adventure said:

I'd guess it's a problem with file export. We're you tethered on USB? Or sending over wifi transmitter? Or perhaps a card issue - were you at the end of a card or hasn't formatted the card you were using?

I've never had a problem other than the scenarios mentioned above. And in that case I think it says "error 5". Leaves the mirror up, and the only way to unjam it is to remove the battery. If you could fix it by simply turning off the camera, maybe you're into something different. Good luck!

Click to expand...

In the field, not tethered, recording to dual CF cards. I did not try other cards (only show HDR for a few days). I can test that at home. Now to find the bad cards.

Thanks for the ideas!

dash2k8 said:

Hjalmarg1 said:

tomscott said:

http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-7d-mark-ii-vs-70d-vs-d7100-high-iso-comparison/

7DMKII kicks ass

Click to expand...

+1 agree that based on these high-Iso comparison 7DII looks very promissing.

Click to expand...

I would say it's not fair to compare the 7D2 to those other two. I think Canon is marketing the 7D2 in the 6D level, except for the APS-C factor. It's therefore natural that it would beat these two. I'd like to see a direct comparison between the 7D2 and the D750, for example, to see how each handles low light/shadow recovery, even if sensor sizes and crop factors are different.

Click to expand...

7D2 will sorely lose, when confronted with D750. Price point means nothing and comparision to 70D and D7100 is completely valid i.e. top APS-C bodies from both manufacturers.

Re:SOLVED: 6D + SIGMA 24-105 f/4 Art = locks up

mgelain said:

New Sigma firmware (ver. 1.01) solved the issue.
Tested with Canon 6D firmware 1.1.3 and 1.1.4.

I ho this helps,
Mirco

Click to expand...

Good to hear that you could solved the issue and good information for the forum. Now enjoy shooting

Don Haines said:

It doesn't exclude anyone. You write the software to take advantage of a GPU. If you don't have one, the software works perfectly. If you have one, it is faster. The user can run it on their tablet, thier laptop, or their desktop ( rack mount for me ). If you want more performance, buy better hardware. It is better to have that option than no option at all.

Click to expand...

And sooner or later the naysayer will realize that your average tablet also has a GPU that can do those calculations faster while using less energy per operation. Their cores are actually very closely related to their desktop/console counterparts, much more then the main CPUs.
They see quite a lot of action in the image manipulation done for GUI representation, so using them to manipulate images isn't exactly terra incognita.

Coldhands said:

FTb-n said:

There are also much easier to clean. Fingerprints wipe off very easily. Within the Hoya line, I highly recommend the HD filters.

Click to expand...

This is very interesting. I've got two of the Hoya Pro1 Digital filters and have noticed they are a massive challenge to get clean. I just end moving the oily smear around the glass and never really get rid of it. I always thought it was just my lens cloths or my technique. Good to know.

Click to expand...

same here, it was PITA to clean the Hoya UV Pro 1

in my opinion, I think that B+W nano coated filters were the easiest to clean

AcutancePhotography said:

mrsfotografie said:

Ok topic closed, I just ordered the G16.

Click to expand...

I think you will be happy with it. Conga rats on your new camera!

Click to expand...

Thank you, I'm happy with my purchase, and it satisfies one of the rules of nature: If 'n' equals the number of camera's (or lenses) you own, the ideal number is 'n+1'. ;D

Max Rockbin said:

Another reason Cine lenses are more expensive: Calibration.

Roger Cicala of lensrentals.com in another post (not the one quoted earlier in the thread) was writing about sample variation and how shocked the average photographer would be at the differences between even high end pro lenses right out of the box. Since as part of their business, they routinely re-align elements and test the lenses very carefully, he pondered how much effort would go in to making sure every lens is perfectly tweaked before it leaves the factory.

He reckoned it'd about triple the cost of the lens. Which, he noted, is about what Cine lenses go for...

Click to expand...

That might be true if you have a person do it. If you design an automated calibration rig that tunes each lens precisely before final assembly, it would be a fixed equipment cost that, amortized over millions of lenses, should have minimal impact on the cost of the lens.

The big cost of Cine lenses is lack of amortization. All of the design is spread across a much smaller number of lenses, because most people don't demand parfocal lenses for still photography (even though they really should). If Canon designed every lens to be parfocal, the impact of parfocal designs on the cost of lenses should also be pretty small. The same goes for other design decisions, such as lack of focus breathing.

So basically, they're expensive because not many people buy them, and not many people buy them because they're expensive. The day someone new enters the market and decides to make all their general-purpose lenses be up to Cine lens standards, Canon will suddenly find ways to bring the cost down.

AcutancePhotography said:

Canon1 said:

I sent it in to canon and they "fixed" it. When I got it back, I ran the test again, and Canon had done absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem. So I sent it back, this time with all the FoCal printouts. A few days later my camera came back with some hardware work and it was fixed.

Click to expand...

Yikes! Some service huh? I hope they did not charge you for the first "fix".

Click to expand...

No charge. I was several months outside of warranty too... So kudos to canon.

Max Rockbin said:

But I actually bought a Canon 70D over any other camera (including mirrorless options) because THIS lens existed. I do real estate video and stills. This lens is Very Wide, Stabilized (!), and quiet too. Is there another low distortion superwide that can claim all that (or even just being stabilized?).

Click to expand...

16-35/4L IS released along with this one FF UWA with IS, low CA, albeit not exactly cheap. But optically best in the Canon UWA zoom lenses.

Woody said:

BozillaNZ said:

No new sensor == no sale for me.

Click to expand...

Same here

Click to expand...

i thought the same.

but then i saw images from the sony a7r with the metabones adapter and canon lenses.
i don´t need fast AF. 95% of my motivs are not moving.
but i want the best low iso image quality i can get. and that´s what sony offers me.

had i prefered to buy canon?... 100%
but canon s not offering a competing product.

privatebydesign said:

Yes, you guys call 'useable toanlity' 'sensor DR', I have never understood that to be a way of stating 'photographic DR', I only know and understand the difference in recordable luminosity values.

Again, I think this is an area where the technologists have confounded and annoyed the photographers. When I, and millions of others, think of photographic DR we are thinking about the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record, not the point at which the dark tones become noisy. Replicating that capability on devices with a much smaller luminosity range is not and never has been the question.

So who has some RAW step wedge files to upload?

Click to expand...

But 'the difference in scene luminosity we can actually record' is exactly what DxO is measuring. Because their DR is defined as the brightest bright vs. the darkest dark that is not lost in noise. 'Not lost in noise' is where SNR = 1, according to DxO. This is known as 'engineering dynamic range'.

Would you like DxO's lower cutoff to be higher, since you can't use SNR = 1 (where tones are completely lost to noise)?

SNR = 1 is used as the lower cutoff b/c different folks could argue till the cows come home what SNR is usable.

If that's what bugs you, then use Bill Claff's excellent analyses, where he defines a 'photographic DR' using a higher SNR cutoff:

http://cl.ly/Y2gu/D810_vs_A7S-PixelLevel.png

The differences between cameras are still fairly similar to DxO's findings, but the absolute numbers are different. Higher SNR cutoffs on the low end tend to shrink the differences between cameras of the same sensor size. After a certain point, a higher SNR cutoff won't even distinguish between cameras of similar sensor sizes, b/c the lower SNR cutoff will be dominated by the effects of shot noise (which'll be similar between cameras of similar sensor sizes), so that's not helpful either.

But Bill Claff's results vs. DxO's normalized results is just half a stop different (2.5 EV vs 3 EV) for the D810 vs. 5D3 for example. Not exactly earth shattering.

Is that what this entire debate, and all this arguing, is actually about in the end?

V8Beast said:

Wow, if the dude in the video was a foot taller, he'd look like a clone of one of my photography instructors.

Click to expand...

If he was 10 times smarter he would be Einstein. ???

I don't have time to watch another self-assurance video.

BUT, the OP's point is valid and I see that other co's making camera gear are "thinking differently."
If you read the interview from imaging-resource a while back about the Samsung NX1

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23052.0

you'll see that Samy's taking this idea and running with it, at least as far as the hardware goes.
What kind of photographic app tools they'll come up with to control this high bandwidth beast I can't yet fathom as I'm one of those who still likes both feet in the old paradigm for now. I can imagine a variety of specialty focus trap features will be at the forefront.

I just don't believe it will be $3000. I do understand(and so does Canon) that there is a ton of demand for this lens, but not at this price point...

Steve said:

privatebydesign said:

I find that taking an hour or two to learn the PS way of doing it pays off big in the long run. I have Topaz but rarely (never) use it, because I end up doing a YouTube search on how to do the same thing in PS and invariably there are a few videos that demonstrate it.

Besides, knowing why something works as it does can really help rather than just pushing a slider.

But as you say, we each find our own best way of getting there.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that there is a lot that can be done better when you dig into the PS interface. Its a really powerful and extensive program. Some of the methods are really time consuming like making tone masks to do micro contrast adjustments when compared to adjusting some sliders in Topaz Detail. I agree that knowing what's happening helps you in PP rather than just slamming the "Make Awesome" slider all the way to the right in some plugin. Before I got a bunch of the Topaz plugins I was doing multichannel noise reduction and tone masked contrast adjustments and all that stuff so I kind of know whats going on a little bit. Enough to recognize that Topaz Denoise was basically doing the same actions but with the controls laid out more simply in a single window with some other tools (like detail recovery and color correction) close at hand. But of course, YMMV as always.

Click to expand...

We are definitely painting from the same brush Steve

I don't find making tone masks time consuming though, and it is a great example, once you know how to make and target your own it can work out faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPszOHLmSws

I've since gotten used to the little bit of weight. It only felt heavy because I'd never had a lens that large before. I'm sure one day I'll buy one larger. When that day comes you'll know because I'll be the guy panhandling with a sign that says, "Sold my home to buy a great white. Spare change appreciated."

;D
I've been lucky enough to have one of my shots selected for National Geographic's Daily Dozen (Tue Oct 14).

http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/daily-dozen/

It was taken with a 7D and 24/70 f/2.8 at ISO 1600

If anyone is a fan of the Nat Geo 'Your Shot' and likes my photo, I'd really appreciate the votes. Top scorers have a chance at appearing in the magazine.

My name is Adam Phillips and the photo is called "Streetlamp" (attached)

Thanks guys.

Hi, a much cheaper alternative would be the Ewa Marine bag B-F100. I use it myself and had the idea to put the TS-E 17mm inside. Normally a 82mm filter thread is need to attach an adapter ring, which attaches to the clear glass panel in front of the bag. Of course the TS-E 17mm does not have any filter thread and putting it inside the bag results in lots of pounces of the lens to the glass panel. Not a good idea...
The solution is the LEE Filters Adapter Ring for the TS-E 17mm. It still does fit into the bag, although it is very, very tight. The LEE adapter ring has a similar effect than the Ewa ring. It keep the glass panel in a plain position a few milimeters in front of the lens. There is some slight vignetting but it is very small. The attached picture shows the vignetting with an f14. It is a RAW converted to JPEG. Of course every militer of shift will result in serious vignetting. Turning the manual focus ring is also pretty difficult. But it does work.

The Ewa Marine bag + LEE adapter ring will cost you US$500.

privatebydesign said:

sulla said:

Without wanting to start a flaming war here, BUT: I fail to see the purpose of both the TSE17 and TSE24:

• Correcting for perspective can be done in LR very well. No Shift is needed in the digital age. (Yes, I know, you'll lose some pixels. So, no need for the "S".
• Tilt is useless on those 2 lenses, because, except for very close close-ups, everything is sharp at any aperture anyway. So no need for the "T".

I can put the tilt to very good use on my TSE90, however, because playing with the focal plane is very useful for me for macro and product photography. It can also be of good use in architecture, but I haven't explored that use yet.

Admittedly, Shift is useless on my TSE90.

So, why not give the TSE-45 or the TSE90 a try instead of the 17 or 24??

Click to expand...

Minor shifting can be done very easily in post, bigger corrections eat into IQ surprisingly quickly. Look 2/3 down the page for a perfect example here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/tilt_and_shift_ts-e.html

As for tilt being useless on these focal lengths, that is pure nonsense. Look at the bridge and tower crops here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/nikon_24_pc.shtml

Going from my own experiences these differences are noticeable in relatively small prints, certainly in 17" prints.

I would argue, and have, that tilt in a macro situation is of very limited utility, particularly with Canon TS-E's and their mere 8º of tilt which, when combined with the very short J distances often used in macro imagery, make it almost entirely ineffective most of the time.

Click to expand...

And on top of the reduced IQ from using software instead of lens shift, you have to crop the image (substantially) and lose what you originally framed. I would also argue that optical shift, compared to software based shift generates totally different results. I am very fond of my TS-E lenses for that reason.

Yes, he is now a Canon explorer of light, so he gets to try out new pre-production models. I'm convinced he is so good that he could make a coke bottle work for a lens.

I went there last November...

5D3_2724 by volksron, on Flickr

5D3_2727 by volksron, on Flickr

distant.star said:

.
Seems like you'd want to go through and see if this hasn't already been posted here.

Click to expand...

Yep. You got me on that one.

I think, canon 5d Mk and Galapagos islands for the picture is a wonderful combination. This place is famous for its natural beauty and animal attraction and with this excellent camera we can get the live pictures. I have been to Galapagos year and really enjoyed the trip.

Im looking into getting a powershot G16, ok its an older model compared to whats out there, the only thing that is putting me off is the rumours of dust inside the lens ......

Could anyone tell me how true, or give me any feedback about this...

From all the comments on CR about the IQ of the 24-70 MKII and the reviews on the internet, this lens seems to have stellar IQ. I just tested it once to compare it with the 24-70VC of Tamron. Currently the price difference between those two is about 800 euro. Personally my wallet can’t justify the price difference versus the improvement of IQ between those two lenses. The Tamron has very good IQ performance.
I don’t think we will see a 24-70 f/2.8 IS of Canon soon. How will Canon position that lens? With what IQ performance against what price? That is within there own range of lenses (24-70 MKII, 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 IS) and comparing it to lenses of Tamron and Sigma.