jim_morka

<p>Hello, <br>

I do know that Canon 5D Mark III does not have an option to change focussing screens (I own the camera and lack this feature a lot). However, I've seen that there available options by third party producers: http://www.focusingscreen.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_134&products_id=1193<br>

1. Have anyone experienced focussing screens from www.focusingscreen.com? Are they of good quality?<br>

2. Which would you advice to use: split-image (B or L type), micro prism (A type) or super precision mate (S type)? http://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php<br>

3. WHat is the pros & cons of "slip image" vs. "super precision mate" approaches?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi, <br>

I am sorry for possibly silly question, but I still need other opinions to be sure.<br>

The thing is that I got worried about resolution setting in Aperture preferences. For long time I had entered 300 dpi value so all pictures I export (as TIFF) for external editing with Photoshop, I get in 300 resolution.<br>

Now listening to the video tutorial of luminious-landscape.com, I've learned that for best results you shall use native resolution. So I got worried if due to my settings Aperture during export from RAW files is artificially extrapolating the images to 300 res. I think, default setting was 72 dpi.<br>

Later I tried and experiment - exported the same image with different resolution setting. I've got the files, which were identical in its size. Then I looked them into Photoshop, I noticed that along with resolution size also image size has changed. So I assume that actually Aperture does not extrapolate image above its original resolution original, but rather modify image size fitting in the native resolution. Am I correct?<br>

Even if it is so, would be interesting to hear - in what resolution settings do you export your RAW files to further work with Photoshop? And why? Maybe there is any particular reason for one or the other adjustment which makes workflow more comfortable. </p>

 

<p>well... I just need a big screen for which I would expect to have as output - prints corresponding to what I see on the screen. </p>

 

<p>hi, thanks. but what exactly is bad about Apple? I understood that NEC is newer model and thus, possibly has better options/functionality. But what is advanced about the hardware? Will I feel difference of this advancement then I print pictures?<br>

Or is the advancement of NEC in calibration process (simpler/quicker/more precise)? <br>

I got the offer to choose between 3 options:<br>

1. Apple cinema 30" - 2300 USD<br>

2. Monitorius NEC 30” MULTISYNC - 2700 USD (comes without calibrator)<br>

3. Monitorius NEC SpectraView® Reference 3090 - 3200 USD. (comes without calibrator)</p>

<p>As you can see - Apple would be the cheapest. So, is the quality difference is more signifficant thant the price difference between those units? And if both NEC monitors comes without calibrators - which one between those both would you recommend?</p>

Hi,

Could you please reccomend which calibration provides best results for calibration of Apple Cinema Display 30"?

I was considering between Apple cinema display and NEC Spectra View, but almost decided already to go for Apple cinema display,

because it will be cheaper, delivery of NEC would be problematic for me, distributors do not have exactly the model I want and they can

offer only without calibrator (I would need to purchase it separately). But most impprtant - I asked for advice in the Pro lab, which prints

photos, and afterall even agreeing that NEC would better, but in practice, I would not feel real difference in practical output - photo prints.

 

But I want to have a really good calibrator to make sure proper calibration of this 30" Applle cinema display. I was reccomended to get

Spider 3 calibrator, but I do not know if it also fits for the Apple cinema display.

I would also appreciate to share experience how well these monitors calibrates?

<p>thanks you for the responses so far. <br>

I currently have the situation of 2 options:<br>

Apple cinema display 30'' - paying app. 2.300 USD<br>

NEC TFT 30” MULTISYNC LCD3090WQXI-BK - paying app. 2.700 USD<br>

As you see Apple is cheaper. Even not a real criteria for quality, rather for emotions - it's nicer. <br>

Can you advise in this situation - I understood that NEC would be a better quality. How much "better"? Is the difference significant to pay the price difference?<br>

Would appreciate for any in-depth review links. </p>

 

Hi, I know there have been quite a few discussions on the lcd monitors here. However quite a few of them are rather old and therefore

potentially outdated - thus here I would like to ask for an updated information.

I am looking for 30' lcd monitor for which first criteria would be quality, secondly - the price. I am working on Mac platform with Aperture

and Photoshop.

I see that on the list there are Eizo Color edge series, NEC, Apple cinema display. Eizo - seems to be reallly good, but is it worth it's

money, comparatevly it is really expencive stuff. I might pay for it if there is a good reason to invest here. Apple cimema dispaly - tnere will

not be anymore 30' monitors, but there are still remaining on sale, thus I might expect a good price for it - but is it still worth its quality?

I do not have much information about NEC.

 

Your advises?

<p>Thanks! was helpful. </p>

 

<p>Hi, thanks. Since, I've never been in USA so far, I had to admit, it sounds strange that CA has its own tax on the top (can someone write what it is exactly?). Do I understand correctly that on purchase VAT tax (value added tax) is not calculated in USA, instead there are those taxes as you've mentioned as "CA state tax"?<br>

I would appreciate if somebody could give me some basics about the taxation policy and advises what additional taxes I should include above given price on the pricelist. <br>

Anyhow seems, ordering online might be a better option. I hope on-line store would accept my hotel address. <br>

Interesting rumor about upgrading 24-70 mm lens. Wonder when it would come to reality. </p>

<p>I am planning to visit San Diego in mid July (coming from Europe) and I'd like to ask for your advise for a photo gear store, where I could get a good price and purchase Canon lens (plan for 24-70 mm f/2.8L). <br>

Since I am not local, I do not know the shops there. If I get a good price, I would purchase directly as cash&carry instead of making internet order from B&H.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi, what about apple cinema display 30'?</p>

<p>Hi, <br>

I know, many photographers reviewed that optional Eg S focusing screen for 5D Mark II would be very useful for more precise focusing. At the same time, I've learned that it made rather for fast (starting from f2.8) lenses, while on slower lenses, the viewfinder would be rather dark. <br>

I do have few fast lenses (100 mm macro f2.8 and 50 mm 1.4), however, I see that most of my lenses start with f 4.0, which would mean that with Eg S lenses I would have quite darker view on viewfinder.<br>

Have anyone experienced and can advise me - does the Eg S focusing screen would still serve well for slower lenses such as f 4.0 for getting more precise focusing? Or keeping in mind that most of my lenses are starting with f 4.0, I should rather stick to standard focusing screen? </p>

<p>Hi, <br />so finally, after long thinking and bringing together pros and cons, I have at home... 17mm TS lens. First impression is very very great. Unfortunately, I did not manage to explore it really in the field yet, but look forward to go out within few days and enjoy shooting. <br />At the same time i got quite confused seeing how much you can do and what is so many of different options are there, especially as you can combine independently tilt and shift functions rotating the lens by every 30 degrees. <br />I see that it will still take some time to learn go to use it best and what is the workflow in the field. It is really so different from usual lenses. <br />Thus, I would really appreciate if you could point out some good and comprehensive links on using TS lens in different tilt/shift combinations and workflows of focusing and making composition. I've seen some articles on the web, but most of them gives very basic theory, which is good, but I would love to read something more practical and coprehensive (I found somewhere video's but lost it on web and don't remember how get back to it). <br />Please, share some links, which you found useful walking on your TS path..</p>

<p>Hi, <br>

so finally, after long thinking and bringing together pros and cons, I have at home... 17mm TS lens. First impression is very very great. Unfortunately, I did not manage to explore it really in the field yet, but look forward to go out within few days and enjoy shooting. <br>

At the same time i got quite confused seeing how much you can do and what is so many of different options are there, especially as you can combine independently tilt and shift functions rotating the lens by every 30 degrees. <br>

I see that it will still take some time to learn go to use it best and what is the workflow in the field. It is really so different from usual lenses. <br>

Thus, I would really appreciate if you could point out some good and comprehensive links on using TS lens in different tilt/shift combinations and workflows of focusing and making composition. I've seen some articles on the web, but most of them gives very basic theory, which is good, but I would love to read something more practical and coprehensive (I found somewhere video's but lost it on web and don't remember how get back to it). <br>

Please, share some links, which you found useful walking on your TS path..</p>

<p>Ben, <br>

thanks for posting your impressions on 24 mm lens. Yes, I see and no doubts that 24 mm is a great lens. Somehow, I've seen quite a lot of impressions (good impressions) about 24 mm lens and not so much practical impressions about 17 mm TS lens. I just wondering - why is it so? Is it so that it does not that suitable and thus not so popular. Or is it so that not much people had a chance to have it and thus there are no practical experience. <br>

So, I would appreciate if anyone could give a feedback who practically has the 17 mm TS lens. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this the type of thing you would like to correct with a TS-E lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, yes, indeed - this is exactly what I would like to correct by having TS lens. </p>

<p>Hi, Folks, <br>

thanks so much for your suggestions and thoughts. They are helpful. At the same time I am not yet fully decided which would be a right choice in the give situation. Firstly, to say - I think both focal lengths - 17 and 24 - are valuable for landscape photography purposes. Secondly, in my country, I do not have a possibility to rent any of those lens (simply it is not on the rent), and if it would, I am not sure if this would be very helpful - I am not used to TS lenses yet, thus, I would need time and experience on using it to understand it all benefits. Thirdly, I am still sure that I want to get one (and cannot afford getting both) and expect starting "a new page" in my photography with dramatic landscapes and exteriors of the old village houses.<br>

And the idea of heading to more "dramatic" (I am not sure if this would be the right word to say it) TS lens picture leeds my feelings more to 17 mm option. <br>

I am sure, the great shots are done with both lenses and its focal length. To my current experience (using 17-40mm f/4.0 L) I like wide angle which 17 mm provides however in most cases I really dislike the distortion in the edges (especially such as trees or houses). That was my primary reason to think about TS lens, later I learned that it can provide far more possibilities. <br>

24 mm. focal length has far less distortion, which invites me to think that I might be in very often cases be quite happy with normal (not TS) lens, such as 24-70/f2.8 <br>

I understand that cropping to get the 24 mm results in some situation would be bad idea. Another option would be to shoot with my alternative body - 30D, but I guess this would be just the same as cropping.<br>

I understood that 24 mm. might be of better optical performance and sharper. Such thinking arises from an idea that to make 24 mm. lens is more simply and easy. But in a way, this is just as guess based on theory. I have not seen any real comparison of the optical performance. At the same time, I understood that both lenses simply are superb in their quality, thus the performance differences are too minor. <br>

yes, it is great that 24 mm lens has a possibility for attaching a filter and pitty that 17 mm does not have such option. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>HI, thank you so much. I got three important and valuable learnings:<br>

1. then you shoot on raw, noise reduction settings on camera just do not work. <br>

2. I did not see Noise Ninja software before, now I downloaded and tested the trial on Aperture - it looks indeed impressive! thanks for that. I still do not have Aperture 3, just the older version, thus I do not know if Aperture will offer any new tool for noise reduction.<br>

3. The test show that I should not bother with ISO till 1600, which is impressive. However in practice, there is difference slowly starting at 400. But now it looks OK then you know that you can effectively manage i (with Noise Nija) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you literally need every single focal length covered?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, actually, I do not need every single focal length, even sometimes it is conformable. I noticed that my "favorite" lengths on this range are 24, 40, 50, 70</p>

 

<p>I have 5D Mark II, which I got with certain expectations, among which was also hoping to shoot on high ISO rates without significant noise. I do not have extreme needs of high ISO, but somehow I was expecting to shoot e.g. at ISO 1600 and do not have noise visibly impacting pictures. <br>

However, I've noticed that shooting till ISO 400 is just perfect, while already with ISO 600 noise appears, which is kind of limiting factor for me and I try not to have higher ISO than 400. I shoot wildlife and in early mornings I would appreciate higher ISO rate, but hesitating to push so in order to avoid noise. <br>

I really do not like digital noise, probably also that I do not how to manage it. I treat pictures with Aperture where I did not find noise reduction tools. Further I treat with Photoshop, however somehow strangely noise reduction tool is not noticeable (at least to the level I would like to).<br>

I know that 5D II is a nearly perfect body, no complains at all - the "problem" is obviously with photographer (me). Maybe I have my settings wrong set on camera. In custom functions under "high ISO speed noise reduction" I have set on "Standard". <br>

Can you advise me:<br>

1. what CFn setting I should have under "high ISO speed noise reduction" to work best - to have minimum noise and at the same tome do not compromise with the image quality. I am really "peferctionist" on maintaining the best quality (by the way, of course, I shoot RAW only). <br>

2. Your experience: what is you highest ISO rate, which you shoot and at the same time do not bother about noise (in other words - how high you secturly use your ISO without having significant noise?)<br>

3. What software/settings you use (and which are most effective) for noise reduction?<br>

Appreciate to get your thoughts. </p>

 

<p>I would say the core question to answer in thinking towards that direction is about optical quality of 17-40 f/4.0L, 24-70 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4.0. Which of those lenses has the best optical performance starting at 24 mm and ending up to 70 mm. <br>

The 17 mm focal lens I will most probably achieve by the new TS 17 mm lens, while beyound 70 mm focal lengh I have covered in really nice 70-200 f/4.0L lens. <br>

Somehow 50 mm lens is somehow good on its own. </p>

 

<p>Martin and others - thanks so far, look forward for more opinions. <br>

Martin, I also have 17-40 mm and I do like using 17 mm. However, at the same time, I avoid using 17 mm due to high distortions. This is why I also take pictures at e.g. 24 mm focal length where distortions are significantly lower.<br>

This is why I seriously considering TS lens which would avoid such distortions by shifting possibility. </p>

<p>hey, <br>

I own 5D Mark II and which I use a lot with 14-40 mm f4.0 L zoom and 50 mm. f1.4 prime. Both lenses are ok, however, with the 17-40 mm I am not so happy about quality using 17-20 mm. focal length (further it goes OK). WIth 50 mm 1.4 I am also not perfectly happy mostly due to high vignetting. <br>

Thus I got an idea about selling those and instead buy the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 mm f/4.0L. In principal, I do not need more focal lengh than 70 mm, because my other lens is 70-200 f4.0L with which I am very happy. <br>

So... do you think it would be good idea to change (17-40/f4.0 and 50/f1.4) to one of those (24-70/f2.8 or 24-105/f4.0)?</p>

 

<p>hey, <br>

I own <strong>EOS 5D MarkII</strong> and currently planning to get Tilt and Shift lens. The primary purpose for using it would be landscape photography, but of course, I would look forward to benefit from other opportunities provided by such lens. I do not know if it would suitable, but would be ideal if it would fit for close-up photography with perspective background. <br>

<strong>At the moment, I cannot decide which one to get - 17 mm f/4L or 24 mm f/3.5L</strong>. I've seen few post on this, which did not provided clear dominant opinion, thus I would appreciate if you would share your ideas and experiences, especially from the landscape photography point of view. <br>

Since I use full frame camera, I've heard an opinion that 17 mm. might appear too wide and 24 mm would suite in more situations. But isn't it so, that using 17 mm I would still get a chance to crop the image and get an 24 mm effect?<br>

I really do not mind paying bigger price for 17 mm., performance quality and usability is most important thing.<br>

<strong>What about optical performance of both lenses</strong> - are they both equally good? I understand that with 17 mm. I would not be able to use CirPol filters, which is disappointing. This would be possible with 24 mm.<br>

What about the DOF of those lenses? - I've read an opinion that with 17 mm. I would not be able to get shallow DOF with tilting the lens. Is it true?<br>

I would also appreciate if somebody would post some links with landscape pictures taken with 17 mm lens.</p>

<p> </p>

Hi, has anybody tried to migrate RAW processing from previous verison of Aperture (1,5) to new RAW

processor in Aperture 2,0? Any feedback on this? good/bad results? Is it really better?

 

I have found only very few information on this on Aperture web.