Posts

IsaacImage · Apr 10, 2014

Siggy all the way !

Apr 9, 2014

I was getting to the T5, but thinking of the G1 X II caused me to doze off....

Apr 9, 2014

I don't have a pic of the setup with the FA-QREX2, but this shot of one of my macro setups will give you an idea of the amount of extension you get. I find that getting the flash as far as possible from the lens axis helps with steel-eye.

finster · Apr 9, 2014

What is not mentioned in the article is that Canon did not develop or invent nanoimprint technology. A U.S. startup company called Molecular Imprints worked for 12 years to make this all possible. Please do not think for a moment that Canon invented this capability. They simply bought it. For years, Toshiba and Canon have forced Molecular Imprints to not disclose who they were working with. Now that Toshiba and Canon have announced the partnership, they seem to completely ignore the fact that Molecular Imprints even exists.

AcutancePhotography · Apr 9, 2014

I would agree, but would also like to point out that there are already several threads on the Sigma 50.

JumboShrimp · Apr 9, 2014

See here:

http://photorumors.com/

AbsN · Apr 9, 2014

Many thanks for the replies. I shall re-calibrate with the 50x lens focal length. I have done this for the 50 1.2 L already and have attached the results - a series of pics focusing on the same part of the chart with the most common AF points I use. The lens was calibrated to the center point. Positioned 2.5 meters from chart (50 x 50mm), camera on tripod with 2 second timer. Chart is mounted on a window so had strong back light. I ran this test twice and got the same results both times so I don't think it is a matter of inconsistent focus - it's consistent for the calibrated point and simply consistently out by different amounts on the other points.

The product advisory on AF sounds to be describing the issue. There are no painted dots in the battery compartment and the firmware is 1.2.0 so I'll upgrade that for the next tests too. I'm kind of wondering if one of those has more consistent AF then it may be better to switch rather than potentially always being unsure about AF point accuracy on this body. Even if it's fixed by Canon it may only take a slight bump to knock it out again? Does anyone know of any AF accuracy tests for the 5d3 or 6d using 1.2 lenses?

CarlTN · Apr 9, 2014

Northstar said:
mackguyver said:

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.

Click to expand...

thanks Mack. subtle indeed! i would guess that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't notice the difference and wouldn't have a preference between the photos.

A matter of opinion. In the second and third comparison series of images, the difference really isn't all that subtle at all. The 135 at f/2, is just quite noticeably smoother in its bokeh, and also throws that de-focussed background into relief where the highlight details appear 40 to 50% larger. The difference, is going from f/2.0, to f/2.8...and the bokeh is slightly less smooth...that's all.

I'll grant you that the first set of comparison images, is more similar. But with subject distance the difference is going to decrease, because the background becomes closer to being in focus anyway. And again, the real reason most users think the 70-200 f/2.8 can have very good bokeh, is because they are using it at focal lengths longer than 135mm, at f/2.8...where the depth of field is that much more shallow...but also the angle of view is more narrow.

wickidwombat · Apr 8, 2014

Longexposure said:
Thanks to all for your replies. I don't think i'll buy a 50 because i already have a 30 and i feel they're too similar. and I wanted to buy the 100 at fist but it's a little long on apse.
I think I'll wait a few month before settling on anything.

maybe pick up a used canon 85 1.8 for the time being and use it then see what sigma come out with
while the canon 1.8 has alot of CA wide open its still an amazing lens for the money

duydaniel · Apr 8, 2014

This looks so cool

sagittariansrock · Apr 8, 2014

dgatwood said:
sagittariansrock said:

In fact, putting a filter on the 50 1.8 causes flare unless you are using a hood (not needed otherwise because the front element is set back.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it would cause flare on that lens any more than it does on any other, unless you got a cheap filter that wasn't multicoated (or not multicoated very well).

Now that you mention it, I think I tried a Tiffen, and then dropped the idea. This was before I started investing in B+Ws.
But this brings to mind a more fundamental question:
What causes a flare? If it is simply bright light incident on the front element at an angle, then you are right- all lenses will be almost equally prone to flare when an uncoated filter is used. On the other hand, if it is bright light that is incident, but doesn't pass through to the sensor then any lens that has a lot of peripheral, redundant front element will be more susceptible (in this case the 50mm, because it will have a larger front element, in this case the filter, than passes through to the sensor).
It is not very eloquently described without illustration, I am afraid. But this might help: few days ago Neuro posted that the 24-70 II's hood isn't effective at any FL other than the widest, unlike the 24-70 I, whose hood-to-front element distance changed with the FL. I asked myself why, if the front element is equally susceptible to flare whatever the effective FL might be (the same question you are asking me)? Then I thought the peripheral rays aren't passing on to the sensor when the lens is zoomed in, so maybe it is this peripheral rays that causes the flare. Having a deeper hood cuts down these peripheral rays and prevents flare.
That brings us to the other question- are hoods of telephoto lenses deeper because they can have them (i.e., the angle of view is narrower allowing a deeper hood) or because they need the extra depth?
Do you know which one is the case? Maybe the experts can enlighten us?

pedroesteban · Apr 8, 2014

Since I shoot exclusively through the viewfinder, which means my back LCD is never on while I'm shooting, I guess my case is worse than Radjan's. Maybe it's because of ambient temperature. Most of my extreme low light shots taken with the 5d mark iii were during carnaval in Rio, and according to what I googled (Thanks, neuro!) "amp glow" seems to be related to sensor temperature.

Does anyone here know if a software fix (or at least an improvement) is possible?

ajfotofilmagem · Apr 8, 2014

The sensor size "Super 35mm" almost the same APS-C, not full frame. But the abundant connections, and monitor 10 inch are very impressive at this price. Yes, Canon will have to lower the price of 1DC to be competitive.

Northstar · Apr 8, 2014

wonder how it ended?

BL · Apr 8, 2014

JonAustin said:
IsaacImage said:

Without AF assist ST-e3 is useless for me. Don't see any reason to buy it.

Click to expand...

I would only consider purchasing an ST-E3-RT if I could get it for a "steal."

At the time I felt the same way. I "stole" mine for ~$150, and won't likely ever go back to 600s as master.

It's possible I don't push my AF hard enough. I haven't needed AF assist as I don't have any problems locking focus in low to dim light.

philmoz · Apr 7, 2014

jdramirez said:
privatebydesign said:

MrVeda said:

Wow - thanks for all the great feedback - much appreciated.

I'm leaning towards the 6d with the Canon 16-35mm UWA using Aperature for post editing. I've read tons to support the extra cost over the 17-40mm is well worth the investment. The quality of pics are used primarily for online marketing but much more high res than for MLS purposes. Pics have to be uploaded in high res for full screen slideshows.

Is there a specific uv filter that will give a good all round use for interior and exterior shots to suit stills of rooms?

Thanks again!

Click to expand...

For real estate shooting f8 and smaller, there is absolutely zero benefit of the 16-35 over the 17-40, indeed the 17-40 has a better zoom range as 35-40 is more useful than 16-17, trust me on this one, the 17-40 is a better lens for you (and me).

Even full sized tv screens are only 2 and a bit MP, a computer screen a bit more. A 4K screen, which almost nobody has is a mere 8MP, so keep perspective on what you actually need IQ wise, these forums do have a lot of people very gear and ultimate IQ orientated, overkill is expensive!

As for the software, I got on much better with Lightroom than Aperture, and everybody that makes imaging software plugins makes a version for Adobe, whereas Apple and independent developers seem to let Aperture slide too often.

Depending on the results you are after Aperture and Lightroom might not give you the capabilities you need, if you link to some images you would like to achieve I'll tell you what techniques were used to do it, this will help you plan your overall strategy.

I don't use UV filters, with such varying light sources encountered in real estate, and the fact that it is not a demanding climate (dust, dirt, ran, sea spray etc) they can only diminish your output. A polarizer can be a very useful filter though for controlling reflections and glare on wood floors, counter tops etc.

Click to expand...

I was reading the 4K sony post earlier with the 12mp camera... and I believe they were saying is that 4K=12mp because it was a 1:1 ratio... pixel for pixel.

I don't care.. but I want to make sure it is right before I lock 12 MP = 4K before I lock it into my memory.

A7s stills - 4240 x 2832 = 12MP (3:2 aspect ratio)
4K video (UHDTV) - 3840 x 2160 = 8.3MP (16:9 aspect ratio)

Phil.

jdramirez · Apr 7, 2014

Valvebounce said:
Hi JD.
I think there is at least one person on here that can prove the reverse of that statement, a poor photographer can get lesser results using adequate gear! I am of course talking about myself! :
Struggling to become a better photographer.

Cheers Graham.

jdramirez said:

The fact of the matter is that a good photographer can get more then adequate results using lessor gear... and while the 6D is probably the best option, money wasn't described as a constraint.

Click to expand...

When I first took up golf... I had a crap set I bought for $100... I played the crap out of the clubs and I did pretty well with a patchwork set. I'd compare that with my XS and 50mm f/1.8.

After a few years... I upgraded my clubs to a $300 driver (which was 15 years ago... so after inflation... $500ish) and a set of irons from Taylormade and a putter and wedges...

I wanted the gear not to be the reason I had a crappy shot... So... my 5D mkiii and lenses are comparable to that. When I screw up a shot... I KNOW I'M TO BLAME. It sucks... I liked when it was my XS or 60D that were the problem.

BL · Apr 7, 2014

Are you using original OEM Canon batteries or generic 3rd party?

privatebydesign · Apr 7, 2014

Canon showed a crazy MP sensor years ago and said they felt the future was zooming and sub diffraction technology, they are working on it, but realistically I wouldn't expect anything real in the regular camera market for twenty years.

Maybe 2034 will be the year of the sensor, along with the 7D MkII............

ktatty · Apr 7, 2014

CarlTN said:
ktatty said:

had the d4 and d800 set up for a while. I moved to canon because i wanted the 5d iii over the d800 for my travel camera, faster fps and better auto focus system. I got the 1dx a year later to shoot indoor sports, the 5d could do it, it just wasn't as fast as the d4. I bit the bullet and bought the 1dx- i couldn't believe the autofocus ability of it-really a step above the d4.
I did watch the same review you metnitoned (very long) on tube by two photographers that were testing the d4 vs 1dx and at the end the long time nikon user decided to go with the 1dx because the autofocus speed was in a "different class" than the nikon.
I agree with him on that. I also think the 1dx does a better job with metering over the d4.
The canon rep was in our local camera shop a few weeks back and he told us canon updated the firmware in the 1dx and they did not plan to upgrade the body.
It will be interesting to see if the d4s' new autofocus system has caught up the 1dx.
I never really understood why nikon put the qxd card format on the camera. Both are great cameras, but i think the 1 dx has the edge right now.

Click to expand...

Interesting, yours is obviously inline with a consensus opinion of 1DX and Canon owners...but definitely not of die hard Nikon fans (I don't know any personally). It's cool that you are a Canon convert!!

In the test we both watched on youtube...I can't help but think that the respective lens's autofocus speeds played a major role (especially since they were depending on the elements going from close to distant focus, back and forth, over and over). Nikon...well they just can't make lenses like Canon, and I suspect really none of their lenses can make use of whatever AF speed ability the D4 or D4s, has. But unless someone, I don't know...tests an "identical" Sigma or Tamron lens on a D4s and a 1DX (that somehow also has consistent and "fast" AF...a tall order!), there's no getting around using a Nikon lens on the Nikon body. Obviously a third party lens is not a good way to test either camera's AF capability, so it's a bit of a conundrum.

Unless of course, you are of the opinion that Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8, is in every way equal to Canon's current "version 2" 70-200. I doubt it is, but I really have no experience...yet.

I wonder why you would favor a 5D3 as a travel body over the D800? Unless when you travel you are only shooting sports action. Usually "travel" implies vacationing...and shooting scenery, landscapes, etc...which the D800 would be superior for doing (assuming you have really long, skinny fingers, for the Nikon ergonomics).

As for the Sony card, obviously it ties in with using image sensors designed by Sony (and possibly other components too, I don't know?). They claim the Sony card is faster than CF cards, but I have no idea.

I agree the d800 is a better landscape camera, but not as versatile as the 5d. traveling with kids so you may shoot scenery one day and the next day your trying to get shots of them on a ride at Disney;my kids are not in to sitting still for pictures.

JohnDizzo15 · Apr 6, 2014

I would personally be very content with the implementation of a hybrid EVF in the way that Fuji has done it on the x100s and xpro1.

There are plenty of advantages that I love about having a good EVF (most of which have already been talked about previously). However, the biggest downside (IMO) is having to have it run all the time which is a battery killer. Merely having the option to switch back and forth would be huge.

The other thing that bothers me (which isn't a deal breaker) is the fact that one of it's big advantages can also be one of it's disadvantages in different shooting situations. What I'm referring to is the live preview of your image based on your settings. In most scenarios, this is great. But when you are shooting flash, the advantage becomes nil and actually is a nuisance since the VF goes dark in many scenarios as it cannot account for the light you will be adding.

Before any says it, yes, I know the preview can be turned off. But having to go through menus to turn it on and off in a dynamic shooting scenario can be a real pain.

So for me, there are pros and cons to each type of VF. A hybrid VF is the solution to that as it provides the end user with a choice. On my Fuji, it can be done with the flick of a hardware switch.

Chaitanya · Apr 6, 2014

There are were a lot of blank spaces left when Canon announce the MR-14ex replacement. Finally now that manual has been available for download, looks like the the MR-14ex II is completely worth it.

Best bit of improvement is ability to install a 67mm diameter filter in front on the ring flash itself.
Adjustable brightness of leds.

here is the link for the manual itself-
http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/2/0300014702/01/mr-14exii-im-en-fr-es.pdf

edwyun · Apr 6, 2014

tesign said:
Of course it be great that consumers should know about what is and could be wrong with the product they paid for to use. It certainly helps not wasting my precious time waiting for a bird that comes around in one hour while not knowing we are shooting it with a faulty camera body or lenses.

yes, but that can happen with any piece of equipment, whether bought from an authorized dealer or not.

StudentOfLight · Apr 6, 2014

Rienzphotoz said:
AJ said:

zzzzz. Wake me up when they add tilt-shift.

Click to expand...

You've been sleeping too long, they already have a 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift lens, but if you are waiting for another one, then go back to sleep ;D

I love CR!

surapon · Apr 6, 2014

Ha, Ha, Ha---Dear Friends and My teacher.
Well, I quite crazy, But still at the low end of Crazyness----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Two days ago, I and my son Volunteer to shoot at " NAMI ( National Alliance on Mental Illness) Eighth Annual Celebration of Courage. And I go with my DIY Portable Lighting system---Yes, I go Light , on that day, Canon 7D with 70-200 mm. F/ 2.8 L IS and Flash, Canon 5D MK II, with EF 24-70 mm F/ 2.8 L ,with Flash( and Graslon 4100F) and 160 LED light and Photix Odin/ Flash controller, and Canon EOS-M with 22 mm F/ 2.0 on my belly / Fanny Pack---Yes, for 2 hours, I shoot about 450 Photos for them, And My son shoot 250 Photos.
Enjoy.
Surapon

PS. You might ask me = Why do I neede 160 LED light for this job----Yes, Before I go to shoot this NAMI job, I research that Most of Mental Illness People have the effected with bright/ suddenly Flash Light= make them sick. = That why constant LED Light at 50% dimmer= get the best Exposure, and no effected on them.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics