to expand...

Zeiss already makes a 135 f1.8, adding IS should be straightforward. Its entirely probable and stupendously practical in reach, and speed limited situations.

It'd be around 85L II price territory but I'd be ok with that.

Click to expand...

same as long as they dont use the poxy MF focus by wire thing like the 85 has that would anoy me on a lens that costs that much but i'd be super happy for a 135 f1.8 IS

Standard said:

I have the Mark II and don't plan on selling it. I don't yet have the Mark III but will likely pick one up in the future.

I have no issues with the 5D Mark II's autofocus capability and isn't quite sure what all the complains regarding its AF are about. While I don't yet have the Mark III to make comparisons, everything that I have read has unanimously agreed and praised its vastly improved AF system. It's a major selling point for many that have upgraded. However, my Mark II continues to deliver beautiful, crisp images for me. I use center point focusing with back focusing to recompose and the technique is simple and natural.

Blurred images I have seen are generally a result of my incorrect settings – too low an ISO setting in dimlight which is easily fixed by pushing up the ISO to get a faster shutter speed for handholding. I rarely get blurred images. Most would fall in user's error and not in the fault of the camera. In my opinion, unless you're a professional pushing the limits shooting fast action or extreme lowlight, the Mark II is plenty of camera that can handle most situations. I've seen amazing images shot with the Mark II and even from the Rebel line and equally have seen bad images shot with the Mark III or 1D-X. In the end, I think it's really the skills of the photographer and rarely the fault of the camera. Sure, having the Mark III, a 1D-X or even a D800 certainly helps, but I also think exercising better shooting/focusing techniques will also vastly improve the final results of an image using any camera.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this.

I have some big mits and it supposed to pretty much be a 60D, but my hands dont dwarf my 60D! Andre the giant lives!

I love my 7D / 17-55mm combo and yes, I use (and depend on the IS). I am ordering the 5D MkIII and will primarely use my 70-200mm IS MkII on it, but will not give up my 7D 17-55 until Canon adds IS to the 24-70.

OR:

I depend on IS (I am a senior & not as steady as I once was) and shoot a lot of events in low light. I am trying to convince myself to get the current version of the 24-70mm MkII to use with the 5D MkIII and just push the ISO to gain more shutter speed. And I am hoping the 5D MkIII's shutter is not as heavy handed as my 7D. I find myself really pushing down hard on the 7D shutter. I am glad that shutter is not the trigger on my 9mm!!

Exited is good.

A fixed focal length of 600mm and (preferably) f/5.6 would be a much better choice and it would be a little easier I guess to achieve good optical quality. YMMV.

Seems like the Poop Deck has been cleaned. Sail on.

Yeah I was thinking about half wave DC retifiers, only 60 times a sec. for those, you are right 120/sec for most AC things

Your thoughtful answers align with my suspicions. Thanks for the news I didn't want to hear, guys...

Hillsilly, I still own two, rack-mounted film slide projectors that I used to wow people back in the day with one image "dissolving" into the next. The quality of the projected images was stunning, as you say. But with digital, people have since grown accustomed to fancy transitions and too, demand a level of photo quality that's at least equal to what they're used to seeing on their various LCD screens. This is where digital projection falls to pieces, as Brand B pointed out.

I guess I was just hoping that I had missed something. That there was some secret sauce, in addition to insuring the presentation room is pitch black, to getting the projected images to maintain good color, sharpness, contrast, etc. But it sounds like a new body and/or lenses won't materially improve on what the projector destroys.

Regarding my choice of lenses, Tron, I've actually been quite happy with my 70-300 DO lens. I think it gets a bad rap, although it took me a while to figure out how to improve its results: don't ever use a UV filter; always attach the hood; use a tripod when possible; never shoot wide open. All 3 of these lenses are small and relatively lightweight with decent build quality. In fact, when I'm on my smaller bike, I leave the 10-22 at home and go with only the 15-85 and 70-300 to shave off even more weight/bulk.

Anyway, it's too late and not practical to start shooting slide film, again. I have thousands upon thousands of digital shots from all around the world that I need to sift through and prepare for my presentations, even as I continue to shoot more. As I do so, I'm often disappointed by my Rebel's rudimentary focus system (it's inability to lock on a subject fast enough before the moment passes) and an abundance of noise above ISO 400. If I could fix these two issues, and keep my kit just as small and light, I'd be a happy camper.

No, the only thing you are saving is the mirror flapping. The shutter still cycles after every shot.

verysimplejason said:

Just noticed now... Why is it your focus is better and a lot sharper when the model doesn't wear anything except paint?

Click to expand...

The zoom lens got excited ;D

Focal Pro detected my 5D3 running Mac beta 1.7.0.224 - after I rummaged for a decent, long USB cable. I previously calibrated all of my lenses using the latest non-beta Windows version. But, I thought it'd be interesting to compare against the automated results from the OS X version, but apparently that feature is not yet available regardless of platform.

The OS X beta did crash frequently in my usage yesterday, so I will revert to the last release version until those issues are resolved. By contrast, the last Windows release version crashed only once, when I attempted to generate a report.

Good u posted the solution! It might help other people with the same problem. Nothing is worse when people write on a forum only "Ok fixed it bye" :

ronderick said:

Having the latest technology is great. But is there anything wrong with the 5D2 and 1D4? If not, might as well save up the money and wait for the next generation of bodies. The ones you have still hold their ground at this point in time.

Click to expand...

This so much. I mean, do as you please, but it seems a little extreme. Rolling with 1Ds III and 1D IV and two 550D's for studio work that goes online (them little things weigh nothing and have a million shots between them and they cost nothing, also the files are small and faster to process). But if it's just for a laugh you might as well get the best

hsmoscout said:

Maybe it'll be a DO lens???

Click to expand...

Don't say bad words!

Thanks a ton!

Why there is CA on the branches on the first photo? I've never had 16-35 - is it how it behaves or there is some special artistic reason for it?

Click to expand...

- sorry for the delay here. I think it has to do with a)HDR - my originals were a hurry and run shot as I was illegally parked & without tripod and b) applying the unsharp mask +1 in DPP though quite frankly I'm unable to notice it.

Here's another contribution to the thread:


Manasquan Reservoir by Revup67, on Flickr

Are you sure it was the GPE1?
If your lens was set to Mode 2 IS (ie, panning in one direction only), then the IS would get confused as it doesn't know which way is up if it's at 45 degrees...

I have these now:

Canon 24mm f/1.4L II USM
Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM
Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Future might include a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and maybe one more Canon prime, but a 5D Mark III will come first.

This is really good!

7D "driving me nuts" -- more to it!!!!

So, the 7D is fine.

This is what I have found out, and I'd have not guessed this in a million years.

IF I pull the CF card, or IF I power down, and I DON'T use the 28mm/1.8, the 50/1.4 and 100/2.8USM are fine, as also are the slower zooms.

BUT

IF I mount the 28/1.8 it works like crap, and if I mount the 50/1.4 or 100/2.8USM after that without powering down or pulling the card (which powers down), the 28/1.8 sours the focus system for the other lenses, throwing their "linearity" from close to far, all to hell.

So.. .how in the heck am I gonna explain, and convince Canon about THAT problem....

I tested this on my 5DmkII, and the same thing happens. Its a poison lens.... that 28/1.8.

Funny it worked GREAT on my 400D

I gotta think on this a bit... may be better to just get a new lens.

nebugeater said:

If the steelers wear the uniforms they did today you would probably be better off not getting photos!

Click to expand...

I thought it was the Pittsburgh Bumble Bees playing today. So what year were those vintage uniforms from anyway?