The Canon 100mm Macro loves the BMCC (and vice versa).

First Shot BMCC on Vimeo

Caroline Test 2 on Vimeo

OK, the 5D3 firmware is at version 1.2.1!

YAY! The f8 focus works!

At 100*1.4=140mm it did not seem slow. However at 400*1.4=560mm it is a bit slow. Need to test it with BIF. I still need to AFMA it. So that is the task for tomorrow. I also need to test the focus with the flash.

Back to the topic, not grammar or spelling, I found this useful. I bored a 1Dx and plan to order one. At least I can use my old 1D M4 batteries in it.

Thank you all for the replies. After shipping costs, it looks like it would still be cheaper. I am going to look into the warranty issue more deeply, though. I'd hate to get a bad copy and be unable to do much about it.

Thanks again!

nice little thread. I have to say I usually don't think of a circular saw as "gentle"!

Skulker said:

I hope he's not expecting to just "make himself the author" and sell them for lots of money. He may find they are not that valuable. :'(

Click to expand...

I'd welcome anyone try selling mine, say 50/50 on the money and I'm happy to email my photos to them, no need to hack into my camera.

Thanks florian!

I suspected as much, so no biggie. Still, would have been nice to have clean ISO 100 for outdoor shooting.

jrista said:

In all honesty, the quickest and relatively cheap way to answer that question is to buy Reikan FoCal, and run your lenses through the Aperture test. It will take a series of shots at each aperture, measure them (I believe it just does an L/PH evaluation, but it might be something more like SQF), and plot the results on a chart. At the end, it will strait up tell you which aperture produces the best quality on YOUR GEAR.

Click to expand...

What I found is that the 100mm I have is a really nice lens... so I can shoot at 2.8 or 8, and I will be more than happy with the results. I think that is partly why I'm not willing to part with my 50mm f/1.4... because I'd much rather have a lens that is sharp with good results at any aperture rather than having to always stop down the 50 to f/2.8 to get decent results.

I wonder if the new firmware doesn't actually make things a touch sharper after all, maybe comparing HDMI vs new internal is the same but maybe new internal is sharper than old? Fine edges seem to get mosquito noise sort of, maybe part of making it sharper. I need to shoot with the new, rollback and shoot with the old and compare. Maybe they did sharpen it up a bit? It is a different look than the 'raw' though, less fine micrcontrast still and yet maybe more aliasing than old video or the 'raw' video buffer?

EDIT: the artifacts, fine detail shimmer and such seem to be something going wrong in Premiere Pro (h.264, High, 5.1, 40Mbs CBR; USM/sharpen/colorista tools) since both the original Ninja recorded files and ones recorded by the 5D3 with new firmware DO NOT have that weird stuff going on. So whatever that is it is definitely not the fault of the 5D3 and/or new firmware.

EDIT: EDIT: well other than in one file where there is some weird black band that pops on and off across a few letters of white text in a weird way on one file, that is on the original
MORE EDITS: actually that weird stuff is in all the files, slight bumps to cam and almost like a bit of 5D2 line skip sorta aliasing jitter, just without sharpenin git wasn't as easy to spot

At the moment, i must be excused for any errors i make. I am also watching Shakira on The Voice. Very distracting!

amarelux said:

I live in Southern California and buy some of my gear from Samy's Camera. They are a reputable dealer and have knowledgable staff. If their price is higher than B&H, ask for a price match.

www.samys.com

Click to expand...

+1 on Samy's camera....a friend of mine is a store manager. I get to try out new gear quite often. I always feel like a kid in the candy shop when I'm there ;D ;D ;D

I've played with the Ricoh GR. It's amazing

I recently made a trip to Manhattan (first time in the US!) and Antigua. I had a great time!

marvinhello said:

I believe you...

Click to expand...

Well, that's enough for me...

Obviously I'm telling the "truth" as I know it, even if it turns out to be incorrect. But I wouldn't come out and say it if I had "read it on the internet". I feel my sources are pretty credible.

Regardless, when @MNS1974 said you need to send your camera in for a service upgrade, the bits kind of fall into place for me.

But I agree that it's lame when you do your homework and talk to the right people and they can't give you up to date information.

We'll see what happens, but my bet after today would be that you will have to send it in at some point.

And on a personal note, the fact that florian has gotten his updated camera is very good news for me as they seem to be rolling them out again.

Take care.

Plainsman said:

It should have been out two years ago so presumably they have had a team of engineers for all this time trying to tweak it to an acceptably high standard.

Click to expand...

That is acceptable standard for $10k ... no doubt the prototypes that were talked about were great as they were, but obviously Canon doesn't want to release a mk2 in 2015 and is determined to make this one special as in "especially profitable" - and this only works if lots of people buy it so it has to be stellar.

neuroanatomist said:

pwp said:

Why on earth would you want to replace the original foot? It's perfectly fine.
Is there something I'm missing here?

Click to expand...

To attach the lens to an Arca-Swiss type clamp on a tripod/monopod head. You can attach a lens plate to the bottom of the Canon foot, or just use a replacement foot with an integrated dovetail - the latter is lighter and less bulky.

Also, although not sure this is the case for the 300 II, IMO with the 600 II (and I suspect the 500 II), there is something wrong with the Canon foot. They used the same forward-sweeping design as on the MkI versions, but the MkII is lighter, and a fair bit of that weight loss comes from the elimination of the protective meniscus lens in front of the front optical element - that makes the MkII less front heavy. When mounted on a gimbal with a heavy (1-series or gripped) body and a 2x TC, the center of mass is actually slightly behind the foot mounting point - and the Canon foot is base is well forward of that point, so the combo cannot be properly balanced on a gimbal. I've read that some people 'solve' that problem by using Canon monopod foot (included with the 600 II), but mounting it backward from the normal direction. The RRS replacement foot extends behind the mounting screws, allowing the lens+TC to be properly balanced.

Click to expand...

True on the 500 II as well with a 1.4/2x and stock foot.

And likely a test of the lens OFF of a camera body since the limiting factor of most decent lenses is the chip.

Pi said:

East Wind Photography said:

That's because the test chart is designed to reveal the limits of the lens at the test distance. Doesnt matter if you move the chart further away. Likely the test chart wont show anything.

Click to expand...

It would but you need software which would still analyze it. The slanted edge test allows you to vary the distance to some degree. An edge is an edge at any distance but you do not want the whole chart to be viewed at an extremely narrow AOV, so there is some practical limit how far you can get. This requires a curious tester, not the typical businesses type.

Click to expand...

Edwin Herdman said:

jasonsim said:

Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.

Click to expand...

What's this mean? I've had that lens combination since it came out. Do miss the focus limiter switch of the new model but don't miss the price. Only thing I don't like is the inherent clumsiness of detaching a 2X TC, and the rather offputting OOF blur performance in some shots.

Other than that, though, sure 400mm f/2.8 would be a grand improvement but I actually do often find the zoom useful at times in wildlife shooting (usually going from extreme close - i.e. roughly 240mm before factoring in crop factor - to extreme long, roughly 560mm again before the crop), and the weight of the 120-300mm + EF 2X Extender III is already close enough to unmanageable handheld that I would think twice about going to a 400mm. Of course I don't spend hours sitting in blinds; I just walk all over the place and try to get closeups of critters. Works surprisingly well on many things.

ha, Canon.

Click to expand...

I had a Sigma 120-300 OS and I've found it very lacking when compared to Canon's offerings. I ditched it for a 400mm f2.8 L IS and there is no comparison. Like many Sigma's with HSM, I found the AF to be a little erratic and a bit hit and miss for fast moving objects. It was too large and heavy for what it was. The focal length was well short of the stated 300mm, nearer 280mm at infinity. Focus 3m away and it's nearer 240mm....which was appalling. If I popped a 2x converter on it and A-B compared focal lengths with my 400mm at 4m , I found them to be very close in focal length....which means where guys are thinking they have a 600mm f5.6, it's actually closer to a 400mm f5.6. This focal length is better realized in a number of options...even a 2x on a 70-200 f2.8 II L offers a better focussing, better IS, lighter, smaller and cheaper options. Optically there was little between them (70-200 vs 120-300) but my 400L is better all round except weight. Even without a converter, at it's closest focus distance, the sigma gains only 40mm over the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II....which is a tiny increase at such a long length. I think this Sigma lens is a missed opportunity and that's a real pity.

I seem to be one of the few who could really give a stuff about the new 200-400 f4 L IS lens. If I had the money, I'd either replace my 400 L IS mk I and upgrade to a mkII or consider the new 500mm f4 L IS II as my light and portable option....have you tried one? It's SO bonkers light!

You could try using color calibration. I use a color checker passport. I get on ok with it but not everyone has the same results.

Awesome, great advice, thank you.

I think I'm going to buy it... use it... and sale it for a profit. I looked at DPreview and the Sigma is mind blowing how good it is at f/1.4. It's messed up.

Having said nice things about my 24-105, I tried it today on my 5D3 and I noticed that IS was noisier than when it was on my 5D2! But even on 5D2 it was noisier than it used to be :-\

the easiest way to do it is to click 1:1 in lightroom do a print screen, crop that image out and then you can post that in the forum with the resized full image.
thats how i do it here anyway and it works ok

i shoot raw but agree with Ken

Dave_NYC said:

Rienzphotoz said:

Dave_NYC said:

Load up the Mars One astronauts in 2023 with all that freezer Kodachrome and tell them to shoot to their heart's content, on the basis that the astronauts apparently have as much chance of coming back as the film they're shooting does. Send 'em both out Major Tom style I say.

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

'Scuse, sometimes I'm really not clear. Have to work on that

My point is: if the hoarded rolls of kodachrome in freezers are never going to be developed, might as well up the ante on the mystery of what exactly was shot with them. Sending it out Major Tom (ala David Bowie) on the Mars One mission would have it exit stage right on a more stylish note than it just being dropped in the rubbish bin over the years, unused.

Click to expand...

Ok I get now ... but I see those Kodachrome rolls being sold for good money on ebay and elsewhere (even though they aren't in "working" condition)