kraig_cuddeford

http://www.geocities.com/nsr250rider/classic_tan.html

 

does the charge cycle sound like this?

Thanks for the link. figure 6 is definately what I'm seeing with this. That artifact seems unavoidable with the lens being a zoom. ahhhwell. I'm still very impressed and happy with my first L series..

OK that makes sense, if the doubling is part of the bokeh of the telephoto zoom, I figure the pattern in the first shot is caused by continuation of the doubling from the strong lines in a fence's vertical boards. The fence is just outside of the frame in the photo but not out of the lenses view-- due to the 20D crop factor.

 

Just one more question for ya Andy:

 

Have you had the chance to review any non zoom telephoto's?

If you have reviewed a non zoom telephoto, do you notice similar effect in the bokeh of the non zoom?

The above example doesn't show as much, but it's there a little. Here is another example with stronger doubling. I'm finding it to look as distracting as bad rubber stamp cloning, if you know what I mean.<div></div>

It's showing up consistantly in photo's with objects that have strong thin lines and edges in the out of focus background and not necesarrily vertical and horizontal only, I see some blades of grass in there at a bit of an angle with double images parallel to their angle. I've only noticed the effect in several photo's and I'm not shooting through a screen, are you talking about the AA filter?<div></div>

I've seen this in a couple of my pictures, it ammounts to vertical

and horizontal image patterning in the slightly out of focus

bacground. I'm wondering if it's an artifact of the AA filter or zoom

lens or both? has anyone shot the 100-400L with a film body and find

the vertical, horizontal patterning or image doubling of the out of

focus background?<div></div>

Unsolicited Unpaid Advertising! Hey Bob, how many cpm does this page get? Ban this guy! better yet send him a bill HAHAHA!

It's possible to get higher optical quality with the extension tube, the drawback is less opportunities to press the button between adjusting the zoom and the camera position to match the focus at different zoom levels.

 

The glass diopter will correct the focus at different zoom levels without having to move the camera too much.

 

I'd get the diopter before the extension tube, that is; if you didn't already have the extension tube and the negative experience of trying it on the zoom ;)

everything said works. Just a matter of going out and doing it now.

 

landscape, plus water and a little atmoshperics, fog and mist rising from the water... all that is left is never forget to be upwind of the display or you will be very sad.<div></div>

well, actually, you have to consider all aspects at once.. All steps to get to the top of the stairs... the composition, the subject, the lens, the background etc... then the initial meter reading, the color correctness or WHITE BALANCE, then the histogram. then theres creativity... I never cared what the meter was calibrated to, can someone point out a reason or three that I should care?

uh, you look at the meter? the histogram is far supirior to any meter calibration...

Try All manual mode, with no AF :P<div></div>

These sparky things are thought to be for posers but they are really to scare the competition that is behind you into braking when they think your bike just hit the pavement and is about to slide out of control :P

from that area between turn one and turn two there's a nice place to pan with the racer coming out of turn one.<div></div>

err, I guess Tarrace is what I meant instead of new stands :P

I was at sears a while back with my om-1 and a 80-200 with a 2x that wasn't quite compatable with my lens, it was difficult to get close enough without the 2x. I was able to stand in clear view of the track just after turn one where the grass area and pit area meats the track by the new stands on turn 2-3. I don't know what the restrictions are now but I think a 300-500mm lens is about the minimum you want if you don't have press access. Fortunately, I was helping in the pits for a friend so I was allowed to wander around a little in that area with my camera.

Is that what is mentioned as CR1?

not really, The raw file looks OK, there are some optical errors due to the lens cleaning and sensor dirt, but for the most part, I am concerned with the image processing. Any suggestions I can do on the raw file in DPP or should I be looking for another program?

here's a pic :P

tested, potted. The PC circuit works, I've had it hooked to a momentary switch to trigger by hand. I have yet to couple it to the camera. I might get ahold of one of those off camera 2 cord adapters, or the number 3 to gut it out. I'm working out a small module that wires to the flash, that will accept a quick connect for a sensor trigger "sound-light" or whatever! And the ethernet communications cord and the pc/sync socket. Since this is just a home made jobber, I won't be considering production costs n durability of the connector or those other things that burden the electrical engineer... I might fix the module to the side and make it around 5/8th to 1/2" thicker by potting the wires and everything else with jb weld. Because I'm not going to pay 45 dollars for a cable when I could have all of this with spare parts laying around and several dollars worth of glue/soder etc. And ethernet cables laying here and there and basically, nothing better to do! I don't mind sharing.

I've been looking at those things for parts.

Do you have any originals that I can compare? I ran the 20D with ef-s 18-55 at like 30mm f11 and 3-6 seconds to get a little ambient exposure.. mlu and timer. I want to get a good setting to use before the 4th.

I've converted the file from raw using several different settings to compare the results.. One is oversharpened with too low of an image quality setting, resulting in the large chunky jpg gradient in the blue tonal changes. The other is showing the cross hatch pattern that everyone else is complaining about, I can't remedy the cross hatching, if it's in the raw file due to exposure failure or other condition, it's there... Do you think Neat Image or Noise Ninja would be acceptable on a large print?

ahh, this picture is the one with the big ugly gradients, the next one shows the cross hatches.. Is there something wrong with digital photo professional's conversion settings?

and some big chunky gradients in the blue background.