Canon 5D image faults fixable (in November)
Pix on Canvas
Their 5D, might need some special consideration in regards to lens
choice because of Chromatic Aberrations (Purple Fringing) due to it's
sensor size and the fact there are no (Canon) lenses specifically
designed for digital that fit this camera...
DxO labs have just made a monumental announcement that their RAW
converter - The latest version 3.5 yet to be released - has been
developed especially to address this problem.
So much for the true believers who don't/won't accept that the fabled
and severely overpriced Canon "L" series lenses are riddled with image
faults. The fact that this is the "Professional" version and not the
cheaper, consumer one, should not be overlooked either.
From their announcement:
" In particular, this version will include the second generation of DxO
Optics Engine. DxO Optics Engine V2 will be able to eliminate a much
broader range of unwanted color fringes in your images and in particular
“purple fringing”.
DxO Optics Engine V2 also preserves a greater surface of the image when
correcting distortion and takes our Lens Softness correction to a new
level of performance.
You’ll also find user-defined cropping of the image in 3.5.
Version 3.5 will also improve processing speed by up to 100% by taking
advantage of multiple processor or dual-core computers.
Additionally a number of workflow and UI enhancements will be included
in this version. A final this version will be free of charge for all
users of version 3.0!"
--
Douglas...
EOS is dead, long live Olympus.
Skip M
news:4342f204$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
And it specifically mentions Canon, and particularly "L" lenses, where?
Just got my 5Ds today, we'll be shooting with them this weekend. I might
have a chance to go back down to Petco Park and shoot the facade again,
before that. I'll let you know, Doug, what I find out. Not that it will
matter, since you claim to see distortion in the images I put up, and there
is none, even relative to a steel straight edge.
Oh, and what about the Nikons you purchased? How are they working out for
you? All you've mentioned is Olympus...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Frank ess
> "Pix on Canvas" <canv...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4342f204$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Following on from my suggestion the (cough)
<snip>
I wonder if DxO Optics ever feel a need to string their customers
along, or pump up their product image?
--
Frank ess
Lourens Smak
John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> If we assume that
> the price differential between small and medium sized imaging chips is
> going to decrease
You are aware that that is a pretty stupid assumption?
In the digital world, EVERYTHING moves to a smaller state, not because
it's so cool or whatever, but because manufacturers make more money
then. Therefore it is also unavoidable.
Considering smaller sensors are already good enough for professional
use, (and have been for years, since the D1x) that can only mean FF is
going to die slowly. In a few more generations of camera's FF will have
no benefit at all, just the optical flaws, the huge price, and the
weight will remain.
Lourens
C Wright
>> --
>> Douglas...
>>
>> EOS is dead, long live Olympus.
Olympus? What happened to the Nikons you bought after selling all of your
Canon equipment?
Pix on Canvas
The Oly's are the new toy this week!
Rich
wrote:
>In article <vc16k117qdtb4tng4...@4ax.com>,
> John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> If we assume that
>> the price differential between small and medium sized imaging chips is
>> going to decrease
>
>You are aware that that is a pretty stupid assumption?
>
>In the digital world, EVERYTHING moves to a smaller state, not because
>it's so cool or whatever, but because manufacturers make more money
>then. Therefore it is also unavoidable.
>
>Considering smaller sensors are already good enough for professional
>use, (and have been for years, since the D1x) that can only mean FF is
>going to die slowly.
No it won't. There is an army of people hanging on to outdated Canon
glass that just WILL NOT give it up. Therefore they have to have
FF. Heaven forbid Canon should design lenses optimized for a digital
platform, even though they have what, 6 DSLRs now?
-Rich
Pix on Canvas
> .......
> Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape. They will be
> limited to using cameras with a 2X magnification ratio because their
> lenses are unable to cover a larger image circle. If we assume that
> the price differential between small and medium sized imaging chips is
> going to decrease, then a 4/3 based camera will always suffer from
> smaller images or lower image quality by comparison, because while the
> number of pixels can be increased (this is accomplished by making the
> pixels themselves smaller), by making them smaller image quality is
> reduced. It's just physics. Anything that Kodak does to the 4/3 format
> chip can also be done to larger ones, so the differential will
> remain."
>
Did anyone ever tell you, it's always a wise thing cock the hammer
before pulling the trigger? Your opinion is one thing. I'll defend your
right to have it too. But to then attempt to force it onto others, is
just showing you up for the ill mannered person you are.
The thing about my posts that has obviously escaped those of you who
have "ideas" gleaned from the Internet but in reality haven't got a
fucking clue ...is that I have never posted a single comment about any
equipment I do not or never have owned. I have never made a single
comment about a process I have never done and I have never knowingly
posted a single lie about anyone else... What does that say about the
likes of you?
--
Douglas...
Paul J Gans
And the lack of good wide angle lenses.
Mind you, I don't disagree with your general idea,
but even during the days when 35mm film was king,
other larger formats survived because they filled
a need.
Same here.
----- Paul J. Gans
JackR
non-standard XD memory cards and that 4/3rds system then and only them
would I consider buying one of their cameras again
Douglas...
Ahhh yes... Well The E300 which takes a compact flash card, is on-topic
here. The little point and shoot ones which use the XD card are off-topic!
4/3 is the traditional aspect ratio of "Real" photography. Why on earth
would you want to dump that in favor of format produced to use left over
movie film but instead of the same aspect ratio of a movie camera, they
made it use the film sideways and produced a landscape shape which is
sooo out of place in a portrait as to even "look" wrong. Each to their
own I guess!
--
Douglas...
David Littlewood
<canv...@yahoo.com.au> writes
(Quote from first post in this thread): "So much for the true believers
who don't/won't accept that the fabled and severely overpriced Canon "L"
series lenses are riddled with image faults. The fact that this is the
"Professional" version and not the cheaper, consumer one, should not be
overlooked either."
Do I understand you have owned every single non-1-series DSLR made by
Canon?
(Quote from thread "Mystery of EOS 5D"): "Every DSLR Canon has ever made
for "Enthusiasts" has had design flaws, manufacturing faults and
compatibility problems. Why would this offering be any different?"
I thought you may have made similar blanket claims about all Canon wide
angle lenses, but I can't find a quote, so let that one lie on the table
David
--
David Littlewood
David Littlewood
<canv...@yahoo.com.au> writes
"traditional aspect ratio of real photography" of 4/3 (1.33).
No sheet film size current of recent manufacture (i.e. many decades)
matches it or comes close.
In roll film, only 8x6 (the least common of all the 120 formats) matches
it.
In smaller film, 35mm is of course 3/2 (1.5).
Oh, of course there is the universally-used half-frame format of
24x18mm. Wait, that is a crap format produced from left-over movie film,
so it can't be that one you are thinking of.
Even going back into the mists of time, obsolete formats such as quarter
plate (1.30) half plate (1.36) and whole plate (1.30) were only vaguely
in the area you specified.
I'm not trying to knock 4/3 as format. It has its place, as do all the
others. I just think you may be going off on one.
David
--
David Littlewood
Skip M
"Douglas..." <canv...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4343ac69$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> JackR wrote:
>> stuff bloody Olympus, if they bring back the OM systems and piss off the
>> non-standard XD memory cards and that 4/3rds system then and only them
>> would I consider buying one of their cameras again
>
> Ahhh yes... Well The E300 which takes a compact flash card, is on-topic
> here. The little point and shoot ones which use the XD card are off-topic!
>
> 4/3 is the traditional aspect ratio of "Real" photography.
What led you to this conclusion? Large format is 4:5 (Both 4x5 and 8x10) MF
is either 1:1 (6cm x 6cm), close to 2:3 (6x4.5) or the indefinable 6x7
(3:3.5?)
Really curious...
wilt
is either 1:1 (6cm x 6cm), close to 2:3 (6x4.5) or the indefinable 6x7
(3:3.5?) <<
My Bronica ETRSI 645 frame is 42.5mm x 55mm in size...almost exactly
4:5 proportions!
Douglas...
You're an ass David. By attempting to elevate your standing here with
the lowest of low attempts at belittling someone else, you are showing
yourself up for the insignificant wanker are.
What is it about you and Skip Middleton that compels you both to seek
recognition over and above everyone else who has something to contribute?
What is it about you in particular that makes you think, when someone
else makes a post you can't accept could be true, you have to try and
make a issue of it? Of course I've owned the things I post about... I
part own (Amongst several other businesses) a second hand camera store,
for Christ Sake!
--
Douglas...
Douglas...
>>
>>4/3 is the traditional aspect ratio of "Real" photography.
>
>
> What led you to this conclusion? Large format is 4:5 (Both 4x5 and 8x10) MF
> is either 1:1 (6cm x 6cm), close to 2:3 (6x4.5) or the indefinable 6x7
> (3:3.5?)
> Really curious...
Go back further... Go on, you can if you really try.
--
Douglas...
To be fair, is to be hard.
To have principals you must defend them.
Who amongst are willing to die for yours?
Skip M
Well, if you're talking glass plates, they came in a variety of sizes, and
before that, the medium was governed by the taste of the individual
photographer who made his own. In fact many of the people who used glass
plates made their own.
Since many of the photographers from the late 19th century on used 8x10, I'm
not sure what the devil you're talking about.
So, give me more info, Douglas.
David Littlewood
<canv...@yahoo.com.au> writes
It is regrettable that you should respond to a valid challenge to back
up your assertion with obscenity.
But not that surprising.
--
David Littlewood
Andrey Tarasevich
> ...
> In the digital world, EVERYTHING moves to a smaller state, not because
> it's so cool or whatever, but because manufacturers make more money
> then. Therefore it is also unavoidable.
Wrong. In digital world everything moves to a _more_ _highly_ _integrated_
_state_. Higher level of integration - that's what allows manufacturers to make
more money (Mooore's law). And in the chip world higher level of integration
does not mean "smaller". It means "denser" and "bigger". Note: _bigger_, not
smaller. The assignment of priorities between making chips denser and making
chips bigger depends on many different factors, but in case of imaging sensors
we can already say that further increase in density is no longer a priority,
becuase with existing sensor technologies we already hit the limit where it no
longer results in better image quality. In the areas where real image quality is
of importance (read - professional equipmment) the only way to go is bigger
sensors. That's what's unavoidable.
Best regards,
Andrey
DoN. Nichols
> John A. Stovall wrote:
>
> > .......
> > Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape. They will be
[ ... ]
> Did anyone ever tell you, it's always a wise thing cock the hammer
> before pulling the trigger?
I'm afraid that as a metaphor this fails for anyone who knows
handguns.
Most modern revolvers, and some auto-loaders as well, have a
feature known as "double-action". You can cock the hammer and then pull
the trigger if you have time for slow aimed fire. But, in an emergency
(and at close range), you can pull the trigger and *it* will cock the
hammer and release it to fire the weapon. The trigger pressure needed
to fire it in this way is greater, and makes careful aimed fire more
difficult, but for the conditions under which it is designed to be used,
it is a very serviceable way to do things.
Some revolvers, designed for hidden carry, don't even *have* an
accessible hammer. It exists, but is entirely enclosed. This is
because the hammer is likely to snag on clothing during a quick draw,
and such a weapon is expected to be fired only at close range.
Others have a "shrouded hammer", which can be accessed for
cocking, but very little of it protrudes.
Sorry for the off topic, but I felt that this needed to be
pointed out. :-)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
DoN. Nichols
> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid that as a metaphor this fails for anyone who knows
> > handguns.
>
> for one isn't double action, but the Beretta 97 is.
Shortly following the sentence which you *did* quote, came this
one:
======================================================================
Most modern revolvers, and some auto-loaders as well, have a
feature known as "double-action".
======================================================================
The 1911 falls under the category of auto-loaders, which from my
wording would indicate that it is less likely to have the double-action
feature than "most modern revolvers". It is *certainly* not a
"revolver". Neither is the Beretta which you mention.
And I said "most" instead of "all", because I also knew that
there are some quality revolvers still made which duplicate the
single-action design of the original Colt revolvers and similar.
> I think we got his
> point, though.
Perhaps so -- but the technical inaccuracy got in the way of my
being comfortable with it as stated.
Steve Franklin
>>else makes a post you can't accept could be true, you have to try and make
>>a issue of it? Of course I've owned the things I post about... I part own
>>(Amongst several other businesses) a second hand camera store, for Christ
>>Sake!
>
> It is regrettable that you should respond to a valid challenge to back up
> your assertion with obscenity.
>
> But not that surprising.
> --
> David Littlewood
David makes a perfectly good point. Just because you part own a camera store
doesn't mean you have used every single Canon L Lens and you have indeed
made blanket statements in the past and on top that your assessment that
canon's have had 'design flaws' is based on what exactly?
Selling second hand cameras is half a world away from being able to critique
the entire Canon L range of lenses.
If you worked for a medical supply company would you feel qualified on how
to remove a kidney? You sell things to people who use them for a living, you
don't make your living out of using the equipment....
Stacey
> Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape.
Anyone owning lenses designed for film are the ones who will have no escape.
--
Stacey
Douglas...
>
> David makes a perfectly good point. Just because you part own a camera store
> doesn't mean you have used every single Canon L Lens and you have indeed
> made blanket statements in the past and on top that your assessment that
> canon's have had 'design flaws' is based on what exactly?
>
You are right about not using every single "L" series lens, I'll agree.
I have yet to use the 1200mm "L" series and a couple of other in the
range which are scarce on the ground in Australia and Turkey ...but then
I think you'll find this is my first mention of that lens too.
Let me just go into a basic fact of business before I go on to answer to
you. Whoever you are.
If grass didn't grow and man was not so lazy... The lawn mower would not
exist - be no need for it. If there was no need to stand 200 yards away
from a subject, Telephoto lenses which facilitate filling the frame at
that distance would not exist either.
There is not a profitable business in the world that has produced a
product no one buys and grown their sales with it... Simple Aussie
logic? Nah... Just plain bloody common sense, mate.
DxO is an advanced developer of software specifically related to digital
images. They are pretty good at what they do... They'd need to be
because their products are expensive. Certainly not something the
average amateur would buy.
DxO make a very unique RAW data converter with modules for specific
lenses. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable
flaws attributed to specific lenses... Read that as fixing the faulty
images some "L" series lenses create. Keep in mind too, that "L" series
lenses are not optimized for digital cameras, much less full frame ones.
One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras
(no news in this, Canon sell more cameras than the rest).
Until quite recently, when you bought the DxO product, you got one lens
module. Yes... A module devoted to just one lens. Any other lens modules
you wanted had to be bought on top of the original.
Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all
the lens error correction modules with the converter, the 24-70 f2.8 "L"
series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module
added to the purchase price?... Hmm? The rest I'll leave to your fertile
mind to figure out.
First rule of business. Make sure there is a need for your product
before you commit a few million bucks to producing it... They did.
--
Douglas...
Skip M
news:3qjp7vF...@individual.net...
Stacey, remind me of this statement in a couple of weeks, when I have a
chance to test out the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and 100-400
f4.5-5.6L IS on my 5D. I'll bet they'll compare favorable you anything you
have in your lens quiver. I've seen what the camera will do in a quickie
shot with the 100 f2.
Can't do the test, right now, because I'm too busy shooting weddings with
the cameras and my favorite test spot, Petco Park, is a little busy, right
now...
Steve Franklin
statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be
backing that up pretty clearly.
> If grass didn't grow and man was not so lazy... The lawn mower would not
> exist - be no need for it. If there was no need to stand 200 yards away
> from a subject, Telephoto lenses which facilitate filling the frame at
> that distance would not exist either.
> There is not a profitable business in the world that has produced a
> product no one buys and grown their sales with it... Simple Aussie logic?
> Nah... Just plain bloody common sense, mate.
People will buy ANYTHING that is made as long as it's at the right price
point, this is a economy driven by trying not to create products that fulfil
needs but more creating the need and then selling the product.
>
> DxO is an advanced developer of software specifically related to digital
> images. They are pretty good at what they do... They'd need to be because
> their products are expensive. Certainly not something the average amateur
> would buy.
>
> DxO make a very unique RAW data converter with modules for specific
> lenses. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable flaws
> attributed to specific lenses... Read that as fixing the faulty images
> some "L" series lenses create. Keep in mind too, that "L" series lenses
> are not optimized for digital cameras, much less full frame ones.
>
> One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras (no
> news in this, Canon sell more cameras than the rest).
>
> Until quite recently, when you bought the DxO product, you got one lens
> module. Yes... A module devoted to just one lens. Any other lens modules
> you wanted had to be bought on top of the original.
>
> Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all
> the lens error correction modules with the converter, the 24-70 f2.8 "L"
> series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module
> added to the purchase price?... Hmm? The rest I'll leave to your fertile
> mind to figure out.
A few points here about the statements you make.
1. These modules are known to correct consistent and repeatable
>flaws attributed to specific lenses. Read that as fixing the faulty images
>some "L" series lenses create.
How do you draw this analogy? You state that this product is not really for
the amateur right? Given that Nikon and Canon make up the bulk of the pro
market it stands to reason that for this product to exist they would need to
make modules for these lenses right?
2. One of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for Canon cameras
How do you know this? Do you have a breakdown of how many units they sell
and of what configuration? What is this assumption based on?
3. Why do you suppose up until a few weeks ago when they began bundling all
> the lens error correction modules with the converter, the 24-70 f2.8 "L"
> series Canon lens error correction module was their most popular module
> added to the purchase price?...
Again there seem to be a few assumptions made here. Why do you suppose they
bundled this? Why does every version of the windows OS incorporate the most
successful third party apps available prior to release? To keep market
share? To compete? I don't think you can draw a direct link from one to the
other...
Again how dod you know that this was their most popular module? Even it was
it stands to reason does it? CA is more likely to occur with wide lenses.
Canon and Nikon are the two most likely lens manufacters given the pro
status of the software, so it stands to reason that it WOULD be their most
popular model would it not? It just makes sense. Chromatic aberation is
function of the property of light and no lens I know is completely free of
it especially in the wide zoom range.
>
> First rule of business. Make sure there is a need for your product before
> you commit a few million bucks to producing it... They did.
Is reducing CA the total functionality of this software? Is it the only
thing that it does? Or is it just one of it's features? Photoshop corrects
CA too...amongst many many other things too...
For the record I use Nikon and have no affinity to any brand really. I would
be interested to hear how you can back up all your assumptions...
>
>
> --
> Douglas...
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Look mate I don't have a major beef...but I think if you make sweeping
> statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be
> backing that up pretty clearly.
You are arguing with a freakin' lunatic FUDster. As far as anyone has
been able to tell, he just makes it all up as he goes along.
Douglas...
> Look mate I don't have a major beef...but I think if you make sweeping
> statements not just about one lens but a whole product range you need to be
> backing that up pretty clearly.
>
snip
> Again there seem to be a few assumptions made here.
snip
> Again how dod you know that this was their most popular module? Even it was
> it stands to reason does it? CA is more likely to occur with wide lenses.
> Canon and Nikon are the two most likely lens manufacters given the pro
> status of the software, so it stands to reason that it WOULD be their most
> popular model would it not? It just makes sense. Chromatic aberation is
> function of the property of light and no lens I know is completely free of
> it especially in the wide zoom range.
nip
> Is reducing CA the total functionality of this software? Is it the only
> thing that it does? Or is it just one of it's features? Photoshop corrects
> CA too...amongst many many other things too...
>
>
> For the record I use Nikon and have no affinity to any brand really. I would
> be interested to hear how you can back up all your assumptions...
>
Your entire response is to question me instead of looking at the
sources. Accusing me of making assumptions when you yourself are making
some substantial ones. You are doing this even when provided with the
source to get answers. Open your mind and discover for yourself.
To question me and demand proof when all you have to do is download a
free trial and have all the proof you need is just baiting me. Don't do
it. It's the sign of an arsehole.
Douglas...
You bough a brand new camera a few days ago and you're busy shooting
weddings with it already? I'm impressed Skip. It sounds like you shoot a
wedding every day. You must have a pretty big staff to process and
compile everything. I shudder to thing how big your album account is.
Your bill must look like a serial number.
It takes me 2 days just to process the photos from a Saturday Wedding
and another day (sometimes two) to put the album and CD together. I
spend another 2 days a week just talking to couples and of course, I
have to take the pictures too. So for me, shooting a mere 36 or so
weddings a year, I have to work 6 days a week, every week and only get
to shoot weddings on Saturdays. Now I know where my time is wasted... Here!
Maybe you could share some of the secrets you obviously have, that might
help me avoid passing 20 or 30 weddings a year to other photographers?
Are you going to keep the 20Ds for backups? how do you propose to handle
the area coverage difference?
I looked at a 5D myself and although it "seems" a nice enough camera in
the store, after the fiasco of my Canon experiences, I won't bother with
one anytime soon.
I am curious though, how you are going to address the issue of coverage.
these cameras are going to be pretty useless at a wedding with a 16-35mm
lens, which would have been useful on a 1.6 crop. Even at 24mm the
distortion will be noticeable enough to make you avoid using it.
I'd suspect the 70-200 would get a good workout - if you can hold it all
day! Otherwise... I can see some new lenses coming up here. Now wouldn't
it be convenient if Canon all of a sudden announced a "D" series lens in
the range 28-120, f2.8, designed specifically for digital cameras? Maybe
there is a God? Prey Skip!
Steve Franklin
No worries Doug...lets uh leave it there mate.
Have a good one.
Steve Franklin
been able to tell, he just makes it all up as he goes along.
Cheers for that.
One less brick wall to bash against.
Tony Polson
"It'd be a real first if you ever refrained from passing comment when
you have nothing to say, wouldn't it?"
;-)
Skip M
"Douglas..." <canv...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43458d4b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3qjp7vF...@individual.net...
>>
>>>John A. Stovall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone owning 4/3 format lenses then will have no escape.
>>>
>>>Anyone owning lenses designed for film are the ones who will have no
>>>escape.
>>>--
>>>
>>> Stacey
>>
>>
>> Stacey, remind me of this statement in a couple of weeks, when I have a
>> chance to test out the 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L IS and
>> 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS on my 5D. I'll bet they'll compare favorable you
>> anything you have in your lens quiver. I've seen what the camera will do
>> in a quickie shot with the 100 f2.
>> Can't do the test, right now, because I'm too busy shooting weddings with
>> the cameras and my favorite test spot, Petco Park, is a little busy,
>> right now...
>>
> Do I read this right?
>
> You bough a brand new camera a few days ago and you're busy shooting
> weddings with it already? I'm impressed Skip. It sounds like you shoot a
> wedding every day. You must have a pretty big staff to process and compile
> everything. I shudder to thing how big your album account is. Your bill
> must look like a serial number.
No, I have a day job, too. So I only have time on the weekend days that
we're not doing a wedding to shoot, and sometimes in the afternoon, at which
time the lighting on the ballpark isn't ideal and, until either the St Louis
Cardinals or the Atlanta Braves knock them out of the playoffs, the Padres
baseball team is still using it.
>
> It takes me 2 days just to process the photos from a Saturday Wedding and
> another day (sometimes two) to put the album and CD together. I spend
> another 2 days a week just talking to couples and of course, I have to
> take the pictures too. So for me, shooting a mere 36 or so weddings a
> year, I have to work 6 days a week, every week and only get to shoot
> weddings on Saturdays. Now I know where my time is wasted... Here!
My wife does most of the post production work, I help when I get home from
the pesky day job. Your timeline looks pretty much like ours, 4-5 days,
8-10 hrs. a day. 30-35 weddings is our max, too. (38 done or booked so
far, this year. We've kept my wife's cousin busy with our overflow...)
>
> Maybe you could share some of the secrets you obviously have, that might
> help me avoid passing 20 or 30 weddings a year to other photographers? Are
> you going to keep the 20Ds for backups? how do you propose to handle the
> area coverage difference?
Yes, we're using the 20Ds as backups, and, frankly, we're not sure how we're
going to deal with area coverage differences. (I assume you're talking about
the difference in, say, a 16-35 on a 1.6x and FF.) Hoping we won't have to
use them, I guess...
>
> I looked at a 5D myself and although it "seems" a nice enough camera in
> the store, after the fiasco of my Canon experiences, I won't bother with
> one anytime soon.
Well, we'll see. It doesn't seem to require the workarounds for proper
flash usage that the 20D does, on limited testing yesterday. And it has no
problem focusing in tough lighting situations. Remember, you mentioned
getting the 20D to focus, shooting straight into a sunset? Well, I just
made sure that I was focused on something that didn't have the sun glaring
back at the lens, too. But with the 5D, I don't have to do that. And the
inadequacy of the 420EX flash for fill in that same situation turns out to
be an inadequacy of the 20D, with the 5D, there's adequate fill.
>
> I am curious though, how you are going to address the issue of coverage.
> these cameras are going to be pretty useless at a wedding with a 16-35mm
> lens, which would have been useful on a 1.6 crop. Even at 24mm the
> distortion will be noticeable enough to make you avoid using it.
Actually, the reason for the purchase was to get the 16mm width out of the
lenses, some of the venues we work in, we can't get the entire family group
in the shot with the 20D and the 16-35 without getting up on a ladder. That
makes for a nice shot, sometimes, but not always. Plus, it gets a little
repetitive. The main concern was the 24-70s getting a little short. Thus
the purchase of the 70-200 f2.8L IS.
>
> I'd suspect the 70-200 would get a good workout - if you can hold it all
> day! Otherwise... I can see some new lenses coming up here. Now wouldn't
> it be convenient if Canon all of a sudden announced a "D" series lens in
> the range 28-120, f2.8, designed specifically for digital cameras? Maybe
> there is a God? Prey Skip!
Actually, my wife gets to use the 70-200, we got her a very nice monopod to
work with it. One of other reasons for the purchase was that Canon seems
reluctant to put out an f2.8 WA in EF-S mount, as do most mfrs seem to shy
away from an f2.8 WA for specifically for their 1.5/1.6x bodies.
Brian Baird
> What is it about you in particular that makes you think, when someone
> else makes a post you can't accept could be true, you have to try and
> make a issue of it? Of course I've owned the things I post about... I
> part own (Amongst several other businesses) a second hand camera store,
> for Christ Sake!
That doesn't make you correct.
It makes you look stupid.
No one is making an issue out of this except you. Maybe if you stopped
posting idiotic crap all the time you wouldn't have to.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> snip
> snip
> nip
> Your entire response is to question me instead of looking at the
> sources.
It is to question the veracity of some statements. You are,
arguably, the source of your statements, right?
> Accusing me of making assumptions when you yourself are making
> some substantial ones. You are doing this even when provided with the
> source to get answers. Open your mind and discover for yourself.
1. You claim, you prove.
2. The sources you named are not talking or don't show what
you claim they do.
> To question me and demand proof when all you have to do is download a
> free trial and have all the proof you need is just baiting me. Don't do
> it. It's the sign of an arsehole.
The free trial can only show that there is a module. It cannot
show that:
- some L lenses create faulty images (it only demonstrates that there is a
transform function for some L lenses)
- "[o]ne of the most popular RAW converters they sell is for
Canon cameras" (it only points out that they have such a
product, but not any sales numbers, nor that this is a popular
RAW converter on the market)
- "the 24-70 f2.8 "L" series Canon lens error correction module
was their most popular module" (again only that they added
it can be proven, the popularity is not provable. At best
we'll have a claim from the marketing department, and we
know these guys.)
Actually, even the seller wouldn't really know what module was most
popular, unless they use spyware telling them how often each module
is called and how long it runs. They can at best guestimate using
surveys, but these tend to have restrictions, the limit of the
insight of people into their own behavior being not the least one.
Is it "Don't question authority -- it doesn't know either." or
is it "Always question authority. Hot pokers and electrodes are
optional, but generally preferred for this."?
-Wolfgang
Douglas...
It's very interesting that your IP trace shows up a spoofed address.
Who are you sock puppet for?
--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.
eawck...@yahoo.com
> Who are you sock puppet for?
www.google.com: "Wolfgang Weisselberg"; 34,200 hits
Did you read any of them? Of course you didn't! You don't need to!
When you make it up as you go along -- "spoofed address", etc -- things
like "facts" and "rational arguments" are immaterial, right?
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Wolfgang
> It's very interesting that your IP trace shows up a spoofed address.
Well, that's *very* interesting. Which of my IP traces does?
Care to post it and to explain in detail how you come think
of it as a spoofed address?
And care to tell if www.microsoft.com is also a spoofed address?
How about www.cnn.com?
> Who are you sock puppet for?
I already answered this one. Myself.
-Wolfgang