I had a look at that. He seems to have zoomed in closer with the 5d3. That would make me think he'd biased it towards with the 5d3... Shame. I do think people have been overplaying the resolution difference a lot and seeing a good test would help.

neuroanatomist said:

John Thomas said:

For example the EF 24-70 f/2.8 is in Group B while EF 24-70 f//2.8 II is in Group A. Why? And how can I figure it out?

A concrete question: The last Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC in which group is in? A certain Sigma f/2.8 lens? Tokina? (in few years) a new Canon lens?

Click to expand...

(snip) ....Those will have to be empirically determined.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the gist of the problem. And (AFAIK) we cannot. By pressing the AF chooser (the right-upper corner button) we can conclude for some groups only, based on the fact that for these groups the layout of the Horizontal AF points (which are blinking) is different.

But what can we do for the groups in which only the Double-Cross points are different?

...and now I'm thinking that, being an event / photo journalism / sports AF system, exactly these points can make the difference....

The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 is an APS-C lens, and thus a 70-200mm equivalent. For crops, it would be a good alternative to a 70-200mm.

It does appear that Canon builds their line-up around the 70-200mm zoom. Alas, I don't build my personal kit around it. It's too heavy, and my 135mm gets the job done on the long end. Plus, the weight and size of the 70-200mm takes the fun out of it (for me). Honestly, I would rather just go all the way and rent a 200mm f/2 if I'm gonna break my wrist for an ultra-flat portrait with a creamy background.

All we are saying is give different focal lengths a chance.

Thanks for the advice

V8Beast said:

1982chris911 said:

In all those cases a program like Genuine Fractals is used to resize the pictures to up to 10x their actual size... This is what all agencies use when they need files of this size ...

Click to expand...

Dumb question: If you re-size an image with Genuine Fractals, how good is the end result? How much better are the results than, say, using CS5 to interpolate an image? Most my work is for editorial clients, in which case my 5DIII's resolution is plenty for two-page spreads at 300 dpi. Even my 5DC was adequate in this regard.

Genuine Fractals claims that you can enlarge an image by 1000% without sacrificing quality, which just sounds insane to me. Is this legit claim, or just marketing hype? I've got some 30x20 prints taken with a 5DC, which is about 2x it's resolution at 300 dpi, but they look pretty good to me. I'm just curious how much better the results might be with Genuine Fractals, and heck, the software is pretty cheap.

Click to expand...

You can find reviews of the various resampling methods without too much trouble, but it basically boils down to this:

Regardless of what method you use, view the image at actual size (hold a ruler to the screen and adjust the magnification until the onscreen ruler matches) and do your final sharpening that way before sending it to the printer.

If the final resolution is at least 100 ppi, just print it. Chances are excellent your print driver will do a better job at resampling it than anything else you have.

If the final resolution is at least 85 ppi, make a test print. Chances are still good that the print driver is your best bet. If you don't like the results, resample in Photoshop to somewhere in the area of 150 ppi. Try each of the bicubic options and go with whichever looks best. Be sure to sharpen again after resampling -- and, of course, revert to the unsharpened version before doing the upsampling.

If the final resolution is even less than that, you're hopefully making a billboard or a mural. Hand the best, NOT resampled image you've got to the printing agency and let them worry about it -- that's what you're paying them for.

If you're the printing agency, buy every tool there is on the market, learn which is best suited for which types of images, and how that fits into your workflow.

Note that, with modern DSLRs, you either have to crop insanely or be printing something the size of a door before you start to run into these resolution guidelines. If you're shooting with something other than a modern DSLR, then high-resolution printing obviously isn't a concern.

Have fun!

b&

Thanks for the tips, ill try them all and see if any of them helped.

Too bad it doesnt look positive. The CF card works perfectly in my 7D and ill update the firmware again.

Hope Canon can look into this!

Thanks all.

LeGreve, you're a mind reader. My friend had mentioned that he has a couple of Arri 300s as well. The only thing I worried about with those is how much light you lose to gel them to daylight or to scrim them, if you want to soften the light, and having to pack them after done since they get so hot. I think I might even have a few left over sheets of 1/2 CTB. The LED I have is battery operated so easy to set up. The only time I'd think of getting more LEDs is for a field kit. I have one of those 312 LED lights and I figured two or three more of them would probably be a quick run and gun type kit.

Registered just to reply.
One hell of a good story.
But.... it left me wondering...
DID YOU MARRY HER!?

IIIHobbs said:

Thanks for your comments everyone.

My MkI is now listed on eBay (with a bunch of others). :-\

Click to expand...

;D LOL That is too funny!! Good choice though. I have played with the MkI & I own the MkII & there is a very noticeable difference!

Keep it as a back up if nothing else. S**T happens, and if your body decides to give you issues during a shoot, its nice not to have to give up and go home.

Tcapp said:

kennez said:

Another possibility is the 5DII. Just browsing around on the websites of the local electrical shops, the 5DII with the 24-105mm kit lens fits in with my budget (just), but doesn't leave any overhead for extra glass. Is this a good option to consider?

Click to expand...

Yes. Yes. Yes. Although I would personally go with body only, and get a 50 1.8 or 1.4, and, if you can afford it, the 70-200 2.8 or if you can only afford the F4 get that. Then if you want a landscape lens, maybe look into the cheap manual rokinon lenses for a wide angle. MF is fine for landscape.

Click to expand...

BUT remember: If you go from the crop-sensor (7D) to the full-frame (5DmkII) you instantly lose a LOT of length. That is fine if you have the long glass to compensate, but you would have to buy that also. If you intend to shoot persons or birds farther away than comfortable shouting distance, you should add into your budget the price of the long lens (300mm) you will need just to compensate for the loss of the 1.6x crop factor. The good Canon offerings at that length are not cheap, and neither are the good off-brand lenses, really. You can always crop your photos in post to get closer, but that is more damaging to IQ than getting there naturally with your camera and glass. Not to mention it seems a little unsatisfying to have nothing big and beautiful in the viewfinder when you shoot.

On the other hand if you shoot mostly close-range sports (basketball, checkers, tennis, but not so much baseball outfields) and your birds are on feeders, but you do shoot lots and lots of landscapes and portraits, then the FF body is great, and even an advantage on wide-angle shots.

mjbehnke said:

If the lockup is happening in two different camera with different types of firmware, sounds like a hardware issue with a microprocessor or some part of a sensor that both cameras have in them. Strange.

Click to expand...

having worked in software for a living I can tell you that you're absolutely way off the mark. Simple fact of software: you share libraries. the D800 and D4 use the same processor and it is logical they share some code.

no doubt they already have a fix but they have to do something called regression testing which takes a lot of time because every dependency needs to be re-tested even if was not directly responsible for the flaw.

Given firmware updates have the potential to turn your camera into a brick, camera OEMs have to test a lot. That is just how software works.

If you're an early adopter of sophisticated gear like this you need to get used to having to tape things around, or work around glitches until the OEM finishes their field testing...aka YOU.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Nikon has three problems they are fixing.

1. The batteries are unsafe and are all being replaced, and out of stock everywhere. They likely are short of safe batteries to put in the production line.

2. The autofocus is reportedly assembled wrong or has bad parts in a whole batch of D800 cameras, and must be fixed or replaced. Affected cameras won't focus.

3. The lockup situation for the D4 and D800 has not been solved, and might be holding things up, but indications are that they are shipping them knowingly with the problem, and hoping that firmare might fix the issue. They have issued a work-around, but users already report that they still have lockups.

These are serious issues that basically make it impossible to use the camera, assuming it happens to you.

I'm sure they will get it all fixed, it just makes the shortage situation worse.

Click to expand...

well, I got mine and
1) battery isn't up for recall. only 2 lots are.
2) lucky for me, mine was done right. AF is perfect.
3) I haven't locked up but Nikon recommends you disable the live histogram and highlight warning as a stopgap measure before the firmware update.

As for the green tint people are reporting, I think Nikon definitively needs a firmware update for this because far too many have the issue, including mine. I color balance with gray cards and NEVER trust any LCD for color purposes, but yeah, Nikon should fix it because it is obviously not right and a simply firmware fix on the LCD tint will correct it.

What I heard is that the 1DC IS a 1DX and has ALL the same features for STILL photography. They also added more video features like the 4k for which you pay a premium of $9k.

So everything you can do with a 1DX you will be able to do with a 1DC...at a premium!

Marsu42 said:

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

Click to expand...

I keep hoping that they will take all this new tech and cheaper manufacturing and focus it towards larger sensors with lower pixel density instead. The MF/LF market is just itching for something competitive that drags prices down to something sane.... and there are still very few affordable view camera solutions which I suspect eventually people are going to rediscover and want to work with again.

Though I suspect instead, next year, we are going to see 'well, OUR camera can go up to 1M ISO!' 'well, OUR camera can go to 1.2M ISO!'.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

smithy said:

After re-reading some articles, it seems that the dodgy flash performance is related to using the AF-assist beam from external flashes. It's very slow to get focus in this mode, compared with the 5D series cameras (of all generations).

Click to expand...

I've read that the weakness of the 1D MK IV, if there is one, is low light AF in general. I did not think its associated with the use of AF Assist.

Am I wrong on this?

I'm looking at getting one if I can negotiate the price down. I've downloaded raw images at high ISO and decided that its close enough to my old 5D MK II at ISO 6400 that its not a issue. My 7D would then be sold.

Click to expand...

I would say that the 5DII was better at low light AF than the 1D4

I can give you RAW images if you want at iso up to 12800

85mm f1.8 is also a possibility

My Sigma 12-24mm II recently suffered an electrical failure. It was returned via the dealer to Sigma UK under warranty. I received the repaired lens back just under four weeks later in the same pristine condition as it was before. I'm assuming the AF was calibrated as a matter of course, though I can't tell since the focusing was dead-on before and it still is.

Meh said:

eeek said:

I shoot a lot of concerts. So, I need to get pictures to my editor or the arena manager very quickly. I am going to record RAW to my CF and JPEG to SD. I can get the SD to them quicker than I can my RAW files.

Click to expand...

That would be a slick setup. For wedding shooters setting the SD card to mirror the CF so you have two copies would I think be the desired setup. It would be scary to tell a bride her wedding photos were corrupted :'(

Click to expand...

That's what I'll be doing for weddings. I've bought 15 sd cards so I can hold onto the photos for a while and have an extra backup (I should already have 3 but you can never be too sure )

Darkroom I am glad you made the topic. I did not know about Rob Glbraith's site until people here brought it up. I did some texts with my lexar 600x and I wondered if I could get a bit more out of the lexar 1000x which I found out is a burst of 54 vs 75 so thats a big difference.

The part I dont get is if rob galbraith is testing both the SD and CF cards together. Darkroom gave a test that used both which I have not seen much of. I personally decided to skip using a SD card because I dont want saving to it to slow down shooting or limit shooting in any way.

The other thing that I feel rob galbraiths test skips is how many quick burst pictures you get before the camera memory clogs. I found the lexar 600x 32 gig card let me take a burst of 18 RAW only before it slowed down.

Ryan

wickidwombat said:

I just made my own.

got a 1000W pure sign wave inverter from ebay (you need pure sign wave ones)
and a couple of sealed lead acid batteries design for golf buggies and hooked them all up
cut up some car jumper leads and wired it all up in serial.

its pretty good and capable of driving 2 elinchrom 400W strobes

PM me if you want more info and I can email you the parts list
(total cost is around $400 including a lowepro bag to hold it all together)

Click to expand...

This is pretty cool.


With my luck ordering the parts would put me on the no-fly list.
Again.

Could this lens adapter be used on a dSLR for anamorphic?

Thanks!

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-WD-H58-Wide-Converter-Camcorder/dp/B001UDHGMQ/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header

Memo to Nick Park

I'll take as many as you can spare

leecheeyee said:

Let's talk about how to take a good picture.
A good picture must have a good subject firstly, and then composition to picture, shut down the shutter. Finnally, sofeware provisionning. Every step would be effected to our work. As a tourist, a powerful DSLR with convenient carry is important. Sometime, we have to get a faster auto focus function with light weight. So, we have to upgrade our device every 2,3 years after new version releases. Am I right?

Click to expand...

Lenses are not upgraded every two or three years. ten or twenty is more average. Bodies, on the other hand, get significant advances every 3-5 years, so upgrading them every 5 years usually results in significant advances in IQ, and even that depends on what you value. Some are quite happy with 10 year old bodies, they get images that they like and don't need higher ISO or better NR.

I think that many agree, including me. Its been discussed many times on the forum. The latest rumor is that its going to be fixed.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-ai-servo-af-point-issue/