jesper_hansen3

Thank you all, I'll conclude that my 6D is

performing normally.

Since the limitation is with the strobes, I still

find it weird that my three different bodies

have had three different sync speeds with

the same trigger and same strobes - but it is

not important, as long as it is not a defect

with the 6D.

Thanks.

<p>Thank you Bob, you are absolutely right that it does not matter when using probes as the only light source, I do understand that. So my worry was mainly about my new camera being OK or not, since I am not fully sure why it would be performing worse than my previous bodies with the rest of the equipment being the same. I get from your post that 1/120 is not unusual and that the bigger sensor might be part of the explanation for the difference to my old bodies.</p>

<p>Hi, I would be happy to get your input on the following:<br>

I recently bought the 6D and basically I am using it in pretty much the same way as my previous Canon bodies: 400D a long time ago, then the 50D. I use studio flash in a studio I have been using for years, and also have a portable kit with two heads. With both setups I use cheap radio triggers, which have usually served me fine, apart from a black frame every now and then.<br>

Now, here is what bothers me a bit: With my cheap old 400D I usually got away with 1/200 shutter speed with both setups. The 50D I would set to 1/180, 1/160 to be sure that no frames had a dark edge. Now with my new 6D, I had severe dark right edges on every frame until I set it at 1/120.<br>

So, first, is my 6D working as it should? I am aware that the higher advertised sync speeds is for speed lites, but 1/120? Next, out of curiosity, can anyone make me see the logic in different bodies resulting in different sync speeds with the same equipment, and the supposedly most pro model performing worst? Has full frame anything to do with this, like "longer travel time" for the curtains when moving across the sensor?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Jesper</p>

<p>Lots of great advice and good points made. For the future readers of the thread, let me just add what I actually ended up with:<br>

I brought my 50D to a retailer, and tried both the EF-S 17-55 IS 2.8 and the 16-35L 2.8. I know that taking a handfull of shots on the street is not exactly scientifically correct testing, but I already read all of the correctly performed tests on the net anyway.<br>

So I took a few shots of a quite busy store front on the other side of the road, and of a close by street sign with good contrast and clear text. I used each lens at 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6. Using the center AF point, a fast shutter speed, and both the short and the long end of the range.<br>

Stating the obvious, the L lens was more pleasant to handle, especially the zoom ring. I compared the best frames from each lens for each motive, and at each aparture etc., using 1:1 size on the camera display (again, not scientifical, I know). Not much visible difference, but the EF-S lens appeared sharper at 2.8 at the widest zoom setting with sharper edges on the text of the street sign. Background blur was nicer and softer on the L lens. At 4.0 and 5.6 apartures, the images seemed very identical, EF-S lens generally appearing very slightly darker, despite identical camera settings.<br>

I bought the EF-S lens, saving $450 dollar for the next lens, and quite convinced that on my 50D the EF-S lens will serve the original purpose well: Being wide, fast and sharp (for a zoom, at least). IS, to me, is an added bonus. The extra money for the 16-35L would have bought me full-frame compatibility, which I don't need, better build and handling which is not a requirement for me, and a red stribe which I admittedly really wanted, but I'll get over it :)<br>

Jesper.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your responses. Still find it is kind of a hard decision :)<br>

I've been looking at the ISO chart image comparison over at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398</a><br>

In those pictures, the 16-35L (or 24-70L for that matter) seems by far superior in image quality compared to the 17-55, but I think that the "comparison" is in effect more a comparison between crop factor and full-frame, since the L lenses are all shot with the 1Ds IV and the EF-S lens is shot with the 50D. I think the 50D would never reach the pixel level sharpness of a full frame body, so the lens-to-lens comparison in this case is not really valid?<br>

Do you agree with that assumption?</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I need a reasonably wide zoom which needs to be sharp and with minimal CA. It needs to be good in low light and indoor situations. I am using a 50D.<br>

I have had the EF-S 17-85 IS for a few years, and it disappointed me from day one - not fast and not sharp, so most of the time I use my primes anyway (Canon 100 2.8 macro, Sigma 50 1.4 EX DG HSM). A few days ago, I convinced myself that I should buy the 16-35 2.8L II lens, despite the high price tag. Checking reviews online, I was surprised to find the many recommendations of the EF-S 17-55 IS 2.8 lens - some of them stating that image quality is on par with the 16-35, due to L class glass being used.<br>

I know that the L series has much better build quality. I also know that the EF-S will not fit a full frame. Both of these facts are totally acceptable to me. But I don't want a mainstream zoom with mediocre quality again. Is it "safe" to buy 17-55 IS 2.8 or will I still get better image quality from the L lens?<br>

I already read various reviews (the-digital-picture.com has great details on both lenses), so mostly I just need thumbs up or warnings regarding each of the lenses if you own them, or have good or bad experiences with one of them.<br>

Thanks a lot,<br>

Jesper.</p>

<p>Great info - basically the 580 could help me out all through the event - both with and without flashing.<br>

I also found your description of the no flash at high ISO custom setting. If I understand it correctly, simply switching to a high ISO would mean that flash would be disabled, but I would still benefit from the AF assist. Selecting a low ISO again would enable the flash. Seems like a great setting for low light event fotography.<br>

Thanks for all your great advice.</p>

<p>@Nadine, got you, that's what I wrote: "Not capable of doing any AF *assist* on its own" :)</p>

<p>@Mark - respect, but I don't have the skill or experience to pull that off yet :)<br>

@Nadine - thanks, your answers and links are extremely helpfull. And of course it is the 580EX II flash. It never failed me before - I'll check the hotshoe.<br>

I almost always do OneShot AF. Do I understand you correctly that the 50D is not capable of any AF assist on its own, but mounting the ST-E2 would do this? That is new to me, but vital knowledge for a situation like this. Thanks.</p>

<p>Recently I photographed a teen party with my Canon 50D. I would really like some input about how to do this kind of low-light job right.<br>

Here are some of the problems I encountered:<br>

Starting out with reasonable light, I used Sigma 50mm 1.4, high ISO and no flash to keep the mood. Autofocus was quite unreliable though. When light levels dropped further, autofocus stopped working, especially the Sigma lens AF was completely useless. Isn't there supposed to be some red AF assist light in these situations?<br>

Did manual focus for a while, and then light dropped to very low. Pulled out the 540EX flash, and the 17-85 IS. Was unable to do indirect light with the flash, since the roof was like 8 meters up. So, pointing the flash straight forward, and dialed in -1 in flash level compensation, to try to keep it down, and also -1 in exposure compensation to not aim for "normal" light level in the pictures.<br>

The flash refused to do ETTL, simply stating "TTL" in the display instead, and it did not reflect the correct zoom distance of the lens, nor the compensation levels. Insisting on firing the full load everytime, exposure was way off. Normally ETTL serves me well, I often use both one and two flashguns and the ST-E2 master. What happened to my 540EX here? And still AF did not work at all.<br>

In the end I stopped using the 540EX, and used the built-in flash instead. The built-in flash gave me pre-flash to help the autofocus, and the exposure was now in accordance with my compensation settings. Probably the most usefull pictures of the night, even though I would normally do much to avoid the flash-on-camera pictures.<br>

Are the AF and ETTL problems normal? Why would the 540EX not do at least as good a job as the built-in flash?<br>

How do you guys normally handle low-light focusing, and how do you get reasonable pictures retaining just a little bit of the mood when doing nightlife pictures?<br>

All advice welcome - thanks,<br />Jesper.</p>

<p>Nice link, Paul - thanks. I'll do it a day I feel lucky!</p>

<p>Well, got the Sigma 50mm 1.4 home and took some quick snaps of my home made test-board.</p>

<p>Lens is a little bit soft and with less contrast at 1.4 and 1.8, but that is expectable when wide open, I guess. At the wide open apertures, it seems to me that AF is slightly front-focusing, but only when using other focus points than center - I don't know if this makes sense, technically. I am sure it is only visible because of the extremely shallow DOF.</p>

<p>At 2.8 and upwards the results are sharp and with great colors and contrast, and AF focusing seems reasonable fast and fine - all focus points included. It may be helped by the fact that DOF is less shallow here. At 4.0 and up, the lens seems to be at its very best. Results are great, comparable to or better than my 100mm 2.8 macro, which was the benchmark I set out to match in the original post. The lens is solid, feels like great quality, much better handling on the camera than the small and light 1.8 mkII, and with an impressing 77 mm front it looks good as well :) </p>

<p>I still think this lens has the potential to become my next favorite. If it is reasonable that it costs several times the price of the 1.8 mkII is a completely different discussion :)</p>

 

<p>Hello again,<br>

original poster here :) Thanks for all of the recommendations and for pointing out some of the issues to consider. Hope that my post didn't have the side-effect of starting a Sigma vs. Canon war, but I appreciate all the info about brand-related concerns as well. </p>

<p>I thought that I would just let you and future readers know what I ended up with:</p>

<p>At first, it seemed to be a decision between a new 50 1.8 mkII, the Canon 50 1.4, and the Canon 17-55 2.8 zoom. Then the Sigma 50 1.4 which I didn't know about entered the line-up. I decided against the zoom because my 17-85 IS never impressed me, and because I wanted to go wider than 2.8. Didn't want a new 1.8 mkII. I would recommend it anytime, but since my budget is a bit better now, I liked the thought of upgrading rather than replacing. So it was Canon 50 1.4 or Sigma 50 1.4. I was quite sceptical about the "third-party" lens (sorry, Sigma, I know that was a bit unfair) being more expensive than the Canon one. </p>

<p>Fortunately there are several comparisons between them on the net, and lots of reviews and forum entries. As some of you also pointed out, it was easy to completely loose faith in the project, since both lenses actually get a fair amount of "bad experience forum entries", getting bashed for focus issues, construction problems etc. Both lenses fare very well in "formal" tests as well in the many great sample pictures provided by happy, dedicated users.</p>

<p>While reading all of the comparisons and viewing the samples, I actually got quite impressed with the Sigma and its large glass, so I am picking one up tomorrow, naively believing that this *could* be my new favorite prime. IF I get one with AF problems, I will return it, one experience richer and go with the Canon.</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your input - it has been invaluable.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Jesper. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Manuj, Don't get me wrong, I would definately recommend this lens. It served me well for a couple of years and with the very low price, it should be part of the basic kit for most EOS photographers. Being able to spend a bit more now, I want to replace it with something even better, rather than just buying the same again.</p>

<p>The cheap 50mm 1.8 mkII was my first prime, and despite the low build quality it is probably the best value for money I ever had. Easy price to win with such a low price tag. I haven't been using it for a while, though, because the focus mechanism seems a bit "loose". No matter if I use manual focus or autofocus, the focus ring can shift a bit, just like a mm or so. However, it is enough to move the focus plane when at 1.8.</p>

<p>So my question to my fellow Canon users: First, is there anything I can do to fix it myself? A proper repair is not worth it.</p>

<p>Next, and more important: This could be a great excuse for buying something new...<br>

I use a 50D, mainly shoot portrait, beauty and fashion, and I figure I still need something around the 50mm focal length. I already have the 100 mm 2.8 macro and use it alot, because of its sharpness and quality (I am not in the L league, so this lens to me is excellent). As an all-purpose lens I own the EF-S 17-85 IS, but for portraits and studio I never use it, because I always get a bit disappointed when comparing the images to the ones from my 100mm.</p>

<p>The easy choice would be a fast prime around the 50mm again, and preferably with a price mark and quality comparable to the 100mm. Any recommendations or warnings here?</p>

<p>Are there any zoom lenses worth considering, or will they always lack the crisp quality I get from my 100mm? For a great zoom I may be able to spend some more, if it can basically add to my kit what I would else need two primes for (each end of the zoom range). If I get a zoom it need to be significantly better than the 17-85 IS I have, since it already covers the 50 mm area, but the quality disappoints me, and I want the background blur from a faster lens.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot,<br>

Jesper.</p>

 

Having used the 400D (Xti?) for a couple of years, I bought the 50D three weeks ago. Honestly, I find the raw image quality to be pretty much the same. I am just filling my memory cards faster, and pushing my computer's memory and speed to the limits when post-processing the 50% larger imagefiles :)

 

Having said that - 50D is an awesome camera with great features and it is a pleasure to work with, I am very happy with my upgrade. But don't spend the extra money expecting major image quality differences. You just get a way cooler camera, and for me the road to even better images is more about improving my skills, technique and creativity. Apart from the crop factor sensor, your XSi is probably already technically superior to some of the cameras behind many legendary and classic shots through the history of photography.

 

Best regards,

Jesper.

Thank you all for your responses - you have helped restoring my confidence that it is not my workflow or my setup that is wrong. I will just have to workaround the "benefits" of my wide gamut display, when preparing standard sRGB web content ;-)

I think I may have found a possible reason for the exagerated reds I see in my browser - comments are still VERY

welcome though: <br><br>

The EIZO monitor features a wide gamut S-PVA panel, and I found this article at ColorVision's support site:<br>

<a href="http://support.colorvision.ch/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=723"

target="_new">Incorrect Color outside Photoshop on Wide Gamut Display</a><br><br>

Does this sound like a reasonable explanation for my troubles, to those of you who are color management experts? If

so, I guess my only option really is to proof my web galleries etc. on another display? Or can I rely on soft-proofing

to sRGB with preserved RGB values, as described above?

<br><br>

Thank you once again for any comments you may have,<br>

Jesper.

Hi, once again a question about conversion between color spaces - implicit and explicit. <br>

I have a good understanding of color spaces and profiling, know the difference between conversion and assigning a

profile, know about applications being color managed or not and so on. Still something that I don't understand

though,

I hope someone here can enlighten me ;-)<br>

<br>

I am on a hardware calibrated EIZO S2231W LCD. My monitor profile created with Spyder2Express is assigned as

default profile in the color management settings of the "Display Properties | Settings | Advanced" dialog (Windows XP

Pro x64).<br>

<br>

<li>I have Adobe RGB as working color space in Camera, DPP and Photoshop CS2</li>

<li>I use Lightroom 1.1 for my overall work-flow, and as far as I know, that will by design mean working momentarily

in ProPhotoRGB</li>

<li>I have set up in Lightroom so that photos are transfered to Photoshop as 16-bit AdobeRGB PSD files</li>

<br><br>

I believe this is "by the book", and it all seem to work very well - I am very satisfied with the colours I see, and with

the consistency between these (all color-managed) applications.<br>

<br>

What puzzles me is the way my pictures look when leaving AdobeRGB, specifically when creting web contents. I

know from a thousand existing threads that I should just use Safari and forget about un-managed colors, so don't get

me wrong, but I am just desperately trying to understand what is going on... It seems like the photos get extremely

saturated with the reds and yellows way off.

<br><br>

To check if you see the same difference, here is an example with Lightroom's internal web gallery view (to the right,

good colors) and the same gallery as it looks like when selecting "preview in browser" (to the left, over-saturated reds

and yellows on my monitor).<br>

<a href="http://fotoportfolio.dk/colors_off.jpg" target="_new">Example</a><br>

<br>

<li>

Is this the effect of the conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB - I guess not, because that conversion should

mean "mapping" to similarly perceived colors in sRGB color space, so that the photo would look somewhat the

same, right?</li>

<br>- or -<br>

<li>Is this the effect of the photo not being color managed at all, and is it only remarkable on my display - do you

see it? It seems to me that the un-managed colors must relate to the actual physical settings on the display itself -

since the IE browser is not aware of the monitor profile, what I see is a dumb, "native" display of the pixels using

absolute color values, right? Is my monitor factory settings so extreme, that everything not color managed looks

completely over-saturated, and to you it maybe look OK?</li>

<br><br>

Just one more note - when loading the example pic in Photoshop, and use Proof Colors with sRGB and preserve

RGB values, the saturation drops, and the picture on the left is actually the one closest to my original. I have an idea

that this approach would actually show me how the colors look unmanaged on an "average" display. Is this idea

correct?

<br><br>

I hope that someone can see some logic or reason that I miss here - I was convinced that my setup was good, but

the many problems related to my web output really has me wondering if somethings wrong anyway.

<br><br>

Thanks for taking the time,<br>

Regards, Jesper.

Just to wrap this up, in case someone hit this thread sometime in the future - I can't get rid of the color cast, but it turns out to be highly dependant on the subject - with lots of light red and skintones in the image, the Canon EPPPro plugin exagerates the magenta and reds significantly. However, it is easy to correct with the individual color controls in EPPPro, and at least the preview always matches my prints close-to-perfect.

Thanks Patrick - Canon DPP has a specific setting "Color space to use for Easy PhotoPrint Pro plugin" and I have a Canon document instructing me to set this to Adobe RGB, which I have done, so I would expect it to behave accordingly... But testing this specific setting with sRGB instead could be interesting anyway. What really puzzles me is that this is Canon software and hardware all the way through, and I am basically following the recommendations of their "Digital Workflow" folder...

A lot of things works very well in my digital workflow, but after switching my

camera and working color space from sRGB to Adobe RGB, I am seeing huge

differences in color tone when using the Easy PhotoPrint Pro plugin,

regardsless of using DPP or PS. My EIZO screen is calibrated with a Spyder and

my Pro9000 prints match my on-screen print previews really, really good.

 

Camera 400D, RAW, Color space: Adobe RGB 1998

 

DPP, Settings: Working Color space: Adobe RGB 1998, Display Profile: Monitor

profile from calibration, Color space to use for EPPPro: Adobe RGB 1998

 

Everything looks great so far and all colors are as expected.

 

Now open the Easy PhotoPrint Pro plugin, still from within DPP.

 

Now the image displays with a strong red/purple cast in the print preview. And

it will print exactly as ugly as the preview, proving the effectiveness of my

monitor calibration and Canons preview functionality :-/

 

It *looks* exactly as a case of double profile conversion but I can't figure

out why or where. I use recommended settings for this specific scenario as

given by Canon, but even disabling ICM doesn't seem to affect the bad cast. But

a manual color adjustment of C:15 M:-15 Y:0 will give me a picture matching the

Photoshop/DPP picture almost exactly, in both preview and print.

 

Does anyone know if it is "normal" that the simple loading of an Adobe RGB

image into Easy PhotoPrint Pro is that far off initially? When I used sRGB all

the way through, there would be very little difference between the working

image and the preview, just a tiny bit too much red in some cases.

 

Thanks a lot for any help you might be able to provide.

Regards, Jesper.