tonybrown

<p>One more comment on the difference between autofocus on the Live View and on the regular view. On one occasion I did find it autofocus on the regular view with the 500mm F4 and 2X multiplier. I suspect the real difference may be related to the difficulty of actuating the shutter at 1000mm equivalent without shaking the camera, since the Live View has less camera shake. In anycase I think the firmware has been programmed to exclude the 10oomm equivalent from regular autofocus and automatically displays the message M Focus when it detects the lens. This way Canon have avoided customer complaints?</p>

<p>Avinash,<br>

Thank you for your response. What you say about the design limits of autofocus on the EOS 70D makes sense. However according to the specification listed on the DPREVIEW website, the autofocus is designed to work with lenses down to F11: here is the quote:<br>

According the Canon the EOS 70D's Dual Pixel CMOS AF system has the following key characteristics:</p>

<ul>

<li>Usable phase detection AF area covers 80% of the frame horizontally and vertically</li>

<li>AF works at apertures down to F11</li>

<li>AF works in light levels as low as 0 EV</li>

<li>Can work with face detection to keep moving subjects in focus</li>

</ul>

<p>See: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/3">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-70d/3</a><br>

In the light of my experience I'm inclined to believe you are correct and DPREVIEW got it wrong. Also, I have found the autofocus works with the EF 500mm F4 L and the 1.4X multiplier, that is equivalent to F5.6.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Tony</p>

<p>I'm wondering if anyone has any insight on the following limitations of the EOS 70D. The autofocus is superb, but when used with an EF 500mm and 2X multiplier the camera reverts to Manual Focus for normal still photography. However with this lens combination, autofocus is achieved in Live View and in Movie mode, and it is very good. Another limitation is when using wifi with an iPad for remote control. This works great in Live View, but is not available in Movie mode. And finally, continuous recording is limited to 30 minutes, and requires restarting to continue. I am not aware of any physical limitation to the length of recording.</p>

<p>I have read the entire thread. My first reaction to this exciting new feature was to ask the same question: how can you get a large print from an image that is limited to 1500 pixels on its largest edge? I have been a customer of CanvasPop and I must say first of all their colour rendering is excellent. I uploaded an image to their website for a 30"x40" canvas print which had a resolution of about 120 dots per inch, so clearly my image was about 3600x4800 pixels. This canvas looks great viewed from a distance of about 3 feet. The subject matter was a nature scene in the Rockies with Bighorn sheep in the foreground. This image is posted on photo.net, BUT noway could the photo.net image produce the same detailed print. I think it has been suggested that the photo.net image act as a thumbnail and that a hidden more detailed image is the one sent on to CanvasPop - this way noone can steal the detailed image from the photonet display. Finally, as for colour rendering, I compared my canvas print from CanvasPop with the image on my calibrated monitor and the colour rendering of the canvas was as close a match as my eye could measure. CanvasPop will accept images with a broader colour spectrum like AdobeRGB, you just have to let them know what they are getting. The CanvasPop printer is a professional Canon machine - time alone will tell if it is true archival quality as far as longevity of the print is concerned. I personally don't have any worries about it. But then, I am 77. <a href="/photo/17539312">http://www.photo.net/photo/17539312</a></p>

<p>My 500mm F4 lens with a 2X TC gives a great image, but I need more pixels. Adding a 1.4X TC in tandem may give exposure errors acccording to Canon. Has anyone tried this? I have a 1DsmkIII and a 7D. I could use the 7D with its smaller pixels to give an effective 1.5X, but I'm thinking the 1.4X with the 1DsmkIII would give a better image. Has anyone tried this?</p>

<p>I've used a 15 ft canoe for years and I'm really happy with that choice. So many times I've come across a unique photographic opportunity and with my camera (1DsmkIII) and 400mm zoom sitting on the bottom of the boat I'm ready for action. My canoe is a 15 foot "Bob Special" weighing 45 lbs. Very manoeverable and stable.</p><div></div>

<p>So Patrick: you have influenced my printer decision more than you know! Today my neighbour Jim Cowan showed me his Epson R3880 with its 80mL ink tanks (tanks is the right word) and 17" x 22" maximum print size AND its easily replaceable $20 waste ink collector and as a result the Pro-1 does not shine so brightly. Your comments on skin tones are well received - I took a look at your work and became an instant fan! I soft proofed my golden standard photo on both the R3880 and Pro-1 with Hahnemuhle Museum Etch Fine Art paper and both proofs appeared identical. But I do like those bigger prints. Any more observations anyone?</p>

<p>Patrick,<br /> I have a few questions:<br /> 1) did you print from the Lightroom 4.0 Beta version?<br /> 2) was the Canon profile specific for the Pixma Pro-1 and the Canon paper (which paper please?)<br /> 3) obvious I suppose, but did you shake the ink cartridges before installing them?<br /> 4) if you have a calibrated monitor, how does a soft proof compare to the printed result?<br /> I do agree, considering the general acclaim for this printer, your results are indeed strange and I do hope you can get to the bottom of this.<br /> Best wishes,<br /> Tony</p>

<p>Andrew & Michael: thank you both for your responses. And, Andrew, thanks for the links to the videos. Very interesting. Yes one can push the printer evaluation too far. To make a meaningful comparison of two printers I chose a single wide gamut photograph as my golden standard and viewed the soft proof with published ICC profiles from Canon, Ilford, Hahnemuhle and Moab. LR-4 confirmed observations noted elsewhere. For example the dye based printers showed wider gamut than the pigment based printers although the differences for the Pro-1 printer were small. The Pro-1 had much better blacks and shadows than the Pro-9500. These were not unexpected results. Of course colour gamut is not the only criteria for choosing a printer, but at least LR-4 (beta) gives me a sense that colour reproduction with these printers is reasonably controlled and the ICC profiles are something the leading paper manufacturers are prepared to stand behind. I think I should visit this subject again when I have a Pro-1 in my basement.</p>

<p>PIXMA PRO-1 & ADOBE LR-4 BETA<br>

The current BETA release of Lightroom 4 is not yet the final product and not to be used for "production". However, its soft proofing capabilities have delighted this photographer as a very useful tool in the quest for a new printer. My Canon i9900 is nearing its end of life, like a good old friend that has served many years of nature photography. My candidates for a new printer include Epson R3000, Canon Pixma pro 9500 and 9000 and the new Pixma Pro-1. All except the Pixma Pro 9000 are pigment ink technology. The 9000 is said to offer slightly wider colour gamut than its 9500 cousin. But the more stable pigment inks are a definite attraction. I "tested" all these printers with an array of papers with published ICC profiles using the LR-4 soft proofing capability. Using a test photograph taken with my 1DsmkIII and Adobe RGB colour gamut I found all the printers performed well with a suitable choice of paper. In fact I would be pleased to own an Epson R3000, a Pixma Pro 9500 or indeed a Pixma Pro-1. My monitor is calibrated to Adobe RGB (the Dell u3011). If the visual results are to be believed, the Pixma Pro-1 has an edge on the other two contending pigment printers. Notably, shadows and blacks seem to have a wider gamut with the Pro-1 and the Lucia inks with the chroma optimizer promises stunning colour gamut and definition. One point worthy of note is that all printers failed to achieve a wide gamut on a regular matte paper, but performed exceedingly well with a premium fine art paper. I suspect the regular matte papers have a tonal bias that throws the colour gamut off base. In conclusion, the soft proofing capability of LR-4 is a very useful tool, enabling the photographer not only to choose his next printer but also to optimize its prints and avoid the pitfalls of so much control in post-processing raw photographs. My Pro-1 is on order. One critique of this survey is that the beta version results are not guaranteed. However, even as a beta version, the results are believed to be valid on a comparative basis. Comments much appreciated.</p><div></div>

<p>Michael,<br /> thanks for your input. The battery is the original Canon battery that came with the camera. As pointed out earlier, my neighbour has an identical situation with his 1DsmkIII and original battery. I don't suspect the camera body since it only started to request a re-calibration of the battery after the first year of operation. I don't suspect the charger since the charger has two independent charging circuits and both behave identically. I do wonder about the battery - which as noted is now over three years old - however we have experienced this identical probem on two separate cameras and batteries - a problem which in both cases began after the camera and battery were a year old. So I posted this issue to find out if others had experienced it also. So far, Scott reported it on two of his batteries.</p>

<p>Scott: thanks for the input. I agree, recalibrate does not change the battery. What puzzles me and others is why, after recalibration, the camera immediately recommends recailbration? After all recalibration takes a lot longer than simple re-charging.</p>

<p>I bought my 1DsmkIII in 2008. After about a year the camera indicated the battery should be recalibrated. I recalibrated the battery - but the camera has continued to recommend recalibration ever since. Now over three years since purchase the camera and battery perform well. I get over 600 shutter counts per charge even though I use the battery to download photographs. My neighbour has had an identical experience with his 1DsmkIII. We suspect a problem with the 1DsmkIII firmware. Our primary concern is that recalibration does not cancel the recalibrate message. Does anyone else have a similar experience? I have talked to Canon - who would naturally like to sell me a new battery! But at the present shutter count the battery is adequate. Does anyone else have this problem? Thanks in advance. Tony</p>

<p>OK a sincere thanks to everyone who contributed. I think I'll end up following Sarah's advice as I'm still concerned to have some protective glass in front of the lens. I may experiment with different filters. The overwhelming concensus seems to be that filters impair the image quality (my experience also) and they also can dramatically increase flare (my experience). Thanks, Tony</p>

<p>Thanks Mark for the wise advice, Tony</p>

<p>Hi Wayne,<br>

I bought the lens almost a year ago and it was not included in the batch that were recalled. I have no problem with the lens without the filter</p><div></div>

<p>Recently shooting the beautiful fall colours I ran into severe flare problems with this lens. About 50% of 100 photographs showed severe flare. To be fair, I was taking advantge of the sun position to backlight the leaves and bring out their colour, however I had not expected this amount of flare. It occurred to me that the HOYA Digital PRO1 Protector filter might be a problem so I did a shoot without the filter. I got brilliant photographs about 95% of the time - any flare was my fault in framing the picture. Has anyone else experiences this? Can anyone recommend a filter for use with this lens? (UV or protector) Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Folks for your help. I was thinking maybe YouTube was the way to go and I can post straight out of Adobe Premier Elements. It would be nice if one could use a still photo on photo.net as a hot button to link in the YouTube video - is that too ambitious?</p>

<p>Is there a simple way of uploading and displaying HD video-clips on Photo.net. And how does one play them? (I once saw a video-clip on someone's photo.net site - so I believe its possible). What format is required or most efficient - is storage space a major limiting concern?</p>

<p>Well, the Canon EF F4L 24-105mm IS USM is more than $800 - but that's the lens I'm hoping to get. I rent my water heater.</p>

<p>I recently had my 1DsmkIII shutter replaced under (Henry's) warranty at about 11,000 actuations. A white line appeared at the top of a landscape image. I take great care of my equipment, so I'm intrigued - has anyone else had this problem?</p>

<p>Well, I just about read the whole thread. Thank you to each one who participated. May I make an analogy? Processing digital sound is analogous to digital "light" - and in processing 16 bit digital sound Adobe Audition allows processing to take place in 32 bit floating point for the simple reason that accumulated quantization errors are reduced in the final product. Obviously working in 16 bit photography is ideal, upconverting from 8 bit prior to processing makes sense.</p>

My limited experience is that Vista is very good provided that the system was installed by a reputable manufacturer and that the computer has adequate RAM. Others I know have the same experience. On the other hand my XP machines are not so stable, which I suspect is reduced support from Microsoft.

I just want to say thank you to all you good people for all the useful information. I have tried spraying my (Canon) Hahnemuhle fine art rag with a Krylon spray but have been considering moving to the Hahnemuhle spray. I had moderate success with the Krylon spray, some failures due to overspraying and getting a rather misty result. The successes are way better than glass. Does anyone know what vapours are emitted by the Hahnemuhle spray and how toxic they are?

Jeff,

 

Thanks for the insightful explanation. I had wondered if there was some historical lagacy effects that influenced the current situation.

 

On the camera Raw editing question, versus editing in Photoshop, I think the choice depends on the image. I can achieve a larger dynamic range in Raw, and if I don't do that in Raw it's too late to do it in Photoshop. Anyhow, Christmas is coming and there's a copy of Lightroom 2 under the tree - which I understand does everything in Raw and does it well. Maybe I'll have more to add next year.