david_amberson1

October 27, 2009

Canon strikes again. They need new beta testers or something. Quit giving cameras out to the A%$ kissing people to test and maybe the "testers" would report issues that can be improved instead of "Its the best camera ever made by Canon" BS! If its beta and preproduction, there are tons of issues to be improved before release.

Why is the lowly ol prosumer users that arent "highly regarded" testers always have to be the ones to turn up issues with these cameras to get them right. This is bad for the consumers to spend their hard earned money on an expensive camera only to need constant repair and firmware updates. Sure Canon is getting right on it, but I bet these people that bought their long awaited 7D wished it worked out of the box.

A good friend of mine had 2 swapped out and both had terrible pictures and AF compared to his 40D. He just got his money back. We obviously know their are good bodies out there, but this is happening alot.

I warned him not to buy the 7D just yet. But he couldnt stand it, had to have a better AF system etc. Luckily he was able to get a full refund so he could just hold off till they get this worked out. This shocked me because he was one that wanted the 1D3 soooo bad early on, the AF issue hit and he ran away, warned me not to buy it, I did anyway, got burned, then he ran out and did the very thing he saw me get burned on a year ago. Guess its hard to hold back when they are pitching such a nicely equiped camera. The 1D4 looks awesome, but I can promise, it wont be in my Bag until many have field tested that puppy. I dont have an SI budgte, I buy every piece of my equipment. This white boy wont get burned twice.

October 21, 2009

Sorry, yes drag the shutter is a term that means very slow shutter speed. It doesnt need to be very dark, just so long as the flash is your main light.

How this works is, you slow that shutter down so that the ambient light has a chance to register, and it needs to be slow(meaning un usually slow like 1/6oth or slower) because the light is so low coming from these lamps etc.

Now, how the flash freezes the action is based soley on flash duration speed. How this works is, for sake of simplicity, imagine if you set the shutter/aperture/ISO combo to a setting that if you took the picture without flash, the image would be dark or almost completely black. Now, I dont know the flash duration exactly of my Canon 580EX, but I would guess that its between 1/800-1/1200 depending on flash power output.

So when the shutter is open, the sensor isnt seeing any or enough light to register, but in that brief 800-1/1200 of second, the subject was lit correctly, thus only allowing the sensor to see the subject for only 1/800 which wont allow blur to register unless the bride is throwing a 90mph fast ball LOL. So this is how the flash becomes the shutter.

Now, I said the above for simplicity to help explain. The scene doesnt have to be completely dark for this to work, just so long as the flash dominates the ambient light. I think at a wedding, the ambient only needs to be maybe 1 stop less than flash on subject. I have got break dancing images in dark venue where I was at ISO3200 f/2.8 1/15th. You could see some background motion in candles etc, but the subject was tack sharp, it looked like a cool effect.

Just remember, if the subject moves into an area where they are lit brighter than before, be careful because when the ambient starts to get close to over exposing, this effect works less and less, and you will get blurry images. Pay attention to meter.

Hope this helps. Also, I think Nadine posted a link to Planet Neil somewhere.

You might check that out. He is a much better teacher than I am and so you might understand this better coming from him. He does classes on this stuff, so naturally he would teach this better. I just explained it the way I understand it.

October 21, 2009

I'd like to see a reference to this claim. To the best of my knowledge there's absolutely no relationship between spot AF and AF Stop Button, not in the 7D and not in the 1D4. Happy shooting, Yakim.

</blockquote>

Read the pages from Canon. Its plain as day there. And also, its in one of there videos on the new AF system. Here it is:

Spot AF The new AF system allows for considerable customization, particularly because new controls have been added to the complement of Custom Functions. For example, when C.Fn III-6-7 is set and you press the AF Stop button on a super telephoto lens that has AF Stop buttons, the focusing line sensor's usable area becomes narrower; <img src="../uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2009/EOS-1D%20Mark%20IV%20AF%20System/Spot%20AF%20sensor%20area.jpg" border="1" alt="" width="250" height="307" /> The new Spot AF feature works with certain lenses to reduce the focusing sensor's field of view for greater precision. the focusing field of view is reduced by about half. The AF system can then focus on a smaller area, reducing detection errors caused, for example, when a sensor sees a bit of extraneous background. The following lenses have this feature:

<ul>

</ul>

Some examples of situations in which Spot AF will be effective include staying focused on the eye of a helmeted driver in an open-cockpit racing car, capturing an athlete on a distant victory stand without using a telephoto lens and being confident the cropped photo will be clear enough, capturing baseball players through the backstop and photographing wild animals through trees in a forest. Spot AF works regardless of the AF mode and AF point selection method. It is especially effective for manual AF point selection. However, since the decrease in size may make it difficult to keep the AF point centered on a moving subject, focusing might be difficult. When starting with a scene entirely out of focus, Spot AF focusing may be slow. As a reminder that Spot AF has been set, the AF point display in the viewfinder will flash brighter than normal. Here is the link to that page. <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3107&productID=349&articleTypeID=5">http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=3107&productID=349&articleTypeID=5</a> Canon held out here. But who kows there reasoning behind it.

Sorry, I see it will allow it on the 200 f/2, but its $5200. Didnt know this lens had a Stop Button feature

October 20, 2009

What does that mean, David? A pal of mine is happily experimenting with the 7D's Spot AF with a 100-400mm attached...

</blockquote>

The 1D4 is different. Canon made the Spot AF feature only available when using lenses with an "AF Stop Button" which is only on lenses of 300 f2.8L IS and bigger....costing $4100 or more.

Oh - and if you want to see what the 7D can do in terms of IQ, wait until the likes of Cap One 4 has caught up to it - at the moment you've either got DPP (with NR applied by default) or Lr and ACR which just stink.

</blockquote>

DPP is the best RAW converter for Canon files. If they are soft in DPP, they'll be soft in anything else. Cap One has a heavy hand in NR. I used it for a short time and noticed that what looked like a good job, was huge NR and tons of sharpening. It made edge detail stand out nice, noise was gone, but so was all the fine detail like feathers, and distinct eye lashes in wedding images.

The 7D seemed to track beautifully, even against busy backgrounds the zone and 19 point AF would track well, as long as there was enough contrast between the bird and the background and the bird wasn’t too small in the frame. Overall the focusing felt similar to the 1D III, about the same in acquisition speed and I’d say even better in tracking, as surprising as that may sound.

</blockquote>

Just because this guy say his is good, doesnt mean everyone elses is good. I have read many reports from people getting 7D duds. A good friend had to send his back and swap it out. And have ready too many others that needed to do the same.

I'm not gonna get into a 7D debate with you Keith, that wasnt the reason of my post. My statement was that the 1D4 spec sheet wasnt what I thought it would be, and for $5000 I have every right to wonder why Canon held out. I expected the new iFCL metering to be in the 1D4...nope. The spot AF feature very welcome....not unless you have at least one $4000 lens to use it on. This was marketed as a big Macro thing anyway, and I dont recall many doing Macro photography with a Super Telephoto anyway, but thats just me. I didnt need a VF level, but would have welcomed a new VF. It just seems like they held back a little much for the uped price tag in this economy. I also went on to say that as a 1D3 user, I would have been happy with certain upgrades: 1. Better LCD (Long over due) CHECK Got it 2. A little more resolution would be fine. CHECK Got it 3. Cleaner High ISO. CHECK Got it (maybe, we dont know yet if its the same claimed 7D performance that I havent been impressed with due to smearing everything) Others also have commented on this. Some dont care. 4. New, better AF tracking a biggy. CHECK Got it . Maybe, we havent seen any real reports other than what canon promises. But they promised the 1D3 as well, and now they speak of it like its the Red Headed Step Child, when 3 weeks ago they were saying it was perfect.

We still need to see real images. The ones Canon has posted do look pretty good, though we have no idea what was done. If these are straight Jpegs or just RAW conversions and nothing else, then they are real good.

October 20, 2009

Agree, don't release anything or post an online gallery until you are paid. At this point you should be talking directly to the B/G. Consider yourself fortunate that the bank fees were only $7 and be sure to add that on to their bill.

I don't see this as evidence though that people need to pay 100% of their wedding costs weeks before the actual wedding day. A check for the final amount on the wedding day is still safe as long as you do not release any products till after the check clears.

</blockquote>

Agreed. I wont snap one picture till I have a check for the remaining balance in hand. I do specify in my contract that the remaining half of the package be paid the Monday before her wedding date. This allows check to be at bank and if it doesnt clear, i have time to call them and ask why.

And never give anything over till you have all of your money. I dont agree with the whole idea that the Bride has the right to hold out paymen tuntil they see images....or "until they see and approve on images"

No, you hired me and signed a contract based on images you viewed in my Portfolio. At that point, you are saying you are comfortable with my abilities.

Now, for some reason after I have been paid and you get your images you feel I blew the whole thing and you didnt get anything near the quality I showed you, then take your contract and hire an attorney, sue me and let the jury decide if I gave you quality or not.

I saw a refernece on here once where someone said Caterers have the right to be paid in full, not photographers because once food is eaten, its gone and the desire to pay is less, but with photographers, they still hold something of value to the Bride/Groom, so full payment is NOT warranted.....I disagree. Get all money up front and clear before photographing wedding. If you dont, you can get screwed.

I have shot many weddings and knock on wood, up to this point, never had an issue with Wedding Payments. And I attribute this to reading others mistakes and sticking to a very tight business plan,

1. Use GOOD Contract

2. Get my deposit of 1/2 for locking her dtae.

3. Get remaining half the Monday before he date. Clear that before Friday.

And all has been good so far. Its simple, you cant go anywhere and get anything before paying. The venue/caterers get paid first. The flourist gets paid first. Dress is paid for in advance. Rings are bought in advance.

Go to Walmart, grab a TV and ask them if you can take it and try it out first, if you like it, you'll come back and pay for it. And nice policeman will be waiting for you at the door. It works like this everywhere, why would it be different for photographers.

Gotta pay first. Good luck.

October 20, 2009

I wasnt impressed with the spec list either....let me rephrase that, I wasnt impressed for $5000. I dont get Canon. They go up on the price while holding out features. I wanted the 7D metering system, not there.

The new spot AF isnt usable on lenses unless they have AF stop buttons. Which means if you dont own a lens for more than $4100, then that wont help you. Thats BS.

I'll wait to see some image examples. I am hoping that Canon went to pros and said, what do you wnat, and what do really care the least about, and the pros said, we want real clean High ISO and super AF tracking, to hell with all the other toy features. SO if this is the case, and it is reality, then OK. I undertsand. I am a Pro that uses the 1D3 and at times I have said, "I just wish this damn thing would track better and have cleaner ISO's, thats all. I dont need all the features they offer."

So we have to wait an see if the images hold up to Canons claims. SO far, the 7D images havent impressed me at all. Many reports early on with failing AF too. The 7D images I have seen and been sent from friends, are not sharp, they look like they have been squashed with NR on chip. So I hope Canons really did improve ISO. Cause with the 7D, it looks liem they improved smearing techniques, not actually noise in file.

Maybe these images will really be stunning, and the new AF will actually work, then the lack of some bells and whistles wont matter.....but, if this thing tanks, and they held out for 5K, its over, I want a divorce.

October 19, 2009

Figured you could see it rather than think it.

This was first dance, down stairs under church. Only lights were twinkle lights on walls an ceiling. I shot this with a 1D3, ISO 2000, f2.8 1/60th 70mm on 24-70 f2.8L.

The subjects were totally black, this is completely lit with flash. Bounced over my left shoulder into a wall and ceiling. My only 2 regrets, not having enough flash gel. I had gelled this flash earlier with 1/2 CTO and set camera to K3700. The gel came off and I lost it. No spare....my fault, I have penty now. And I should have went f4 for that shot at 70mm, but its still acceptable.

So this was bare flash and you can see some slight blue hue in skin. Oh well, bride still loved it. They wanted to turn on some overhead Florescent to help me. I said, dont dare! Had they done that, it would have been aweful color mix and been more difficult for my flash to dominate the subject and could have caused shake and motion blur.<div></div>

October 19, 2009

This is one of those deals where you want your subject in almost no light at all and the background having some light.

When lighting is bad, I want it real bad, This way, I can place my subject in the dark or almost dark areas, have lights on in the background. Drag the shutter and alow my flash to be the "high shutter speed". Dragging the shutter will allow those nice chandaliers lights to register or whatever they use, and you light the subject with your flash.

If this isnt possible, then you want tons of light to allow fast shutter speed. Its those medium levels where say the whole room is lit evenly bad. Where ISO 3200 f2.8 1/60th is the best you can get. This is difficult because when there is enough light to where the flash isnt the main light, then its tough to freeze action. If you dial up the shutter speed and drop the ISO you can then use flash to be main light therefor freezing action, but then you get dark backgrounds where almost nothing registers.

Key is like Nadine says, make sure your exposure is good and bright, not over exposed, but bright, this helps subdue noise.

I really like it either too dark or real bright. My brides always think the reception area is hard for me when they walk in and either none or almost NO lights are on. Its not, I can go ISO1600/3200 or whatever. I like to use f4 or f5 to keep both people in the DOF, using a 50 1.2 at 1.2 will almost guarentee very little to be in sharp focus.

So I use manual exposure, start at ISO 1600 set aperture to say f4 or f5. Then, with flash off, I take pictures and slow shutter down till I get background lights, lamps, candles etc to register pretty good or acceptable. If the shutter is like 1/15, ok this is too slow. It wil still freeze action, but there will be alot of background motion/shake.

So, I'll go ISO 3200 and raise the shutter to maybe 1/50-1/60th. Now that I have that right, I flip flash on to add light to my subject, and this freezes the action, and if you have good bounce technique, it can look like you used off camera lighting.

I try to make sure as many of the little candles around are lit, any lmaps are lit, any table lights etc. All this is somethig to register in the background. When at the brides house, I'll find a nice table lamp or so to turn on, then place them in front of that. They think I'm crazy, but after they see it, they see why.

This adds nice glow in background instead of dark grey wall. It works well.

Hope that helps.

October 19, 2009

Again, it sounds like there will be a reasonable explanation once you make direct contact, just be carefull and give opportunity to explain and make right. I did the above once before too, and the reason for no call response was her phone was stolen. She just didnt read emails regular. It doesnt always mean shes avoiding you.

Then, if they just felt like stopping the check and have some rediculous reasons etc, fill the blank. But did I say be carefull.

October 19, 2009

Hang tight. More often than not, these are just errors that are unintentional and will most likely have a good explanation.

I had a customers check bounce one time after I gave them the photos. I was notified 5 days after deposit and delivering prints in person.

I called her, no answer, left message that it was urgent business matter to call me back, no answer, 3days after emails and phone calls, no answer. The lady didnt seem like she was shady, but who knows.

Well, after about 1 week, I called her again.....she answered. Shocked, wasnt expecting an answer. Told her what had happeend and she nearly cried.

She wen ton to explain that she had lunch with her daughter at the local mall, left her purse, came back and cell phone was gone, wallet, credit cards, cash, check book, car keys....an empty purse.

She told me she had to stop all checks out, start a new account(which is why my check bounced), all new credit cards, new cell phone drivers license etc. Whew. New car keys these days with Anti Theft systems cost her $300+ the towing because she was then stranded.

Its hell when tards steal you know.

But she sent me a cashiers check in the mail with an additonal $40 for fees etc.

You never know when things like this happen, be gentle with this, if you show your ass and then the above happens, the you actually look like an ass.

Give it some time, and be carefull! This si the fastest way to make an enemy and bad word of mouth on business

October 8, 2009

Bob, ok. But my point was the sensors are the same, they are supposed to be identical. I bet in most cases, they are. Not much quality control goes into software which would be what controls noise on sensor since they are all manufactured the same.

A software version would be the difference. A software version isnt controlled by the individual. Its preset by development. So I dont see where there can be any real differences to be measured when individuals are just loading software. its loaded or not.

Ok if the exposure isnt exactly spot on from body to body. But all things equal, 50-30D's should produce identical noise.

October 7, 2009

Good decision Oleg, I guarantee you wont regret it.

Manuel, I said nothing about the 1D and 1Ds being bad. Not anywhere in my post's. I said the FF sensors are the best in comparison to Canons other sensors.

I also said the old film was a thing of the past in regards to Anthonys comment. And I stand by that. I'll let anyone here take there best shot with their film preference and I'll beat everyone of them hands down with Canons newest equipment. In fact, I'd bet it would only take a late crop body to do it. I've looked at hundreds of model shots from the best using film and everyone of them doesnt record hair like the better digital does. You just dont see the differnce until they are side by side in comparison. Then it become real obvious which is better. It will make you wonder why it took so long to realize how much better this digital stuff is.

OK....I feel an "I dont believe you comment...so I'll go ahead and put up a link just as one example....that also includes an old 1DII that still beats film. See for your self <a href="http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Canon_Film_Test.htm">http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Canon_Film_Test.htm</a>

You go right ahead and use your Porta NC 160. Knock yourself out. If you love that look and the experience of using film, thats your business, but when you want real image quality, something that looks like its still right in front of you, gotta get yourself a FF 35mm digital and good lens, and it will smoke any film you put in front of it. Those who have used both film and late FF digital will concur, those who have never experienced a large sensor, they just dont know....yet.

October 7, 2009

I upgraded from a 40D to a 5D and personally I think it is a world of difference.

</blockquote>

I just went from a 30D to a 5DM2 and I have to say, I'm astounded at the difference.

</blockquote>

Thats because there IS a difference.

You already have better gear the most of the famous photographers had prior to the 1960's and they seemed to do quite well.

</blockquote>

Yes they did well in THE 60's. That junk doesnt fair too well these days unless thats the look you are going for, dull, grainy. That was then and that was the best they had to use back then. Now, even the old 1DII outperforms the old film from that era. Maybe you dont see the actual image quality/clarity improvements of today, but many do. Composition/exposure wise only practice will create a better picture, but overall image quality in relation to clarity, smoothness, sharpness, and a depth that looks life like can only be achieved with great equipment. I'm sorry, but all of you out there hung up on the dream that you alone will make you pictures seem more life like are doing just that....just dreaming. Reality is, until you ditch the Rebel XTi with 18-55 kit lens and step up to a 5D or so with an L lens, you'll never see what you were missing. Theres a differnce, dont kid yourselves.

October 7, 2009

This whole post proves that there are some out there that just dont know the difference between good noise control or bad. And it also proves how subjective the "which camera" thing is.

I must have some very good samples of 30Ds or just good technique because the high ISO performance of my 30Ds is comparable to the 5D

</blockquote>

All 30D samples produce the same noise, there arent such things as ringers in this area and technique has nothing to do with the amount of noise the sensor produces as long as its exposed correctly. But the idea of being a good photographer wont change the way a sensor produces noise. And the 10,20,30,40,50D are in no way comparable in noise control to any of the 5D's. I have a 40D and its noise is almost identical to the previous models and I also shoot a 1D3 and its not even close. The 1D3 at ISO1600 looks like the 40D at about 640-800ISO. Some of my ISO1600 shots with the 1D3 you cant even see any noise in the image unless viewed at 100%. You can see noise in the 40D at 0% at ISO400 sometimes. This proves how subjective it is. To some, they either dont know what noise is, or they dont care or care a lot less about it than others.

If you know anything about photography, you will see the difference immediatley.

As for comparison, folks all these test you are doing with the 5D and one lens, the 20/30D with another will absolutley fudge the results. The two lenses will resolve differently and produce vastly different color characteristics. One aperture sweat spot on two different lenses are different. Its edge performance characteristics are vastly different. Hardly a way to evaluate the differences in bodies.

The only real way to test the bodies sensors against one another, is to do as I said above,

Set your tripod and use a lens like the 70-200 that mounts to the tripod instead of the camera body, this will allow you to leave the lens without moving it when transfering bodies to the lens. Zoom the to say 200mm on the 5D, focus and take the shot. Then dismount the 5D, mount the 20D and zoom the lens to a wider focal length to match what you saw in the 5D image. Just use the LCD to find something common in the edge of the screen or so. Dont use the Viewfinder for this, the 20D doesnt cover the whole image like the 5D. Look at the LCD....as this is your image.

</blockquote>

This will ensure the scene doesnt move too much and you are at least using the same lens.....this makes showing body differences much easier. Trying to use one prime on a 5D and a wider prime on the 20D is....

October 6, 2009

Yes...it will. One thing, the image size has no bearing on print quality. I know many say these huge 50MB TIFF files will print much better than the 2-3MB jpegs....BS!

I made a 57MB TIFF file from RAW on my 40D back in 2007 I guess, the image is in my profile, its the eagle looking towards the camera. I also had a 1.5MB jpeg of the same image and cropped the same for 16x20.

Not paying attention, Iwhen I loaded the file at Wolf Camera, I accidently loaded the jpeg that was 1.5MB. Went home and before I was ready to go back and pick it up, I noticed which file I had uploaded(file name) and it wasnt the TIFF. When I arrived, it was too late, the print was half way hanging out and I told them what had happened, they said just load the TIFF, they'd reprint it for me and it didnt take long cause I was the only one there. Well, both came out and on the counter, me my wife and 3 other printers could not tell them apart. They were identical. If there is a difference between a 16bit 50MB TIFF and an 8bit 1.5MB jpeg, I cant see it and neither could anyone else. We even used a magnifying glass and could see no difference. The guy printing thought for sure the big TIFF would be way better, to all of our surprise, it wasnt.

So that out of the way, dont worry about file size in your comparison. You'd have to compress the 5D file anyway to get it to match the default 20D file in terms of MB's, so its pointless. Its about the resolution.

The only way you'll be able to compare the 5D file to the 20D is to make sure the 5D is zoomed in slightly to make it the same field of view as the 20D. Remember, the 5D will have a wider angle view than the 20D so the image wont be the same for comparison purposes. And dont resample the images either, you are comparing what the 2 cameras produce, so this would fudge the results. Use what the camera produces, but make sure the images are almost the same.

Set your tripod and use a lens like the 70-200 that mounts to the tripod instead of the camera body, this will allow you to leave the lens without moving it when transfering bodies to the lens. Zoom the to say 200mm on the 5D, focus and take the shot. Then dismount the 5D, mount the 20D and zoom the lens to a wider focal length to match what you saw in the 5D image. Just use the LCD to find something common in the edge of the screen or so. Dont use the Viewfinder for this, the 20D doesnt cover the whole image like the 5D. Look at the LCD....as this is your image.

Done this way and printing the same image size, the 5D will win hands down. The 5D sensor will make a huge improvement over your image quality. It has more resolution and lots less noise. The noise at say 400ISO will be almost non existent compared to the 20D. The 5D will have a very life like feel to it. For those thats never used a larger sensor over the 1.6x, they dont understand. There is something about the look of the image with FF. Less noise, more resolution, better DOF control. I'm sure the DR is better. You will see an improvement. I went to a 1D3 from my 40D and the image size is exactley the same. But the 1D3 has a 1.3x sensor. I noticed immediatley the 1D3 images even at ISO 400 were soooomuch cleaner, the image had a smooth look to it. But seemed to reveal more detail. They looked as though you could touch the subject. The 40D images were good, but they always had this look like they were speckled or so, they didnt have that clarity of the 1D3, and the FF's are that much better.

That said, you wont see a huge improvement in 8x10 prints, 8MP is plenty for 8x10's. You will most likely see the difference in above 11x14. You will however see a difference in qulity overall and a huge difference on screen which will translate to better prints.

Old 5D or 5D2? Doesnt matter, either will be a huge improvement. I was assuming above you were looking at a used 5D(12MP)

October 6, 2009

In response to Steve F> He was refering to single AF Point, not Single Shot.

I agree he wont get good results with spot AF tracking birds. But he says he used all options. He could try and speed up the AF sensitivity so that it can recover quicker if the AF point sees and switches to another point. He is using the tracking method in CF, maybe he should try the Main Point setting too just to see if it makes a difference. I know it "seems" like the logical choice if you want to track only one subject, but things arent always as they seem. I have seen where others found that using the "Main Point Priority" worked better at times, even though you think it should be the other way around. For me, I would say use the Main Point. This in my mind tells the camera to focus where ever the main point is at that point in time. If he cant keep the AF point on target, then use expansion points to help.

That said, I suspect the f5.6 might be part of the issue. I know the new AF point is supposed to be crosstype at 5.6 and faster.....but, this is small and has always been a limiting factor to AF performance. I never shoot BIF and know many that do state the 400 f5.6 is an awesome lens for BIF. SO who knows.

But, he says that they tried it with same settings on 400 f4DO and 500 f4 and it still had many issues.

Now, I am also from the camp of thinking that his subject was quite small in the frame. At 100%, a subject only covering 5-10% of the frame doesnt have much resolving power for great detail....but it should still be in focus.

It wont be sharp as a tack....it wont have tons of detail....it will appear soft because its being resolved with maybe 1-2MP out of the 18MP.....but it should at least be the sharpest thing in the frame "if" its focused correctly.

I have been on the business end of many AF issues here.....and still say he may have an issue and its not user error.

Why? Because he was able to get acceptable keeper rate with others setup. Even with Canons 500f4 on the his 7D, it didnt make him happy. I dont think he has a so called "Agenda". I would tend to think he wants to be happy with his new camera....just he doesnt feel that way. He wanted to be overwhelmed with the keeper rate coming from 50D....and he's not.

This is a new body....he may actually have just a one bad camera. Its possible. Many others are saying theirs is good. Its very early and hard to tell yet. He says he is sending it back. Maybe if he gets another, it will be better and we can all breath.

I am a 1D3 user and waiting patiently for the 1D4 for incorporate a hotroded version of these new features....but if they suck, then I guess its time for a switch. But I still think its too early and cant go off one user or even 10 for that matter. There were thousands of 1D3 users crying before. So I wait, but so far, the new era of AF looks promising.

If the 7D AF peforms better than the 50D, then its a success for Canon...because we need to remember....this isnt a 1 Series. Its not intended that way. This is a new era for Canon in offering a comparable pro "style" AF in a ProSumer body. We dont know what the 1D4 will have. I think many people are putting too much pressure on the new AF system because it now carries a "Pro" AF system badge. Look at the D300's AF system. The 7D is targeted directly at the D300 and I bet the D300 isnt better at BIF. He tested the 7D against all camera with real Pro AF systems and the D700 which has one of the best in the business right now.

I think many people are looking at the 7D as their easy way of getting a 1 Series without paying $5K......it aint happening folks. Canon only claims its a new and impoved AF system and just because people are calling it a "pro style" AF system, doesnt mean its going to be a MarkIIn. Its "pro style" in terms of competition. The D300 has a pro style AF compared to say the D90, but its not as good as the D3/D700 AF. Just as the 7D is now much betetr than its lower lines under it, but not intended to be like the D700 and incorporate the 1 Series in lower end bodies. Before, the 50D AF wasnt much in comparison with the D300, now, the "7D" is....but thats it. Its not a 1 Series. The noise control isnt gonna beat the 5DII or the 1D3, its gonna be better than the 50D.

Now if thousands of people start saying their 50D was much better, then hey "Houston...we have a problem" But it doesnt mean Canons new AF is gonna have the same issues as the 1D3. Hell, even when the 1D3 was at its worst, the 40D wasnt as good and couldnt even be considered a work around.

October 1, 2009

Richards right, most of these do use the same Fuji Frontier machines for 4x6-8x12. Al Ritz/Wolf and CVS and Walgreens use these machines.

Where the difference/problems come in is operator. At Wolf/Ritz, they have trained people working these machines. At Walgreens, some care and try, others are just your typical tennage thug from around the corner thats just there to earn a $150 paycheck every week. They dont know or care about it being Calibrated and they always seem to click the "adjust" button....you know because they click it on theirs when they do their personal prints(which need it)

I have and still do use a particular Walgreens store when in a pinch, and when the girl that normally works is there, I get the same quality I get from Wolf. Perfect(if my image is perfect).

The difference, she always calibrates the machine when she changes Print cartridges(seen her do it many times) and she never clicks the "adjustment image" button.

As long as your monitor is calibrated, and you send sRGB jpegs to a lab that trys just a little to keep their machines in tune, you'll be good.

When you go in to these stores, you'll spot immediatley which to use and which to just *run* not walk away from.

October 1, 2009

The 135 would be a good choice. Its an excellent lens for sure and f2 will definitley help with shutter speeds and throw that background out of focus....which is what I think you are after. Its razor sharp.

It might be a tad too long for portraits in most cases. Dont misunderstand me, I use my 70-200 f2.8L IS for portraist almost exclusively, but, I can go to 70mm if I dont have the room and find I have to quite often. But, when given the room, I do use it i the 135-200 range and ints great for close up portraits.

That said about the 135 f/2, I dont think the 100 macro is the way to go. I know it seems to have all the specs you need, but I dont know how a macro lens renders portraits. I would tend to think it would have afunny look....I may be wrong, because if I did a portrait today with a macro lens, it'd be my first.

Now, those out of the way, what about the 85 f/1.2L or 85 f/1.8. Both of these are awesome for portraits and both give the light needed. Just a thought.

September 30, 2009

If you've been sending them Adobe files, I bet thats it. I've only seen 2 labs in my area that will read the embedded ICC profile and print that way. Most just use sRGB. Think about it. Probably 75% of the people out there are sending them files froma P&S and have no idea what color space even means.

September 29, 2009

Depending on how much it moves and depending on what you use to edit, but there may be a way.

If you use Lightroom, you can open one and set a larger than needed heal. Then Sync that photo to all in the album and it should cover it in all....provided it isnt moved too far. Go ahead an apply an adjustments you would make to all images at this point so that when it syncs, all images will have those settings. Then just thumb thru all of them and double check as you go.

Other than that, I cant think of anything else you could do....hope you made good money for it if you have to edit all of them.

September 29, 2009

Yes its orange, but I think he intended it that way. Or I think he saw less orange on his monitor. Which is why he said it looked good. Probably no monitor calibration, and boosted to to hell and back Sat. Probably a Ken Rockwell prodigy. A lot of people think bright orange skin tones look good(like a tan). Just ask any high school cheerleader if she'd love to look this way and I'd bet they say yes.

I think its way to orange for my taste. I messed with it. Is this what you thought it should be closer to. All I did was use a dropper for the white in her cloths. It still has a slight pink cast, but much better than before. I wasnt gonna spend 10 minutes on it.<div></div>

September 29, 2009

Use good ol jpegs in sRGB images and "beg no corrections".

Most shops even Pro Shops dont use Adobe Color space. I use Wolf Camera and only the local Pro Shop Wolf here and they dont even use Adobe. They always say sRGB.

There are a few labs that will read your attached ICC profile and print that. If thats the case, they dont make corrections to those....or it negates reading ICC profile of your image.

Ditto everyone else...is your monitor calibrated. Its a must to calibrate the monitor to get results that match what you see. What does it look like on screen.

September 29, 2009

I'm with Patrick, post link to image in question so we can see it. Hard to know what you consider orange cast.

I use a colormanaged workflow as well so I'd like to see if its right on my end. Though I use IE and it SUCKS!(im shouting Patrick)

September 29, 2009

If I were to buy a new Prosumer crop camera, it wouldnt be nay of the 40D/50D. Get the 7D its gonna be worth the extra $$$.

If you want to do weddings, the 5D or 5D2 is the way to go.

September 29, 2009

I assumed it was the newest version as I downloaded it from Adobe yesterday.

Assume....ASS U ME

Downloaded...its there. You RIGHT

You'd think Adobe would give the latest version of their producs upon download. Guess thats what I get for thinkin

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by david_amberson1