Mt Spokane Photography said:

I would not call baseball stadiums and football stadiums as being horribly lit. They have reasonable lighting, unless the teams are playing in the dark.
The issue comes when literally using the camera in the dark with only extremely dim lights.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. I think stadiums have reasonable lighting. The problem for me is when photographing weddings in the evening, sometimes by candle light or the equivalent. The AF point display is the only detail that I would like fixed on the 5D3, which is otherwise excellent for my work.

Act444 said:

Anyone know if this problem has been fixed (or how it performs on the newest bodies like the 5D3)? While contemplating my move to FF, I've been thinking about trading in 35 1.4 for the 50 to get equivalent FOV.

Click to expand...

It's not really a problem to be fixed, except by a redesign of the lens with different priorities. The intentionally undercorrected spherical aberration that gives the lens its renowned, creamy bokeh is also responsible for the focus shift.

cayenne said:

Sorry noob question.
Can someone tell me what "HTP" and the "black frame subtraction" mean?

Thank you in advance,
cayenne

Click to expand...

The answers are:

[quote author=jrista]
Highlight tone priority is a camera mode that internally fiddles with exposure to preserve as much detail as possible in the "highlight range" of tones...the brightest tones in a photograph. It does this, however, at the cost of tones in the shadow range, as the ultimate effect is a shift of the histogram down towards the shadows. The cost of shadow tones is a bit less than the gain in highlight tones, however it is something to be aware of.
[/quote]

[quote author=Wikipedia]
In digital photography, dark-frame subtraction is a way to minimize image noise for pictures taken with long exposure times. It takes advantage of the fact that a component of image noise, known as fixed-pattern noise, is the same from shot to shot: noise from the sensor, dead or hot pixels. It works by taking a picture with the shutter closed.
[/quote]

A used 60D would seem to be the answer to your question. I went the same route- a T2i (550D) to 60D. It's not a night & day difference, but there are little things that you might appreciate (beefier grip, quicker access to key settings via the top screen among other things)

Yes. The Eclipse swabs do dry out in their packaging. Use the pre-moistened ones soon after purchase.

My favorite part is at 2:22 when Annie shoots a frame on a Hasselblad H Series, and the sound that's dubbed in is clearly an F3...

Annie Leibovitz shoots Marie Antoinette

That brings up another interesting point. You can do a quick check that's recommended by canon. Find a high contrast target far away (more than 20 meters but farther if possible) and use Live View to focus on it at 10X magnification. Then switch the camera to regular mode and focus on the same target. The focus scale on top should not move at all. Probably easier to do this on a tripod with a remote release.

Live view focuses using contrast comparison which is independent of what the AFMA value may be set in your camera. So if the focus scale moves between one and the other focus modes, then you need to do a focus calibration. If your camera doesn't support AFMA adjustments then you need to send the camera and lens back to Canon and have them match the lens to the camera...or upgrade to pro or semi pro camera where you can adjust the AFMA values.

Richard Lane said:

Zenfren said:

Is it possible for a lens to focus fine (high keeper rate) on close objects and have a difficult time focusing on distant objects?

Click to expand...

Other things to consider would be, the setting of the focus distance limiter switch on the lens, is focus search on or off in the camera, does it focus properly at long distances with manual focus?

Click to expand...

TexinAfrica said:

I have a 5D MK III and a 430 EX II. I almost never use the flash with this gear, but with my smaller cameras (and built in pop up flash) I frequently use fill flash during the day and occasional slow sync for night pics.

I occasionally would like to use fill flash or slow sync flash with the MK III and 430 but it appears the only way is to truely go fully manual. Any tips or guidelines on how to do either without needing a light meter etc. or simply guessing??? I don't find the 430 user guide much help. Thanks..........

Click to expand...

Daylight fill-in flash: simply set to aperture priority, leave the flash in E-TTL mode and just fire away. The camera will automatically adjust the flash output to a fill-in level, which you can tweak if required with flash exposure compensation.

Slow sync flash: set the camera to manual, leave the flash in E-TTL. This should provide correct automatic flash exposure. As the others said, also set to 2nd curtain sync if you want the flash at the end of the exposure.

I'm in pretty much the same situation as yourself Haydn1971 although I'm coming from a 500D. There is a couple of things on the 6D that concern me slightly.

1. Top shutter speed, it's no less than what I have at the moment but it would have been nice to have higher, I can understand why it's not though

2. Image quality, I expect it to be real good but I want to see it tested (not DXO) first

3. Handling, I'm not sure how I'll get on with lack of programmable buttons and that wheel on the back

Point 3 is obviously personal so I look forward to it being released.

I would really love a 5D3 though but I'd rather have a 6D and more glass, Spokane's suggestions was making my mouth water! ;D

What I'm really interested in here though is the comments about Digital Rev, do you really not have to pay tax? I thought they added tax at checkout so price ends up 20% higher (GB) than the advertised price.
Can anyone confirm that this is wrong please?

verysimplejason said:

Marsu42 said:

verysimplejason said:

canon won't have a problem with ML.

Click to expand...

Canon *will* have a problem with ml if ml isn't helping their sales as a unannounced big feature but makes people not buy the 1dc. I gather Canon will make this position clear one way or another, and I hope the main ml devs will make it as clear that they do not want to cause Canon losses or profit from hacking the 1dx.

Click to expand...

Isn't it that ML is just running beside Canon's software? It's not modifying the code or any hardware. Right? It's just like some software running inside your OS. E.g., if I make a program that runs in Windows and uses the intrinsic OS commands like showing the clock time, even hacking into memory management, does that make my program illegal? For me 1DX can be looked at as platform. Why do you think Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and Samyang were able to make those 3rd party lenses? They even had to reverse engineer the way the lens is communicating with the body. Isn't this a higher form of hacking into the system?

If I read it right, another reason why Canon is differentiating 1Dx and 1Dc is that tax laws in some countries are different for stills and movie and even the size of the output for movie cameras. Of course you can't discount the fact that they will earn more through introducing a different software for the same hardware. That's why I'm looking at ML like an open-source 3rd party software something like JAVA.

Click to expand...

not illegal but it doesn't mean they'd like it and they could do stuff to make ML type things harder to pull off perhaps if a quick ML made the 1DC utterly pointless for anyone to buy

(again, unless they noticed that giving the 1DX more value made it sell so well as to make the 1dc look like a dumb idea even with insane margin per copy, and who knows, maybe it would)

tax laws hardly make a $6000 difference, that;s got to be just pure garbage, and do 4k people need to shoot over the time limit more than 2k shooters? maybe less on avg, if anything

Use a 24-105 on my 60D (and also on the T2i I had earlier) Great range, at least outdoors walking. 24mm is only limiting when you get inside, especially in small rooms. But in that situation, the f4 aperture is another limit to deal with and the 17-55mm is a better choice indoors. Like I mentioned in another thread I'm contemplating moving up to FF which would turn it into a wider lens (might miss the reach of 105, although even on 1.6x it wasn't long enough for many applications)

I didn't like the variable aperture on the EF-S zooms, so I was willing to give up the wide angle which I hardly used anyway.

I was pocketwizard flex TT5 user and was pissed on the miss fire and over exposure issue with my previous body 60D.After switch to phottix odin,it is a heaven and earth.No more miss fire,no more overexposure issue.It works like a charm.

Source of that rumor? Canon Rumors.

Going back a few decades, I've used Hoya HMC for my film cameras. But, I have noticed increased flare with this filter on an EF 70-300 f4-5.6 USM IS.

Last winter, I upgraded to the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS Mark II and the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS lenses. I'm now using the Hoya HD Clear Protection Glass Filter (HOHDP77) on both and I HIGHLY recommend this filter.

Hoya's website includes video demonstrating it's toughness. Fortunately, I have no first-hand experience with this. But, Hoya's claims that this filter is easy to clean are valid. Fingerprints come off very easily with a wipe of lens cleaning cloth. More importantly, I have been unable to reproduce the flare that I found with cheaper filters – and I tried.

Moving from the 58mm 70-300 lens to the 77mm 70-200, I was concerned about flare. So, I did some testing with this filter on the 70-200 aimed at and near the evening sun. I found no discernible difference in image quality and no increased flare.

One other note here. The curvature of the front elements on the 70-200 and the 17-55 is relatively flat, which helps prevent internal flare. In contrast, the EF 35 2.0 has a front element deeply recessed from the filter threads and with a small diameter curvature. Together, these factors increase the chance that light can bounce between the front element and the rear of the filter. A cupcake with a single birthday candle can produce several flared images with any filter. I no longer use filters on the little lenses.

I use the 85 f/1.2 for closer work on a 1 series body and the 135 for 3/4 or full length shots. Both are excellent lenses. The 85 f/1.2 focuses more slowly and can by tricky to use wide open but gives excellent results. The 135 is light, cheaper and very sharp. The 135 will give better compression and a more pleasing shape to a face than a wider lens.

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Looking to upgrade my ageing 400d to something slightly higher. On a tight budget just now and have been waiting for the 70d, but as thats probably not going to happen this year and the launch price will no doubt be way to high, thought a 50d would be a good option.

Is it a good upgrade option and how much would you expect to pay (GB£)?

I shoot Scottish Football with my 1Dx (soccer for our US friends) not paid work or anything, just for a Football website and I shoot in Raw. I intend giving jpegs a go at some point but as my deadlines are not immediate I use Raw. I spoke to a experienced Pro Sports Photographer earlier this year and for football he only shoots jpeg, he's a Nikon user. He doesn't have the time to process and convert after a game when he needs to get his images to agencies/newspapers quickly, within 20 minutes or so, in order to sell them. Lets face it Newspapers dont need the highest image quality for the printing quality and size they use, online versions may have changed that though.

BDunbar's comments are interesting as I need to experiment with the set up for jpegs. As a Club photographer largely doing landscapes for comp entries I have never once shot jpeg since I converted to Raw around 4-5 years ago. There is absolutely no doubt for my Football shoots that jpegs are the solution, most of Studio1940's reasons above explain why but I suppose one can become too reliant on the convenience of Raw editing in Lightroom. For me its a confidence thing in not shooting jpeg.

In answer to the original question, 1Dx and mostly jpegs, cant see why not, thats what most Sports/Press photographers will do, who I'm guessing are the largest %age of owners of the 1Dx.

LetTheRightLensIn said:

tron said:

DPP could not be bugged. It had similar results to Adobe software! Both produced less sharp 5D3 raw images

Click to expand...

I know Canon even said DPP had a bug, whether that explained it all, I don't know.

Are you sure about ACR. I don't recall that.

Click to expand...

I seem to remember seeing reports of issues with the ACR beta. It certainly wouldn't be the first issues with new Canon (and probably other) cameras on the first one or two updates after support was initiated, as there were issues with the last version of LR2 that was introduced immediately following release of the 7D. LR3 largely corrected the issues.

traveller said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. The Tamron looks good, but the Canon looks really REALLY good. Pretty darn close to perfect, actually. I wonder if Klaus got a subpar sample.

Hey there,

Friend sent this article to me, and I figured it would be of interest to a bunch of people here. While a rather subjective and specific test, it's an interesting one:

http://www.uncagethesoul.com/night-photography/best-canon-night-camera/

Sean

crasher8 said:

Well, according to the latest CR(1) rumor it means 'D End'

Click to expand...

Dead End? I wonder what's next!

No problem.

Etienne said:

5DIII ISO performance is about 0.5 stops improved over the 5DII, if you are using RAW (doesn't everybody use RAW with the 5D series?). Don't be so "uninformed."

Click to expand...

The 5d3 doesn't take the same shots like the 5d2 w/ 0.5 steps lower iso, that's too general. From the raw samples I looked at myself it's hard to nail down a specific number because the iso 5d2 to 5d3 in iso1600-iso3200 is surely much smaller than announced by Canon, but the visual appeal of the 5d3 shots is better because of less banding and a "nicer" film-like noise pattern.

The 5d3 certainly has a decisive gain above iso 6400, if you need that and can cope with the loss of dynamic range and color.

M.ST said:

Good news from the Photokina.

B+W announce two new GND (grey) filters that can be used with the Cokin Z-Pro and Lee filter holder.

number 701 (- 1 stop soft)
number 702 (- 2 stop soft)

Glas with MRC sealing, 10x15 cm, delivered in a tin box

Press text:

B + W graduated neutral density filters are often used in landscape photography in order to avoid an overexposure of the sky with a correct exposure of the ground. As in overexposured areas of the picture image information is normally lost the effect of this filter can hardly be simulated by electronic image processing.

The filters are coloured neutral gray with a smooth transition into the neutral filter half. With screwed filter the rotatable mount allows an exact horizontal alignment.

The glass substrate of the B+W ND filters 701 and 702 are absolutely plane and parallel and finely polished. This guarantees a long lasting high optical quality. By means of thin layer technology the ND gradient is evaporated. The below values refer to the darkest filter glass parts:

701 +1 stop (50% transmission)
702 +2 stop (25% transmission)

The graduated ND filters are provided with a high quality MRC coating. MRC (Multi Resistant Coating) coated filters have an MC layer ensuring a high transmission and maximum anti-reflective surface. Furthermore, MRC is dirt and water repellent and makes cleaning much more easier.

Click to expand...

YEAH! now I don't have to be wait for LEE filters all year long. :