eml58 said:

bchernicoff said:

I don't think the background blur looks very good at all. And looking at the focal lengths printed under the images, I feel like everyone of them would have been better shot at 300mm f/2.8 and cropped if necessary. This assumes these weren't crops already.

Click to expand...

Well the lens is never going to be all things to all photographers, but I own the 200f/2, 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 Version 2 Lenses, Plus the 600f/4 Version 2, and more based on what I've seen in Andy Rousse's Review, I'de have to disagree that @ f/4 this Lens isn't just as good as any of the Primes I mentioned above, time will tell of course, once we have a few being used and start to see the Images, but I'm sold. If you haven't already, have a look here, can't see too much wrong with Bokah @ f/4, or at any other f/stop. I imagine the Photographer didn't shoot his Images at f/2.8 is because this is an f/4 Lens through the Zoom Range without the 1.4x Converter in place.


http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=174

Click to expand...

I was suggesting that the photographer could have just used the 300mm f/2.8 II lens. Andy's images look fantastic though and I'm sure the flexibility of having a zoom is a big help in a lot of scenarios.

LetTheRightLensIn said:

jrista said:

pete vella said:

...
Gimmie Chuck Westfalls number so he can explain why canon left out this feature.
...

Click to expand...

http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Oh dear though he seems to have gone all moon landings/9/11 conspiracy theorist though....

Click to expand...

Of course! It's highly controversial...and that guy LOVES controversy!

eml58 said:

I ordered mine through the guys at Cathay Photo in Singapore where I buy all my gear, I've been advised they have 2 Lenses Due June 10th, One earmarked for me, hopefully the info is correct as I head out to Tanzania on June 15th.

Click to expand...

Hi I hope you will get yours before taking off to Tanzania! Will you also bring the zoom to Iceland later=?
Happy Shootings sir!
/Charl

LetTheRightLensIn said:

I heard someone tried it with SilverFX and it was said to have come out wicked awesome!! But they said it took like years to render a short little thing.

Click to expand...

SilverEfex is slow with stills, so it's no surprise. I will test it out. I haven't messed with Resolve, but I'd be curious to know if it has capabilities beyond ACR or LR.

LetTheRightLensIn said:

If you do AE/ACR or PS/ACR workflow make sure to check my post in the video forum here as you will get a mismatch between sRGB tone response and gamma 2.2 so after all the hard work perfecting things it will suddenly look wrong in Premiere Pro or played back by most video software since your monitor/HDTV is probably set to gamma 2.2 or so but AE/ACR and PS/ACR worklflows can get you stuck in footage saved as sRGB TRC so you get a slight contrast and saturation boost and shadows and lower mid-tones look too dark. The difference is surprisingly noticeable at times. But there are ways to force those workflows to save out in gamma 2.2. See my posts.

Click to expand...

Yup, I'm struggling with this color space issue too. I've been getting a washed-out look after running the RAWs through Lightroom and QuickTime7. I will try a bunch of settings variations, including some you've mentioned. Sometimes I just experiment until I get the best results.

For my needs and wants, a 7DII must offer two things over the current model:
Iso noise which is a lot better (I'm talking about a huge disparity between a 5DII and 7D) and the general per pixel image quality. When compared to the output from a 5DII/III the 7D was often left wanting. The rest of the original 7D is still very competitive and very usable...but anything over Iso 400 wasn't for me.
I loved the AF system, the 8fps, the handling, everything except the sensor...the most un-Canon camera Canon have made!

tron said:

I don't agree they sent a useless brochure. If I recall correctly you have 2 daughters, so the 2 Rebels - which by the way are of different size - would suit them both!
(OK may be in a few years)
;D ;D ;D

Click to expand...

Touché, Sir!

My 5 year old daughter has been asking for a camera, and using the old S95 from time to time...so an SL3 might be just the ticket in a few years...

As an aside, like most things, you can dig deep and actually do volume anamorphosis adjustments in Photoshop, but it takes a bit of trial and error and a little more time than the DxO one button solution.

The basis of the adjustment is in the Filter drop down menu go Distort-Spherize in that menu under Mode choose Horizontal Only (or Vertical Only) then move the slider, when you have done that select all and go free transform and change the width percent to around 90%, click the arrow and you are done. Now most times it helps if you increase the canvas width first as this moves where the spherize bands adjust within the frame, like I said a bit of trial and error but good results and cheaper than the plugin if you have PS.

Spherical anamorphosis adjustments are easily done in the lens correction panel with the distortion slider.

ookkerpak said:

Hi, and thanks for the replies.

Unfortunately I live in Finland, and the nights here are not so dark in the summertime, so the otherwise good idea about shooting at night would have to wait until winter. So maybe I'll try to use sunlight instead, maybe even turn off the lights in the dojo and use max amount of flashes with gels. I hadn't heard about gelling windows before, don't know where to get that kind of stuff. Got to check out different webstores.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be *that* dark...just darker than the interior lights. 2 stops will usually do it. The higher shutter speed you'd have to shoot will cut the background light (ambient coming in from the windows). It's about learning the exposure compensation vs. the flash exposure compensation). You can dial the EC down -2 stops to darken the whole ambient exposure, then dial the FEC up to +2 and get some really neat shots that drop out the background.

As far as gelling, try any theatre supply company. They are just thin transparent sheets of plastic that are coloured a certain amount. They come in big rolls, so you just unroll them on the outside of the windows and tape them in place. Rosco (Roscolux) and Lee are the names to look for. Here's the light correction gels list from Lee: http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/technical-list.html. They all have a sample book that is a spinner with each color that you can try. Wait until a sunny day, turn on the florescent lights, then hold one of the strip to the left or right side of your lens. Shoot a shot. That way, half your image shows what the "natural" light is and the other half will show what happens if you add that filter to the lighting.

Once you find the right colour, you'd get a few rolls of that stuff and tape it to the windows (hint: it'll be a green tint to change the daylight to match the florescent lights). Now, the incoming outside light and the interior lighting will be close in temperature, so your camera can white balance just one color.

The trick to it is to get a book about lighting color correction, learn some basic color theory (color wheel!), and #1: get some practice testing in before actually shooting!

When we shoot architecture, we commonly gel the windows so that all the lights look natural and crisp. It's also how all motion pictures are done!

Sella174 said:

Doesn't matter, because the (discontinued) DiG!C II produces the best JPEG's.

Click to expand...

Because all that matters in photography is which camera produces the best JPEGs...

@op
I kept my 24-105. I like this lens as outdoor walkaround because of the range to 105mm. And, I use it icw with flash indoor. For that it is also a great lens.

If things are starting to get contentious, I'd talk to a lawyer, or if you're a member of PPA or something similar see if there's a staff legal team for advice. And above all, this is why you get things in writing, even if it's a simple email saying "Here's what we agreed over the phone, please confirm that this is correct."

eml58 said:

Yes, the 5DMK II Bad Habits, great Camera, loved it, but that Focus System for me led to some bad habits, Centre Point Focus then recompose being the biggest bad habit, but the Centre Point is the only point worth using, so you work with what you have.

The 5DMK III & 1Dx with the 61 Point system, allows me to dispense with the Bad Habit of recompose, for those that recompose works for, more power to you, really, but I've simply found recompose when ever it's used invariably deals slight out of focus into the Image.

Like others in previous Posts, I use a single point Focus then move the Point in the frame to match the area I want to Focus on, generally on Single Point spot for static objects, single shot. Then for anything else AI Servo it's mostly single Point & set for 61 point so once I lock on I have a reasonable chance that the system will track, I tweek the release/tracking/focus priority settings dependent on what the situation needs.

I still shoot the 5DMK II on single point & recompose as I converted one of my 5DMK II's to Infra Red Sensor, so the Bad Habits do persist.

Click to expand...

yeah the 5dmk2 i guess made a lot of us get into this bad habit as the other points were pretty much useless lol maybe i will just stick with my joystick method but maybe have a wee go at a couple of frames with focus and recompose

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Welcome to the world of FF bodies with no flash or transmitter.

Once you move to FF, you will need a trigger as Neuro said, and the focal length of all your lenses will appear to have shrunk by a factor of 1.6.
Then, you should consider using CF memory rather than your SD (It will work, just not the best, particularly not for video)

There will be a noticible advantage at very high ISO settings, mucho better autofocus, and AFMA to let you fine tune your lenses. So set some money aside for FoCal.

Don't forget a spare battery

Click to expand...

if you drive an suv, you are going to pay more for tires. the same applies for monster trucks and full frame cameras. I'm less concerned about the reach as long as I can keep my subject in the frame and on the af point. I crop with the best of them.

I have a compact flash card, 800x, but only in read speeds. I want the 1000x card that has a write speed of 90mbs.

I've always hated that lock button arrangement, even with it working, its a pain.

Before ordering a replacement part from ebay, call Canon parts.

Ebay sellers often just buy from Canon and mark up the price. I've even done that, sort of. When my Vitamix needs a gasket, its as cheap to buy three or six due to the shipping, so I sell the extras on ebay for enough to get one free. They get snapped up immediately.

The D7100 is three years newer than the 7D. A better comparison for the D7100 will be Canons 70D when its announced.

Obviously the RAW is doing vastly better, but did you do any color grading on the ALL-I at all? That might help it look a bit better, although from what I understand it might take a bit longer than doing a quick import into Lightroom, tweak settings then sync across all frames and export.

canikon said:

tpatana said:

bdunbar79 said:

tpatana said:

Does spot metering only use the center circle area?

Click to expand...

On a 5D Mark III, yes.

Click to expand...

So to use spot metering on the focus point, you actually have to select evaluative metering. Canon-logic I guess

Click to expand...

Yes exactly, on the 5D mk III actually "Evaluative" metering = AF point "spot" metering. On a low contrast scene you would not notice this, but on a high contrast scene you better to go for the old average metering if you need a consisten "reasonable" exposure. For me even for portrait the AF linked spot metering is not always trustworthy, since if I pick a eyebrow or some dark hair with a focus point, the picture will result blown up overexposed.
I do have a 40D and a 600D, none of them act like this.

Click to expand...

So funny.

Now knowing this, it doesn't really bother me too much as I can use it to my advantage. But not knowing, that might screw up the exposure. I've never trusted the camera anyway too much, I always chimp my pictures constantly.

Pi said:

Those are severely overexposed images, for the highlights. Most likely flare. What f-stop?

Click to expand...

Yes, so badly overexposed that they can't be saved. You need to shorten the exposure, use lowest ISO, smaller aperture, and possibly a neutral density filter.

Yes, 7D. In fact that was one of the main reasons why I got it, hoping to be able to catch moving animals in focus.

LOL, yes I know what you mean Mr. Bean. The camera needs some IQ to read my mind what I want to have in focus and what not. Thanks to digital age I just take more pictures and usually at least some of them are useable, esp when using spot AF and spot metering.

I also love the 3 custom settings you can register so I am able to instantly switch between apropriate settings for a bird just flying over me and the flower I am spending time with on the ground.

Sporgon said:

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:

Here's an interesting observation: I shot an event a weekend ago and used over the course of several days: the 135L (and, at times, 135L + 1.4x II), 100L IS, Tamron 24-70VC, and the 70-300L. I didn't even plan on using it, as I consider it too slow for indoor work. But I was surprised to find that my sharpest images from the event were actually taken with the 70-300L.

This was taken from roughly 60 feet away, 300mm, wide open (f/5.6). For this type of work, I find the result pretty stunning. I've included a 100% crop (the first square crop is already reduced slightly to get the square crop for a portrait orientation shot).

Click to expand...

I presume the 70-300 has beaten the 135 + 1.4x due to IS and greater magnification.

Anyway with lenses like this about at these functions I guess there's going to be a lot more male grooming required before speaking ;D

Click to expand...

You are exactly right. I don't know that the 70-300L outresolves the 135L (I actually doubt that it does), but the IS is huge, as is the improved magnification. The reasons, however, matter less than the finished result, which was surprisingly good. Since I was doing a lot of spot metering under bright lights, my ISO actually stayed pretty low. Different lighting would produce different results, and the 135L would obviously fair better under more even lighting conditions because its improved light gathering would be more of a factor.

It makes me anxious to see what Sigma does with the rumored 135mm f/1.8 OS - an image stablizer in a lens like that would be huge for my event work - particularly if it handled a 1.4x extender well.

Canon-F1 said:

and with the PEN E-P8 ...

Click to expand...

By that time Olympus (and Panasonic) will have figured out all the little nags and snags of mirrorless ... enabling them to upscale the sensor in the (mentioned) E-P8 effortlessly to "full-frame" size ... with Canon all the while still dicking around with the mirror-box (and its complications) and the same 18MP sensor.

Dear All,
Again a heap of thanks to you all for taking time to answer my initial question - is my copy of the 1.2 faulty or not. It certainly seems to perform precisely as everybody else's and as pointed out in various reviews. Thanks for the sample pics you've posted.
I think it is a valid discussion whether or not the 1.2 is worth the extra buck over the 1.4. You get the extra aperture, a thinner DOF, probably a better build quality (I haven't seen the 1.4 in real life, but I take your word for it), you get the red ring (but that can be remedied as pointed out by vscd ), but will that give you better pics? Well get as much information as possible and then decide for yourself. This great forum is precisely used for such information sampling.
Speaking for myself, I will go out now into the real world and enjoy my 1.2.
Please be nice to your fellow man and remember - we may be alone in the universe ;D

I have both and routinely use the 1.4 while avoid the 2x - perhaps because I put this on a 500 F4 which makes it F8 which is hard to focus. I have a mix results with the 2x, I think the problem is with the photographer, not the equipment but it is much harder to use the 2x on an F4 lens than it is to use 1.4x

I have spent much time using either TC on 2.8

Mt Spokane Photography said:

jdramirez said:

elharo said:

Every so often I run into a to good to be true deal like this on Amazon, and almost always it's cancelled after I order (though I did once score a used NEC 30" monitor for about half off, that is still with me and working well). I really don't understand why some sellers do this. What do they get out of this? Maybe they're playing some game where they're trying to get other sellers using automated listing software to lower their prices? I don't know.

Click to expand...

I think about doing this every now and then. I would be the lowest price, so I initially set a crazy low price, $1, and that triggers the camel price watch emails, then I raise my price so people go to the ad, they have some interest in the lens, and they seer my price which is the lowest, and they buy. I don't do that though...

Click to expand...

Amazon has lots of clueless third party sellers. If they get many complaints or cancel many orders, they are removed.

Click to expand...

They have an 84% positive rate... they aren't bad, they just err'd this time.