bradford_smith

I am perhaps in a similar boat as the OP, looking for a quality monitor upgrade. I have been using the NEC Multisync 3090 WQXi for many years, calibrating with Spectraview and the x-rite Display Pro colorimeter. Given that the PA series of NEC is increasingly unavailable, including no longer at Tiger Direct, are we perhaps left only with Eizo as a quality monitor replacement with good color calibration? I am looking at the Eizo CG2730, which states on B&H "Once connected, the display can be calibrated, to ensure improved color accuracy using the built-in color measurement device along the Digital Uniformity Equalizer (DUE), for true color representation from the center of the display all the way to the edges. To back up the color calibration capabilities of this display, EIZO has utilized their own microchip designed for precise and consistent color quality. This EIZO monitor also comes with a copy of ColorNavigator software and light protection shields." I have been very happy with my NEC monitor and Spectraview calibrations, but it is getting long in the tooth. I am curious if the EIZO setup might be a suitable quality replacement and offer the quality and ease of use I am accustomed to with NEC/Spectraview?

I can echo Andrew's comment. I had my Epson P800 out of service for over a year during a household move. I fired it back up recently and did a nozzle check. There was one color which was showing some skipping so I ran a cleaning cycle. The one nozzle still showed skipping but much less. I ran one more cleaning cycle and all nozzles were 100% good.

I dont believe that is correct. From my experience using the 5D MK IV with grip. Both batteries are being drained equally at the same time. I see this when charging both batteries, they are drained equally and take about the same recharge time, even when topping them off from partially drained states.

 

Essentially they are two batteries in parallel so you have doubled the amp hour capacity of the camera. I had grips on my older Canon APS-C cameras also. When using those cameras with an older 2000 era Canon 100-400mm lens, I noticed the lens just responded faster in AF using the grip. Even the IS seemed to be more stable.. The lens motors are being powered from the camera. Some lenses may have more of a power draw. Depending on the model camera and battery, entry level EOS, prosumer, or professional, the power available for the lens and camera body could vary on battery model and age of battery and current draw and remaining voltage in the battery. There is a window where the camera will function and it has a little play but performance may vary.

 

It is possible how fast the lens can focus will depend on current draw and available power, so this could have some bearing on FPS. I recall a discussion about noise also and that photos taken with a partially drained older battery may be a little noisier than those taken with a new fully charged battery. I have searched for this discussion and have not found it yet. I believe that discussion was discussing third party batteries and new and used Canon batteries and noise in photos being worse with weak batteries. The discussion could also have been around a comment that someones camera seemed to be taking noisier photos than when it was new, and that may have been how the whole battery discussion came about. Old batteries with less charge capacity and less power for the camera sensor and processor.

Thanks for the clarifications, Mark. I never owned a grip, but only recalled another user state what I had posted above when I was considering getting a grip for my Canon 7Dii. I had hoped it would help with faster AF, especially on my longer lenses, but was told it wouldn't, so I never pursued the grip. It's nice to hear of your first-hand experience being otherwise.

I do not own either the 6D or 70D, but my understanding is that the Canon battery grips, although they contain 2 batteries, deplete only one at a time. I assume this approach gives you no benefit when you need more power in the moment. I believe it only helps with increasing the length of time you can shoot. I wish it were different, or that a switch were offered so you could select either benefit as you need it.

Mark,

 

Thanks for answering my questions.

 

I realize now that I was confusing Dual Pixel Raw with Dual Pixel AF, which has been around for a few years longer. I do like the DPRSplit capability made available by Dual Pixel Raw in the sense that it may be an insurance policy against blown highlights in those cases where you have only one image/exposure. In travel photography, for example, you may not always have the luxury of spending the time to take multiple exposures, or maybe even get the exposure exactly correct in the one image you have.

 

Personally, I've been quite happy with my 5Div and don't have a need for greater resolution.

And looking at those numbers now. What am I thinking? I must be nuts, chasing sharper more megapixels. :confused:

:cool: Maybe I seriously should reconsider it all at those prices. I should just be happy. And so goes the argument in my head. lol.

 

Mark,

 

I've been a member here for a several years, but don't post much. I believe you own a 5D Mk IV, as do I. I'm curious what you are trying to achieve with these considerations? I may have missed a post. Is is simply resolution? That seems to be the common denominator of the two bodies you are considering. Are you not happy with your 5D iv? Have you tried Dual Pixel RAW with initial processing DPP for improved resolution? Also, I have just begun to consider using Dual Pixel RAW, as it can also give expanded dynamic range. I am impressed with the expanded dynamic range aspect--see DPRSplit: boost Canon's Dynamic Range by +1EV (Dual Pixel).

<p>Not personally, but you might like to read this:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/canon-eos-5ds-5ds-r-dslrs?cm_mmc=EML-_-Content-WeeklyContent-_-150620-_-Header_Explora_Canon-5DS-5DSR</p>

 

<p>Thanks for everyone's comments.<br>

I had been using a Canon EF 100-400 (purchased new), but recently sold it. I was using it as my lens for birding and other wildlife. I used it for a few years both with a Canon 7d and a full frame, although mostly with the 7d for the added effective reach. I was never happy with the 100-400 since most if not all of my images were soft (on two different bodies), even when shot from a tripod with mirror lockup. I even tried running Focal on the 7d/100-400 combo but it was so bad at 400 mm, that Focal was unable to converge and recommend a micro-adjustment setting. Maybe my 100-400 was a bad copy but it had gone back to Canon NJ for rework after an IS failure but before the attempt at improvements with Focal. The Canon repair report said that after rework all functions had been confirmed. They also said they "adjusted center/tilt/front/back focus cleaned factory specs." (their English) If the 100-400 had not been so soft, I would probably still be using it, perhaps with a 1.4x external extender to get some added range when needed. But, alas, I recently sold my 100-400 somewhat in disgust. That leaves me without anything above 200 mm.<br>

I like the versatility of a zoom covering the 200-400 mm range, especially with the 1.4 built-in extender taking the range out to 560 mm all in one lens. If Canon had a newer version of the 100-400, I would probably give it serious consideration as I am not particularly eager to spend $$$ for their 200-400, and it is somewhat of a beast. However, I really don't see there being lots of alternatives.<br>

As an aside, I note that I could buy a new Nikon 200-400, a new Nikon APS-C body and a couple of extenders for less than Canon's 200-400. I don't really want to do that since all my other gear is Canon.</p>

<p>David,<br>

Thanks for your comments. I was really asking about AF delays when using the built in extender. If there is someone out there with first hand experience I would appreciate a reply. Any experience with an external extender added on to this lens would also be useful information to have, as I am giving some consideration to buying this lens.</p>

<p>Yes, that is what I intended--sorry for not being clear. In the post I referenced there was some discussion of this for the EF 600. There is some inertia in these large lenses which slows the AF action. This would presumably be most noticeable in AI servo mode shooting bursts of a moving subject, perhaps causing some tracking delays which may or may not be tolerable.</p>

<p>I had posted this question inside another post (http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00cLaL?start=20) where it was suggested I start a new thread. Can anyone comment on the latency of the Canon 5D MkIII when used with the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X (lens with the extender built in), both with the 1.4x off and on?</p>

 

<p>Not to divert the thread, but does anyone know the latency of the 5D MKIII with the <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_200_400mm_f_4l_is_usm_extender_1_4x">EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X</a> and the 1.4x switched on?</p>

<p>On my Epson 3880 I still have several prints worth of ink left after the low ink light starts to flash. I do not know about your Canon, but I suspect there is no harm in leaving the low cartridge in place as a trial to see how it continues to work in your case. The Epson will stop printing when the ink cartridge is no longer usable by the printer and give a message. That has happened in the middle of a print on more than one occasion. Even if I replace the out-of-ink cartridge in the middle of a print, I do not detect any flaws in the final print--the printer just starts again where it stopped.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I sent back my 5D (Classic) for sensor cleaning. It was a month or 2 out of warranty, but they cleaned and adjusted it for free anyway. It came back quickly, nicely cleaned and fully functional. My 5D went back a 2nd time for a detached mirror--a problem that was somewhat common with this camera. The NJ site repaired the mirror quickly and at no cost.<br>

More recently, I had my 100-400 repaired for failed IS while the lens was in warranty. It took 2 round trips to get this issue resolved. When it came back after the first "repair", it wasn't repaired at all. They did send me a shipping label to return it again, so I didn't have to pay the shipping/insurance a 2nd time. The did give good, prompt service on the 2nd attempt. They said the failure-to-repair the first time was due to the IS chip being incorrectly mounted. <br>

Maybe 6 months after getting the 100-400 lens back the 2nd time, the IS slider broke off, which I thought was a bit odd since the lens had seen no rough treatment. I actually found the slider sitting on my desk next to where I kept the lens. This fix was $300 (ouch!). I still have some lingering thoughts that the slider failure was somehow related to the earlier repair, despite their claim that the 2 events were unrelated.<br>

So, for me, their record is a bit mixed. They have shown a kindness to disregard that my 5D warranty period had expired by a month or 2 and fully repair the mirror failure at no charge, but then later had a more spotty record on their repair of my 100-400. Turnaround was always quick, but not completely effective on the first go.</p>

<p>Were these handheld? Did you correct for ghosting? The images appear soft, not fully aligned and somewhat ghosted.</p>

<p>Kent,<br>

<br />I agree that Bart's tool can appear a bit daunting at first. It is really not as hard as it first seems, and you don't really need to know about convolution integrals to use it. Here are the key steps to his process. First, download and install ImageJ and print a copy of Bart's target. ImageJ is very helpful with the point and area selections needed in Bart's steps 1 & 2. Load an <em>unsharpened</em> TIF file of the target image shot at the measurement focal length and f-stop. Select 2 points on the slanted edge with similar RGB values, get their coordinates (x,y) with the measurement tool and input these into Bart's Step 1. I usually use a magnification of 800x for this step on my screen. For step 2, I usually zoom in one more time and select a 1 pixel by ~100-200 pixel (not critical) area using the area select tool. Plot the points and list them in ImageJ and copy and paste them into Bart's tool, Step 2. Click on "Calculate sigma" in step 3 and you have your first data point which gives the desirable sharpening radius (sigma) for that lens setting. If you repeat this across a representative set of your lens settings, you will have complete characterization of your lens. I plotted my results (sigma vs. f-stop) in Excel.<br>

<br />Good luck!<br>

Brad</p>

<p>Kent,<br>

<br />You might want to consider Bart van der Wolf's new (free) Slanted Edge tool and measure your optimum capture sharpening radius for your lens(es) and camera combination. You can find the discussion at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68089.0. After running a couple of my lenses through Bart's tool, I not only found the tool to be useful, but quite informative regarding the radius settings for capture sharpening in general. It removes the guess work, at least in the region of sharpest focus. The only downside is that it does take time to take the shots and put them all through the tool, but I believe the reward is worth the effort.<br>

Brad</p>

<p>I had a "similar" strap by another manufacturer, but I was not entirely satisfied with it. That design connected one of the camera's strap attachment eyelets with the advertised advantage that it left the tripod socket free. I do a lot of walking/hiking and found the camera bounced/swung around a lot at my side--too much so to be comfortable. I went back to my camera-issue strap which attaches to both eyelets and find that results in less camera swinging/bouncing and is much more comfortable than a single attachment point. I know the Black Rapid straps connect to the tripod socket in either the camera body or the lens. Is this a better balance point than the camera strap eyelet approach and does it result in and acceptable and limited swinging/bouncing of the camera? I see the picture on the Black Rapid web site that shows a guy holding onto the camera body with his hand when he is walking at what appears to be a rapid pace. This was something I had to do with my earlier strap to limit swaying/bouncing, but my arm eventually gets tired from the holding. With the 2-attachment points of the camera-issue strap I can walk hands free.</p>

<p>I ordered one from B&H on March 11 and it just shipped.</p>

<p>@Mr. Gregory,<br>

Would you care to elaborate on your response?</p>

<p>Lenses are circular. To keep image quality at the edges, larger aspect ratios demand, for the same quality, unnaturally higher lens performance toward the edges that are further from the lens center. Might we not get better image quality at the edges of our frames if they were a square inscribed in the image circle of the lens? This ignores the paper size issue, but it would seem to make the best use of the lens.</p>

<p>+1 to what Matt said. This is the way I shoot all the time. CF4 with option 1 (AE lock/AF).</p>

<p>Thank you for the detailed and useful comments. It might be interesting hear your comments on RAW comparisons once RAW processing is available for the 5Diii, which I understand will be soon, at least in Lightroom. The increased dynamic range aspect is certainly a plus.<br>

As a current original 5D owner and mostly a travel and landscape shooter, and then more occasional street, sports and portrait shooter, I am looking forward to the 5Diii. I missed the first wave of those available for sale, but have my name on a wait list the the next round.</p>

<p>As a follow-up to my earlier post, I did send my EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6L back to Canon Repair (NJ). They replaced the IS unit, and the lens is now working fine. Fortunately, the lens was still (just barely) under warranty.</p>

<p>My EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6L has also just started with this behavior, whereas before this past weekend, it has been flawless. The jumping seems to be related to the states of the camera recognizing the lens and not recognizing the lens. Cleaning the contacts did not help. I haven't experimented with turning off AF, but I did turn off IS to no avail. The behavior is present on Canon 5D, 7D and 1DSIII, so it is rather clear it is not the camera. The lens has hardly been used, and is in otherwise great shape--never abused.<br>

I, too, will probably have to contact Canon to discuss a repair.</p>