Just at least remember to include at some point in your release -"All rights reserved"
And as clear as you wrote above -"to be strictly used for the campaign puposes from date A to date B "...

Well I'm pretty sure it was a bad spot on the card.

i've redone the calibration i posted a couple more times this time i set the brightness down to 60% before doing the calibration and only put it back up to 90% after
I found going below 98% blue and red gamma gave wierd colour casts
my lightroom and photoshop look good now but safari and firefox colours are still out of whack (too saturated)
oh well as long as the editing software is working properly

Just go ahead and ask for a 1-200mm F/1.2L IS zoom while you're at it! ;D

I guess a small nuance of Canon MTF charts should be clarified. I mentioned that they depict a lot of information, both at maximum aperture as well as f/8. It is a bit confusing, but at f/8, the maximum resolution is limited by diffraction at that aperture. At f/8, while maximum resolution is limited, it produces an 86% accurate reproduction of the test chart, where as at f/1.4, where maximum resolution is incredibly high, it produces only a 50% accurate reproduction of the test chart. The reason for the lower reproduction accuracy at f/1.4 is due to the presence of significant, uncorrected optical aberrations. As such, you are effectively getting LESS than the 86 lp/mm maximum resolution possible at f/8, and far less than the 494 lp/mm maximum resolution possible at f/1.4.

Additionally, for most lenses, it usually only takes a couple full stops down on the aperture to eliminate optical aberrations as the most significant resolution-diminishing factor, leaving diffraction as the only remaining detractor. That would be why f/4 exhibits more resolution than f/8, since the maximum diffraction-limited resolution at f/4 is 173 lp/mm, where as the maximum diffraction-limited resolution at f/8 is 86 lp/mm.

In light of this, I may be abusing the Canon MTF chart to depict "approximate resolution" at any given aperture, and I'm not really sure thats possible. At f/4 for the 50/1.4, its apparent that you get the best scene replication possible at that aperture, as that seems to be where the effects of diffraction and aberration normalize. At best, you could resolve the maximum amount of detail theoretically possible by whatever given sensor you are using (i.e. 116 lp/mm for the Canon 7D), however in reality you will see some diminished accuracy due to the low-pass filter and the nature of bayer sensors. In all honesty, I cannot accurately claim any resolution above what you could get at f/4, as at any wider or narrower aperture, resolution will fall off only semi-predictably.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

f/4 is a measured physical diameter of the aperture. How did he measure it? Did he disassemble the lens or what? The amount of light a f/4 lens lets in is measured in "T" stops, and is always less than the physical f/4 diameter.

This is nothing new, its been discussed for years.

Cinema lenses are specified in T stops, and are up to one stop slower. A "T" stop of f/4.8 seems reasonable.

DXO publishes the transmissive numbers for lenses they have tested, they do not list the 24-105, but here is the 16-35 which they give as having a T stop of 3.3 even though the physical aperture is f/2.8.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM/(camera)/436

Click to expand...

Yes, I would not be surprised if the T-stop is something greater than 4 because the large number of lens elements will necessarily lower the amount of light that gets through. Even with modern coatings, each additional element still blocks some light, although the percentages keep getting lower and lower.

However, that's T-stop, which is important for cinema because of the need for more precise light levels, and not F-stop which is more relevant for still photography.

Even when a lens is F4, it is not exactly F4. Check out the summary info regarding a patent filing for the 300 f4:

http://photorumors.com/2011/02/14/canon-patents-new-300mm-f4-lens/

You can see that the F-stop filed on the patent application is actually F4.14, and that the filed focal length is 294.00 mm instead of 300mm. This is normal and within tolerances.

4.8 is way off, and it's unclear how people actually measured that number, if they actually did measure it. It sounds like they were just comparing to other lenses and eyeballing the amount of light transmission, but that's not really the proper way to measure aperture. F-stop is a measure of the physical size of the aperture (relative to the focal length). T-stop is the measure of actual light transmitted. The two are different.

liubros said:

I have a 7D body, with sigma 17-70, canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and I recently replace sigma 17-70 with canon 24-105 IS. The 24-105 is for sure the lens if you can only carry 1 lens. It is a lot sharper than sigma 17-70. I was debating on 24-105 f/4 IS or 24-70 f/2.8 for a while. The new 24-70 II makes the old look bad, and the new one is way to expensive, and without IS. The 70-200 f/2.8 is so heavy, unless I know I will need to use f/2.8, I don't want to carry it.

Click to expand...

As long as you know that you will be going FF at some time or don't need anything at the wide end you should do fine with your new lens. Enjoy!

no one was able to state how much better it was from the past 1D-MkIV.

Click to expand...

This would seriously concern me. As a sales rep, if you aren't willing to compare your new product to the competition, at least discuss how it is better than the last iteration. Sure, nobody likes a fast-talking salesman spouting off marketing language and hyperbole, but show me why and how this product is better if you want me to upgrade. Furthermore, when catering to pros they should be prepared to have serious conversations about technical specifications, as well as quantitative and qualitative improvements.

It sounds like they had the event just because they felt obligated and not because they wanted to.

I believe they added the T3i to the Canon Loyalty Program earlier this year and you can get a refurbished one direct form canon for around $540. Condition is practically new and comes with a warranty although its a 90 day one. Hell Id even consider the 60D which you can get for $647 through the program. Still cheaper then a new T39 from the prices youve come across now. All you need is a broken POS canon camera to exchange.

I think Canon will release the T4i in the next month or so.. some pinged it at the EOS 650 anniversary (for 650D)

I had the 24-70 (original version) and while impressed by the colors, felt it was not as sharp as it should have been. I hear the 28-70L was arguably a better lens.

As far as being too short, I don't think so. 70mm, even on FF, is a nice walk-around focal length. I have the 28-135, and rarely use it over 100mm. If you want ultimate combo, 24-70 & 70-200. Of course, not everyone can spend that kind of dough.

Just go full-frame!! I would either get a used 5dII or 60d. Depending on price, if you could score a 7d for a bargain, it's a wonderful piece of equipment. Good luck

Hi Hadam,

I am also from Poland. My suggestion is to send the lens to Germany (or perhaps I think u should visit service in personal). Polish service is poor as hell. They rarely take care about customers.

dr croubie said:

This guy looks like he's done well to take that good care of it, no scratches even in wind-blown sand. I hope my lenses look that good in 10 years...

Click to expand...

+1000! 8)

At times I wish there was a 17-40 F4 L IS. =) But at this time there is only a 17-40 F4 L

Click to expand...

Oups, unvoluntary wish

this thief is an easy catch... he will try to sell the equipment...

the 1D mk3 doesn't have video have a look on ebay the mk3s are popping up more and more

do u want/ need full frame or is a crop chip better for you... answer that and you have your answer...

gputah said:

D.Sim said:

gputah said:

marekjoz said:

Microadjust your lens and camera. Find better lens to try on your 7d. 7d is quite fine if it works with good lens. I didn't find it not being sharp with ie 50 1.4, 70-200 f4 IS, or 17-40 which are not the best at all. The results are impressive at least and in terms of sharpness there is not so much difference with 5d2.

Click to expand...

My biggest issue is high ISO sharpness. Anything above 800 ISO on the 7D, sharpness starts taking a nose dive.

However, I just picked up a 5D MK II from an older woman that has had it for a year nad its in perfect condition. 796 shutter releases! I purchased it for 1800. I'm quite happy with the purchase and I was able to do it by just selling my 7D and the Tamron. I still have my 70-200 2.8 IS and have a 24-70 2.8 on order. So far very happy with the EQ. I have noticed right off that the AF is no where near the 7D's AF it terms of performance. Anything except the center AF point is worthless on the 5D, imo. But the center point is fairly accurate and I've been satisfied so far.

Click to expand...

That is a ridiculously good buy...

And yes, the 5D's biggest problem is AF - but maybe its not so much a problem seeing as it was mostly intended to be a studio/controlled environment camera.

Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. My main goal right now is to have awesome portrait and wedding shots and I figure the 5D is the best tool for that right now. In my price range anyway.

And the shutter count is over 1000 now... I'm loving this camera! Love the sound of the FF shutter!

Click to expand...

Indeed... that mirror slap of the 5DII is a lot more satisfying than the 50D/7D... I definitely thought so too.

Then I had an opportunity to use a hasselblad h3dII, and mannnnn do I feel lacking.

mjbehnke said:

Are you all saying this will work with the 70-300 F4-5.6 L ??? I read where the Canon TC will not, so I was going to purchase a 70-200 F4.... But if this works, I'll get the 70-300 instead.

Click to expand...

After my recent research, there isn't a big iq or price difference between 70-200/4+1.4 and 70-300 @300mm , but the 70-200 as a internal focussing zoom seems to be somewhat sharper esp. open @70mm. The questions I asked myself are "Do I need the extender range often and thus want to change extenders in addition to lenses?" (my Answer: No, I hate changing lenses), and "Do I want a shorter, more compact lens" (my Answer: Yes!)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

Normally I would say don't wait, just buy what you want now and make the most of it. However, seeing that there may be a new camera announced very soon, I actually would wait to see what Canon comes up with. If anything, you may get a 5D II cheaper if they drop the price on it or even get a great used one.

As to which one to get, if you have been renting the 5DII and like it, I don't see why you should get the 7D. I have both. I think the 7D is a great camera and it seems a little more thought through when it comes to how to use menus and other small things and such. But I like the shots from the 5D II better. I love the shallow depth of field and have been missing that since the crop DSLR's. Autofocus on the 5DII works fine for me, but I really don't do action shots and mostly use the center focus point anyway.

VH1 aired a "Making Of" special about this years SI Swimsuit Issue... and maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a single Nikon. All Canon gear. Unfortunately, I'm not quite good enough to recognize all the gear used... I definitely saw a couple 5D Mark IIs, a 1D of some sort... a 24-70L, and numerous white lenses. Anyone else catch this and can identify what gear was utilized?

(It's on again on 2/18 at 11:30am)

I'm sure the producers didn't quite envision me watching the show for this reason. haha.

Thanks,
CTMike

I have worked at a University and shot extensively with a 1D Markiii. I personally own a 50D and 7D, the markiii has great iso performance over the 7D but is limited to 6400, unlike the 7D at 12800, but I try to keep the 7D below 2500 when shooting. In sports I shoot at 6400 iso all the time and when I shoot in RAW I can use noise reduction and get some really good results. But I would wait for the new 5D, its going to be awesome and I have been waiting for this camera WAY TOO LONG!

sb said:

Marsu42 said:

That is a very interesting observation because my personal expectation is that with the amount of 5d2 bodies floating around and the fact that 5d people are rather well-off, there will be a large amount of used bodies available once the 5d3 is here.

Click to expand...

Large number of Mk2's are owned by pros who earn a living with them (i.e. not just people who are "well off"). And pros need a really good reason to upgrade (for example, my Mk2 will be more than good enough for me for another 3-4 years worth of weddings). Secondly, even if they do upgrade, they tend to keep the old bodies as backup. So I wouldn't be so sure about the flood of Mk2's on the market to be honest.

Click to expand...

There are many "if canon doesn't announce sth in a week then I switch to nikon". I'm also surprised, that although such a declaration shows here everyday, there is no flood of used canon gear yet

My wife is going to Osaka for a week at the start of March... Perhaps she can pick me up one as a little gift

Tijn said:

- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is the best choice if you want the most versatile lens that is pretty much just as sharp as the above two (which is really sharp), for a good price. Bigger range, only slightly smaller aperture than the 70-200 f/4. (Not internal zooming though.) Weight is somewhere in the middle, at 1.05kg.

Click to expand...

At least with this lens, its hard to judge sharpness by one sample because of procduction variance: See here for the differences between two 70-300L samples: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0