thank you so much, this is very helpful - I hadn't heard of midwest camera, just these guys in CHI: http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/ and the nikon service center in LA. thanks again,
Scott

ok, found a review from Bryan Carnathan:
he mentions 3 good filters ( 2 that actually don't vignette)

- Heliopan 95mmSH-PMC Slim Circular Polarizer Filter
- Marumi 95mm Super DHG Circular Filter
and B+W does not have a slim option yet, but I know that Zeiss has


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

...and they are gone - or the seller ended the auction, not sure
Popflash is selling 5 floor/display models for just a bit more

Cory said:

infared said:

I have the 35mm and the 50mm Arts....should I just make this a clean Trifecta....I mean....it would further justify my Sigma Dock if I use it for 3 lenses instead of just 2, right???

Click to expand...

Now that you mention it - I have a crop sensor and a 10-18 so maybe 24 doesn't make a ton of sense. My other standard lens is the 35 2.0 IS and then I have a 85 1.8 for outdoor portraits. The 35 is generally what I have on the camera, but 50mm is a little "better" for indoor portraits.
Would you think that having a 35 and a 50 makes sense? Of course, the difference is more pronounced on my crop than on your ff so maybe "yes", but maybe not. Maybe 28mm and 50mm to really round it out (vs. 35 and 50)?

Click to expand...

35mm would probably still work. However 28mm might be a little better. Part of it is personal preference. I enjoy fast primes and shoot crop currently. I have 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm and they compliment each other well enough. 85mm is great, but for sure more of an outdoors, keep a bit more distance. I personally find 35mm (on crop) not always wide enough inside. The 28mm has worked well. Although sometimes when I bring gear with me, I leave the 28mm at home and its spot in the camera bag gets filled with the M + 22mm pancake.

Don't hear too much about 28mm primes these days, but on a crop sensor, I think it is the best focal length for a "normal" lens. And Canon's 28 f/1.8 is about as small/light as you can get without going to pancake lens.

The patent was filed 7-23-2013, which means the work was done earlier. The field is moving so fast, that this has likely already been surpassed in more recent research, so its more like something that may be built on in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

My resolutions:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Take more photographs. Every weekend would be ideal, but i still have a couple of things to settle.
[*]Build a photo development workflow based on linux and open source tools.
[*]Get myself a new toy. It's going to be either a Sigma 24/1.4 or Canon 16-35/4. That 11-24/4 looks stunning, but at 3000$/€ it's far out of my reach.
[/list]

Hi Rahul.
Thanks, and Damn, I didn't notice that, nice catch, I think I might have been trying to keep that bright white sky to a minimum, I will have to go back and reshoot it!

Hi candyman.
Yes I was struggling at the point I quit with the pp and posted it, I want to re process it as to my mind it is way too HDR, but when I am a LOT better at pp! I have had DxO for about 9 months now but only really got in to using it in the last 2 or maybe 3 months, last night was the first time not on my laptop (really poor screen about a 5 degree viewing angle before the colours go off), just got 16GB of ram for PC so it doesn't crash now, it has a better screen, though not to the quality some are using here! They are both calibrated though.
Also based on how much detail came back in the sky I might have got away with adding another third to the exposure of the hull?

Thanks for the feedback.

Rahul said:

An interesting topic and some nice pictures Graham.

I'm wondering however as to why you chose to clip the masts in the second photos while including a lot of grass in the foreground.

Click to expand...

candyman said:

Thanks for sharing this interesting story and those photos.
For me, personally, the second photo is a tiny bit too much HDR look. To capture enough details must have been a challenge considering the amount of clouds.

Click to expand...

In general if it sounds too good to be true it is. Honestly even $1000 is ridiculously cheap for an 85LII (provided it's in at least good condition), the cheapest I've ever seen them used is around $1500, avg is probably $1600-$1800. I have to say it's absolutely worth the money even at $1800.

I just wanted to run a thought passed you guys with regards to this massive 50mp file size.
There are two potential paths here for my future budget, one very expensive one which will take years to achieve, and a new one involving the 5Ds, which may prove to be infinitely cheaper….depending on the answer I get from this question!!

Path A is the purchase of a 5DIII, a large tele L series lens, like a 500 or 600mm and a 1.4xIII – this is the expensive route which would take me a very long time to achieve.
Path B is the purchase of a 5Ds and trading my current 100-400L for the new version II model.

My question is regarding that massive 50mp file from the new 5Ds, would you consider that cropping over 50 or 60% from a 50mp file due to shortened lens reach (as achieved from choosing path B) will still offer excellent IQ from the subject? The file would still be 20mp in size after cropping, so that’s on a level with my current 70D, but as I have never seen a 50mp image on my computer I’m just wondering if my theory is a good one? I know that there is never any competition to having the correct focal length lens, but this is difficult for me to realise due to the prices, so is my way of thinking here a good one???

Mine is fine.

Exactly 2 years since I got my 6D and it's at 26,000 so no longer do I view the 100,000 rating as so much!

However, the fun it's brought is easily worth the cost if its life is short. So far not one hiccup.

Jack

Re: Canon Promotional Videos for the EOS 5Ds & EOS 5Ds R

ranplett said:

7360 × 4912 - Nikon D810

8688 x 5792 - Canon 5Ds

1058 x 880 pixel difference. It just seems like Canon is saying 3 years later, look what I can do!! I'd rather have a better, more well rounded camera. I think 36MP is plenty, even for studio work.

Click to expand...

If we apply your approach for calculations to a slightly different example...

We know that
a) 7x5 = 35
b) 8x6 = 48

by your method difference between a (48) and b (35) is calculated by the following formula:
(8-7)/(1.26) x (6-5)

So by your calculation
48-35 = 0.8

The Contemporary version was just released $1089

SPKoko said:

They have also updated "EOS Remote" and you can download the full resolution JPG files:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.co.canon.ic.eos.eosremote

If you are shooting JPG+RAW, you can download the full JPG file. If you are shooting only RAW, you get a downscaled (1920x1280) JPG file only.

Click to expand...

I can only see 1.2 available for iOS in UK. Not 1.3 available yet.

Skirball said:

My apologies for a most grievous error . When I did a search for the part number nothing came up; which I found surprising. Always a pleasure Marsu :

Click to expand...

Apologies, accepted, don't you do it again :-> ... but I share your gried, the CR search function is no good as the results aren't sorted in a chronological way and I never find what I'm looking for w/o going through several pages of results.

JohanCruyff said:

Seems a kind of evolution of the Lytro concept (https://www.lytro.com/): several images with focus at different distances... or maybe not. :-[

Click to expand...

Yes, kind of, but as a software solution which could be simulated with one of our dslrs (see link above, thanks, mackguyver!). But unless there is a normal pc application that can assemble these shots, it's no good writing a Magic Lantern module that does focus and aperture bracketing at the same time.

Looks good, though, certainly better than a simple gaussian blur. I imagine it bests dedicated "bokeh" plugins for PS as these only have access to one single shot and cannot really simulate an optical blur.

Hi, everyone, if you are looking for a great set of studio/field monitor headphones (or just a great set of general purpose headphones), this relatively unknown brand has made a pretty fantastic pair. I got some for myself after reviewing them because the sound is great (very neutral) and there is a lot of great little features.

Text review: http://bit.ly/1vD2EyZ
Video Review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBqkIpVLMXI

Just saw..

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1084636-REG/tokina_at_x_24_70mm_f_2_8_pro.html

listed as coming soon on B&H.
Not many details but I guess we will see an announcement in a few days!

Love this time of year.. christmas all over again..

kobeson said:

Heard from someone I buy from say her Canon rep heard 5D4 August...

Click to expand...

That agrees with the information received by Northlight's Keith Cooper.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d4.html

However, rather than independent confirmation it could just be the same rumour doing the rounds of the Internet.

Cute child . Nice pictures .

privatebydesign said:

If you put a one pixel straight line on the building edges there is no measurable distortion.

However on full shift you can get very noticeable projection distortion, but that is a function of the projection distortion, not a lens aberration. I am really looking forwards to see how the new 11-24 compares to the shifted 17 for projection distortion, I anticipate the new zoom lens will be much better than the shifted 17.

Click to expand...

I hope the new lens is, too, and I found another example - the infamous brick wall showing obvious distortion of the zoom lens in comparison. Once again, you'll have to forgive the somewhat sloppy alignment of the camera to the wall, but I think it's enough to see the difference. Both shot at f/8, 0.6s, ISO 100, +1 EV,

Top: 16-35 f/4 IS @ 16mm

Bottom: TS-E 17

Just fine on a recent purchase of mine on a CPW street price deal. i haven't had to test their service after the sale so I can't speak to that.

msm said:

Got the 16-35 f4 IS last summer and was very happy with that so it's a bit annoying this comes now .

Bit unsure how shooting this ridiculously wide will turn out, but will likely get it if it the tests show it to be as good as I expect.

Click to expand...

I, too, got the 16-35 F4 last summer and am happy with the lens. I also have had the 14 for several years and am quite happy with that. I just got a 17 TS/E and now comes 11-24.

The 17 TS/E is great for landscape and I was considering it an Ultra-Ultra wide alternative (shift left/right and merge).

Now the 11-24 will give the same angle of view as the 17 TS/E set up as pan.

Angle of view for 11mm is 95º short and 117º long axis. 17 is 70º vertical and 93º long axis. So if flip the 17 TS to portrait I get the same angle of view as the 11 in the landscape orientation.

So may sell the 14 and buy the 11-24

I want to take pictures of houses from a narrow street (the buildings are 5 to 11 meters high, the street measures 4.5 meters accross). I am trying to decide which lens will work for this project, Sigma 12-24mm @ 12mm and the camera on vertical position (portrait) or Canon TS-e 17mm also with the camera on vertical position.

I can do the math for the Sigma. If I place the camera on portrait position on a tripod 1.5m high and I stand 4m from the façade of the house, I can take a picture of a 8.7 m building.

I can´t do the same calculations for the TS-e. Could anyone help me? If I place the camera on a tripod 1.5m high and I stand 4m from the façade and shift the lens up all the way, how tall could I reach?

Thanks,
Antonio