|
Re: comment in the OP about the EOS-3: As an EOS-3 owner myself, my camera's eye control AF point selection works great provided I've calibrated it. You can probably Google for the manual that describes the process; it's not at all difficult or complicated. However, it most certainly does not work out of the box, and it apparently doesn't work for other people when I've calibrated it for my own eye. Edit: nm, I guess I either misread the OP, or you have since edited it. On first read, I thought you basically said the eye control sucked. Inf fucked around with this message at 04:01 on May 11, 2013 |
#
¿
May 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Dalax posted:You dont have any filters attached do you? Filters would not cause TTL metering to diverge from the exposure level in the actual photo. It would darken the image, but the metering system sees it through the darkened optical system just like the sensor would, and exposure would be adjusted commensurately. As far as the metering system would know, it's just a slightly dark scene (if you had an ND filter attached, for instance). It sounds like he's using one of the Av or Tv modes (does the 1DX even have a noob green box mode??), so in that case, the problem is probably with either the exposure compensation being dialed down all the way, or something's wrong with his camera's metering system. Shoot in manual and do some test shots -- see what the camera's metering system suggests, take the photo at that exposure level, then look at the histogram in playback. Put the camera into manual mode, increase the exposure level, then try again and see if the histogram distribution doesn't move to the right. If so, then your camera is just metering wrong for some reason. Double check that your exposure compensation is at zero (the middle of the +/- scale). If your camera is still suggesting underexposure on "typical" low contrast scene, say, the side of a white/gray building on a cloudy day, then there's probably something wrong with the camera and you should send it in for inspection and repair. Inf fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Finally used my 8mm Samyang/Rokinon today for something, this lens is drat sharp. Stopped it down to f/11, didn't even have to check the focus (just set it at infinity and literally everything beyond 1 ft or so was in focus) Also, surprisingly no real flare problems, shooting straight into the sun too. I covered the lens up between shots because I was paranoid about burning a hole in my focusing screen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJWZAIs1HJE
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
goattrails posted:That looks really nice. I've only come across Samyang lenses recently, but so far they look like they have decent image quality, especially considering their price point. How is the build quality on yours? Thanks The build quality is pretty good, especially for the price. My only gripe would be that there's not really any good non-rotating part of the lens barrel, so mounting and removing the lens feels really fumbly since you don't have anything solid to grab onto, i.e. 'trying to twist me onto your camera? gently caress you, have some aperture ring rotation!' A lot of people (especially Nikon users) have complained that the focus scale isn't calibrated right out of the box, but I honestly can't tell. This fisheye has such an insane depth of field at any aperture, it'd be really hard for me to tell without obsessively taking test shots and pixel peeping the hell out of them. It looks like there's a set screw for it on the side of the focusing ring, so I imagine correcting it is relatively straightforward. I mean, the obvious tradeoff with all the Samyang stuff is no AF and no electronic aperture. Neither of these is a problem for time lapse stuff though, and a manual aperture is actually a big advantage for that use.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Replaced my focusing screen on my T2i today. Pretty easy however very stressful at the same time. Did this on my T2i myself last year; felt like I was playing Operation. Changing the screen on my 6D was a breeze by comparison. No sweat (literally). My T2i had that problem with dust too after changing screens. It was a huge bitch because I apparently kept getting dust on the pentamirror side of the screen during installation, even if it looked clean going in.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
CrushedWill posted:Can Lightroom handle the batch filename conversions? One of the things that was nice about using the older software that I was using was that I could assign sequenced complex filenames to 300+ photos with a single command, just curious how I will need to modify my workflow. Well, when you're using Lightroom, that kinda IS your workflow with respect to fiddling with source files. Since adopting LR a few years ago I have not worried/cared about what any of the files were named because it was all purely transparent to me. Even when I export, I have custom naming schemes for different projects that have no dependence on the original file names. I would not buy Lightroom just to import photos, that would be silly. You can use your shell (Windows Explorer/Mac OS whatever) to copy/paste files directly from the flash card when you plug your camera in and carry on dealing with files as you're accustomed. Lightroom is pretty badass, though, if you take the time to become fully proficient with it. LR4 is going on sale in a lot of places right now because LR5 is on the horizon, so it may be a good time to buy if you want to save some cash. Also, maybe you've already covered this, but I'm curious why you're considering a 6D if you're already invested in Nikon equipment? Most people (myself, a satisfied 6D user included) would say "just get a D600." There have been times in the past when switching to Canon made sense, but I don't really think now is one of them, especially if you're only interested in shooting stills, as you mentioned in an earlier post.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Does anyone know of a good eyepiece replacement for a crop body (600D)? I just got a Sigma 30mm lens which is like 48mm on APS-C but when I look through the eyepiece, it looks really small, even though the FOV is basically the same as when I look through my film SLR with a 50mm lens on. Not really, the 600D viewfinder looks small because it IS small.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
If you're getting a filter just for protection, do yourself a favor and get a good one. When I first got into photography a few years ago I picked up the cheapest possible UV filters ($6-10 range Tiffen, Vivitar, etc.) and ended removing them every time I shot because the flare was horrendous (thus defeating the purpose of having something to keep me from touching the front element on accident). I upgraded to using B+W MRC 010M filters and the difference is incredible. I picked this particular type after seeing that they did really well in some filter flare shootout some guy posted on his blog where he tested like 30 different filters in the same shots (can't currently find it on Google, unfortunately). I still remove them for certain kinds of high contrast shots, especially during night photography, but they stay on for pretty much anything I do during the day, and I've not seen any flare problems since. I use hoods too, usually. I guess you could say that I like to double-bag it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Can't you just raise the contrast in post? Nah, the situations I'm talking about are long exposures at night where you have black sky and street lamps in the same shot, for instance. Even with a high end filter there will be SOME glare (it's impossible to remove it all), and it can create really sharp green ghosts of street lamps against the black sky. My current UV filters don't cause any perceptible decrease in contrast, it's just what little glare there is becomes obvious in shots where there are extremes of darkness and light. The lenses themselves create glare too, obviously, but their inherent glare is quite different and less obnoxious since they usually result from reflections off of curved glass surfaces so they manifest in a more diffuse way. Glares off flat filters are the worst -- they're really sharp and defined. I've seen images of those stupid spiral CFLs in glare before, coils and all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:My girlfriend got a T2i like a week ago and said she wanted her setup to be exactly like mine (T2i with Magic Lantern, Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC and Canon 50 1.8). I tried to convince her to go with the pancake instead of the 50, because she said she wanted a wider prime than the 50 and it seemed like more of a walkaround lens from all the sample shots I've seen from it. Plus she got the kit 18-55 3.5-5.6 with her T2i and said it's a slow piece of poo poo and refuses to use it, even though I didn't find that when I had my kit lens after first getting my T2i (it wasn't outstanding but it wasn't unusable either), so she's confining herself to one lens right now until she can save up for the Tamron zoom and it'd make more sense to have a slightly wider one that can be used in more situations. But she ended up getting the 50 1.8 anyway. If she's new to photography, what exactly is her problem with the kit lens? They bundle that thing for a reason, and it would be a shame if she's already getting a gear fetish. Generalizing here, but in my experience, girls tend to not get so wrapped up in gear. Some lady friends of mine take excellent photos with nothing but the kit lens, and they seem to have no lust for anything else. Photography is a cheap hobby for them. Meanwhile, I have loads of fast primes and other things, and I have to periodically tell myself to stop obsessing about what poo poo I'm using and to just make photos. The 1.8 is cool, and at that price there's no reason to NOT have one, but I wouldn't suggest she forsake the kit lens. 50mm is kinda long on a crop sensor. Although I sold mine pretty early on, I think that saying that the kit lens is a "piece of poo poo" is an unnecessarily strong statement, especially from a novice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 07:28
|
|
v
|
Claw Massage posted:I am genuinely curious in seeing some of her "paid gig" shots if she isn't interested in even learning the basics of aperture. Maybe she is some sort of photo taking genius but every person in the world who takes photos would get better by knowing the basics. Yeah, some of my aforementioned lady friend photographers don't really have any understanding of the technical side of photography, but they take good photos just based on the non-technical aspects (i.e. composition). I don't personally understand how someone can be satisfied with that approach, but I'm an engineer so I tend to totally nerd out on details and the how and why of pretty much everything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Oh, they mostly shot JPG and never really put out work bigger than 2000px x 2000 px but they were super good and awesome and I was handling like admin and such for them as well as assisting on shoots. They had interest from a licensing company for book covers but the company freaked out when the highest res images we had were like 2000px at 72dpi (the photographer's archive was flickr) This is actually not uncommon. A lot of (especially older) people are not comfortable with computers in general, and switching from film to digital (jpegs) was a big enough leap without having to worry about "whatever this whole RAW thing" is all about. It also comes down to a lack of technical understanding of the difference between RAW and jpeg. I would venture to guess that even most enthusiasts who shoot RAW don't even fully understand what the point is aside from what they can do with the sliders in Lightroom on RAW files vs jpegs. It's one of those topics I've decided to not argue with people about. If they want to keep shooting jpeg, that's not my problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:How is the Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 HD fisheye lens? It's on sale for 225 USD. I've never used fish eye before. It is gimmicky or useful? I tend to shoot more landscapes. Do you have a full frame or a crop sensor? If you have a full frame, DO NOT buy the older Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 8mm fisheye with the non-removable hood. The hood is designed for crop bodied cameras, and it obscures the circular vignette on a full frame. People were modifying them by removing the hood with a Dremel tool, so Samyang put out a new version with a detachable hood. I've got one and I love it on my 6D, but it's really only good for certain kinds of shots. A lot of retailers are trying to unload the old fixed-hood designs, so it's something to be wary of. As far as I know, the old ones had a gold band, and the new ones have a red band. Here are 2 shots I took with it at an outdoor concert last week:   I've also used it in some timelapse stuff (see 1:00 and 1:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LkVmj8qYM (entire thing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJWZAIs1HJE It's a great lens, and a lot of fun for certain kinds of shots (like whole sky shots, dog's noses for a distorted perspective, etc), but really not too useful. I've seen some people discuss ways to correct the distortion on the lens, but I personally think they're missing the point of a fisheye. The ridiculous perspective is part of the reason why you would use one. I may keep it because it's so cheap, but it's definitely the lens I use the least. Edit: need learn English Inf fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
geeves posted:edit: Reading these two posts, it sounds like the "listener" for the 6D transfer is causing a DDoS of sorts. But I can't confirm without testing it myself. Maybe this is also why the WiFi destroys your battery life, whereas something like an iPhone has no problem. Constantly flooding the network with "HAY GUYS I'M HERE LET'S TRANSFER SOME PICS!!! HAY GUYS I'M HERE LET'S TRANSFER SOME PICS!!! HAY GUYS I'M HERE LET'S TRANSFER SOME PICS!!!" etc
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:That's where I got my 6D. It's cheap because it's actually a 6D + 24-105 f/4 kit with the lens removed. How does this affect the warranty? I know when I got my rebel years ago the shady rear end company that sold it to me pulled this and there was no warranty card. When I complained they told me that I would have to get it "warrantied through them."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
I've been using generic center pinch caps forever... are these Canon branded ones any better? I guess I'm just having a hard time relating to the hype here and in my news feeds.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Fart Car '97 posted:CF Cards are used because they are faster and, more importantly, far far less prone to data corruption than SD cards. Does anyone here have any first-hand experience getting data corruption on an SD card?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:Yup. One card would show me the filenames but not let me open them or copy them. mclifford82 posted:I've lately had my SD card stop communicating with the camera sometimes but I just eject and reinsert it and it's fine. Haven't had files corrupted fortunately. Hmm, good to know. Brands? A friend of mine was a Sandisk marketing rep for a while and kept telling me stuff like "Sandisk will recover your data for free if blah blah card gets damaged etc." Edit: did some Googling, apparently this is not true (anymore, at least) Inf fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
pseudonordic posted:I think UHS is faster if the camera supports it. I think Class 10 and UHS-1 are just some industry performance standards, but there's an enormous amount of variation within them. There's a significant difference between a "class 10" card that writes at 30MB/s and a "class 10" card that writes at 90MB/s. Similarly within "UHS-1" cards. I was having problems with my 6D stumbling during bursts with the lovely Transcend Class 10 cards I was using before. There was a tremendous improvement switching to a Sandisk Extreme Pro (90 read, 95MB/s write) card for timelapse stuff. I'm able to shoot at 3fps in raw indefinitely whereas the Transcend would start dropping frames every 10-15 images.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
If it's a 40mpixel sensor with various rows/columns masked off (ignored?) for their new video AF system, wouldn't one expect that to cause moire in still frames? Dropping rows/columns (as opposed to downsampling each frame from the full sensor) is the cause of the moire you get in most DSLR video systems.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:At this point I have to spend more on the ring than all of my combined L-glass' value, right? That only seems right to me. DON'T DO IT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suAhGfVr_4U
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
dakana posted:...a shutter repair is like $250. Not too bad if you're doing it on a $3,000 camera body like a 5D3. Is this a price you've seen quoted from an independent repair shop? I've seen people post online that getting a 5D2 shutter replaced through Canon is $400+ I'm wondering how much the actual parts cost vs. labor. Seamonster posted:2500 shots per weekend every weekend also means you're stuck in front of a computer working on RAW files for the rest of your life An easier way to blow through your shutter life is shooting time lapse video. You apply LR develop settings to RAW files in batch, so you can edit 200-300 photos in like 5 minutes. Most time is spent exporting. This spring I took about 10,000 photos in two months creating this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LkVmj8qYM. That's 1/10th of my 6D's rated shutter life. Inf fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The same is true for astrophotography. It's probably not worth it over just getting your shutter rebuilt, but I think there are CCD imaging cameras designed for that. Yeah, there are. They're typically lower resolution and have no physical shutter, but they often have a thermocouple mounted to the back of the CCD that chills it down to reduce noise. They're often monochromatic too (no Bayer filter), which is ideal if you're shooting through RGB filters to stack/recombine in post. This is a big advantage when using a refractor telescope because light of a specific color is refracted the same so you get rid of a lot of aberrations by taking filtered monochromatic shots. I've dabbled in astrophotography before myself and concluded that sticking an SLR on there with a T-ring is not ideal, which explains why there's a market for high dollar astrophotography-only sensors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Holy hell, the 6D looks much more desirable now. That is on the high end of what I was expecting. But I guess I didn't really follow much news about it. The 70D price will plunge rapidly if you can wait it out for 6 months or so. The 6D was $2200 when it came out, I've seen deals as low as $1500 recently for the body only.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Oh balls If you add http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ to your news reader you will get daily updates about deals for various camera gear. Not in the market right now, but I like to keep apprised of what the street prices are on various pieces of gear.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
fivre posted:The sensor doesn't support that high of an ISO, but the camera will take a shot at 12800 and add one EV when it processes to JPG. Yeah, basically. It doesn't modify the RAW data itself, just sticks an "lol iso 25600" entry into the exif data so Lightroom or whatever boosts the exposure when you process it. Expanded ISO levels are always pretty drat terrible and unusable for pretty much anything where ludicrously excessive noise and non-existent sharpness are not desired. Inf fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:So I've been using my 7D long enough now, and am just curious: does anyone else find that it completely over exposes outside? I swear every time I step outside I'm shooting at -1 EV just so everything isn't blown out. I have auto lighting optimizer turned off. Maybe I should try a different metering mode? I've found pretty much every TTL meter that I've allowed to make a decision in Av or Tv tends to blow the exposure one way or the other. I pretty much only use the spot meter in manual mode. I aim it a highlight area, hit the exposure lock, then aim it at a shadow area. I then adjust the exposure manually until the two hash marks are distributed appropriately on the exposure scale between -3 and +3. Just go try it out, it becomes second nature after a while. When you're getting this approach down it's super easy to just chimp it and get a feel for where on the exposure scale you need to put things. Once you get the technique down, you don't really need to even look at the preview anymore. You only need to do this once, so long as the lighting conditions remain more or less constant since you're in manual mode. I do lots of batch operations in LR, so I loathe any sort of shooting mode that'll make the exposure bounce around between consecutive photos shot under the same conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2013 12:16
|
|
|
Aquila posted:Ah the price on the 6d went up $200. I'd buy the refurb 6d if they had it with the 24-105. Just keep waiting, all good prices come to those who wait.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
I've had problems finding a decent generic hood for my 28mm f/1.8. It's a petal-shaped hood, and both of the generics I've tried have poorly aligned moldings for the bayonet mount. It ends up being impossible to get it aligned properly. One of them was about 20 degrees short of being lined up right when screwed all the way on, and the other was about 15 degrees off. Pretty noticeable. Hmm. I see the real deal is finally in stock again at B&H, I tried to buy a real one all last year but wasn't able to find one. I assumed Canon just quit making them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:My bestbuy has a pretty decent range of lenses/flashes too, and some big name tripods as well (manfrotto n poo poo). Bag though... meh. Do they pricematch to account for no sales tax through B&H?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Nikon Samyang lenses are chipped, if you don't feel okay doing it yourself you can buy Nikon and an adapter. Only the most expensive Nikon to EF adapters have a pass-through for the connections  I've run into another interesting problem related to this. I've been using an old manual Nikkor Micro lens a lot on my 6D and it works fine. The aperture on the body just reads 00, as expected. The adapter has no connections on it whatsoever, so I assumed to any EF mount camera it would just assume no lens was attached at all. When I stick it on my EOS 3 it won't even fire. When I pull the shutter (in M mode, obviously), it makes a sound like the mirror went up but the shutter never opened. It says in that state until I push the shutter button again, and the mirror goes back down. Thankfully it doesn't advance the film when I do this. It's weird to me because my EOS 3 has no problem actuating when there's no lens attached at all. I can only assume there's some position sensor in the EF mount that will still tell it if there's a lens attached even if it's not talking to the camera body. Apparently newer Canon cameras don't care that the lens won't talk to the body, but not my EOS 3
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I'm wondering if it has to do with having my camera on my black rapid during shoots. Maybe it rubs against my hip too hard and knocks it off? I'm pretty sure I lost it yesterday during a shoot 45 minutes away from town, in a giant tall grass field. So ordered another one today. I'm going to glue it down, I think. My only concern is if I ever need to pop it off to clean around there or something? Maybe you could just use a little strip of gaffer tape across the top to discourage it from popping off?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
The problem with the Fotodiox adapter isn't removing it from the lens, it's that it can get stuck on your camera body (with the lens attached), then you're REALLY hosed. I posted about it a while back. Not sure if it was in this thread or the previous Canon thread. Basically, during normal use a little screw can work itself loose enough that the release lever sticks out too far and gets caught on the edge of the mirror box when you try to remove the lens. There wasn't any way to disassemble either the lens or the camera body to get the lever out of the way. Sending it off to Canon would have cost me hundreds of dollars, and the rep on the phone couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't just IMMEDIATELY box it up and send it back to me without touching it upon opening my package and seeing a Nikon lens (in fact, he said this was likely). After trying to get in touch with Fotodiox for almost two weeks (lovely customer service for sure), I finally got a rep to talk to me and he said I could send it to them and "our tech will look at it," but of course there's no guarantee they wouldn't gently caress my camera and/or lens up anyway, plus I would have to swallow the cost of shipping a $2000 camera body with insurance to Indiana and trust this 3rd rate generic parts company with it, blah blah blah... Long story short, the options were that I could force it off, or they could force it off. Me forcing it off was much cheaper, so I did it. At that point I was only operating on the hunch that it was the lever causing the obstruction, which is made of stamped sheet metal, and luckily that was the case. The lever finally bent when I applied enough pressure to it, and it scratched the poo poo out of the inside face of my camera body above the mirror box. It's not a good feeling to have to apply brute force to separate two expensive pieces of equipment. I still use my adapter out of necessity, but I dismantled it and removed the release lever. I can still remove it from the lens by manually actuating the pin with a dental pick. As a consolation to scratching my camera up they offered to send me a new one, so I said what the hell. The new unit they sent had a loose lever screw just like the first one, so I immediately removed the lever. Despite this major flaw, I think the ~$60 fotodiox adapter is still the best sub-100 N-EF adapter because it's the only one I've found that has the leaf springs in the flange like a real lens does to make sure it mounts with a minimum amount of play. Inf fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Google fails me; has anyone seen a good comparison of circular fisheye lenses for Canon fullframe? I have a Sigma 4.5mm but it's EF-S and so only good for the old 50D body - I'd like to use the 5D3 for building 360 pano virtual tours to squeeze some extra size out of my panoramas (though really if I wanted to do them pro with a fisheye I should buy a D800 or likewise for the huge mpx output). I would think you would want to use a rectilinear lens for constructing 360 pano tours. The source imagery would be stitched together and projected onto a spherical or cylindrical panorama in post. Real fisheye lenses are great for stills and SKATEBOARDING VIDEOS but the inherent distortion would cause problems if you tried to use it as any kind of 3D projection. In answer to your other question, I'm guessing the Russian lens you're talking about is the Peleng 8mm f/3.5. Another comparable (cost/performance) lens is the Rokinon/Samyang 8mm f/3.5 (the newer version with the removable hood). Optically, they perform similarly, although the Peleng creates a slightly smaller image circle. On a full frame, both lenses will be cropped a bit on the top, but the Peleng should be cropped off slightly less. The Peleng also has pretty lovely Soviet-esque construction compared to the Korean lens. Either one will probably be fairly sharp stopped down when it's basically like a pinhole lens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
the_lion posted:Whoah, that's some good info guys! Hopefully that'll do it. If you do a lot of shooting with different lenses in nasty outdoor conditions, you're bound to accumulate a considerable amount of dust every few thousand shots, no matter how careful you are. A lot of dust can be removed with a rocket blower, but you'll sometimes get dust that possibly has some oily residue or something in it which basically glues it onto the low pass filter in front of the sensor (pollen? I have no idea). After a massive dust buildup in my 6D I ordered some of those Sensor Swabs pre-loaded with Eclipse. I'm pretty comfortable with the process now and clean the low pass filter every month or two. More often if it's a period of heavy shooting. A 12 pack of those swabs on Amazon is way cheaper than even a single cleaning at the local camera shop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
mrlego posted:http://www.amazon.com/Sensor-Swab-Plus-Type-Eclipse/dp/B001BCFF2E/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1382334826&sr=1-2[url] I didn't want to dick around getting a feel for how much Eclipse is too much/not enough, especially after seeing other people mention that using too much can leave a dry residue upon evaporation, and not using enough can possibly make things worse by smearing stuff around. Also, the pre-packaged swabs are the correct width for the low pass filter, so a single back and forth swipe is all that is necessary. No staring at the sensor and doing spot cleanings for things I may not even be able to see from the front. By "cotton swabs" do you mean just regular... cotton swabs? I hope you mean the dry version of the flat lint-free, non-abrasive sensor swabs. Regular cotton swabs are the polar opposite of lint free, and aren't exactly non-abrasive -- I would never use them to clean ANY camera related surface, let alone the low pass filter in a digital camera. That just seems like a terrible, terrible idea. All things considered, the pre-moistened sensor swabs work very well, and a few dollars every month or so is nothing compared to pretty much every other photography expense.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
deck posted:The Rokinon 14 is sharp for the price. Also be aware that it has hecka mustache distortion, so using it for anything other than astro timelapses and such might require heavy post-correction. FWIW I've been using this lens for hyperlapse work for a few months now. For that kind of job, the in-post stabilization required gets really hosed up if you don't do a good job on correcting distortion since it manifests as a moving distortion pattern on the scene. I used the profile and instructions from here: http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/blog/2013/2/lens-profile-for-rokinon-samyang-14mm-2-8 Works great. The main downside everyone would experience is that when you render the raw file with that lens profile, it takes maybe 2-3 times longer than I get with a lens like the 85mm f/1.8 that has a relatively modest image transformation associated with the distortion correction. A+ for a super sharp lens (in my case) that is chump change compared to the Canon original. Samyang recently put out an in-front-of-the-lens filter holder for this lens as well. Unfortunately, the only ND filter that fits it is a 3 stop Cokin that's majorly overpriced for the optical quality (like $110 on eBay, currently). Kinda bummed about it since I want a good 9-10 stop option. Even with two of those lovely filters stacked, that's $220 for only 6 stops.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 13:10
|
|
