Probably not this year for the 7DII.
I wouldn't mind going into the FF sensors of the 5D, but I don't want to lose the high frame rate.
I wouldn't mind going into the FF sensors of the 5D, but I don't want to lose the high frame rate.
Turns out my fiancée had a Spyder LensCal device that I used this evening to do the micro adjustments on each of my lenses. My 24-70mm needed the full 20+ adjustment for forward focus. That could be what was causing problems with the focus we were seeing. It's a neat little device and after calibrating all the lenses to each of the bodies it seems worth taking the time to ensure the focus. Turns out she won the device at the photo expo we went to in NYC last year.
I'm surprised the lens was so far forward on the focus even after sending it to canon for cleaning and calibrating.
I'm surprised the lens was so far forward on the focus even after sending it to canon for cleaning and calibrating.
I've been using the original Lens Align with the long ruler for many years now. There have been many knockoffs like this one. In general, you should run the tests multiple times and under various conditions approximating use. An MA of 20 is too much. Are all your other lenses close to zero?
What do you mean by various conditions? I tried resetting the focus several times. Both the camera and the calibrator were on tripods leveled. I'd spin the focus wheel so it was out of focus and then let the autofocus focus the grid on the device. I'd then review the ruler to see how close to zero it was in focus and most of the time the measurement for +1 was more in focus than -1. I would snap a picture using the count down timer or remote trigger. The lenses were set to F/2.8 and iso 100. For zoom lenses I checked both telephoto and wide angle for focus.
Yes, other lenses were MA +12 to +15 in some cases. I tried three different camera bodies and tried adjusting all my lenses to each body. The only lens that required minimal to no MA was my 135mm which I've always felt was spot on sharp.
I suspect he means different ambient temperatures and/or humidity.
Thanks. The camera bodies were sent in to Canon with the lenses for cleaning, inspection, service, etc. I even asked to have the lenses calibrated to the bodies. I guess they didn't...
They don't normally do that anymore.
Then how does one correct this issue if they don't do this anymore? Do I need to take them to some place outside of Canon?
They don't normally try to match the camera to the lens now. Canon might tweak the lens for a body back when the bodies did not have the MFA, but I think that caused too many problems with lenses out there that were later used with other bodies. They now claim to check and adjust each lens and body to spec. Of course if there is still a problem you need to get on their case until the units are working to your satisfaction.
It's important to understand that the MFA only changes the focus offset by time/motor position. It does not know that the image is in focus because the AF sensor is actually seeing an OOF image, but the lens is stopping where the user specified in the offset. It is always better if the camera is physically aligned properly, with the distances between subject-mirror-AF, subject-mirror-imaging sensor, and subject-mirror-focusing screen being exactly the same.
I've been authorized to spend some money on camera gear for better baby pictures. At the moment I'm using the 17-40 @f4 most of the time, and the 50/1.4 when I can stand that far away and want a narrower DOF. I'm debating between the 35/1.4 and the 24/1.4. I used to have a 35/2, but I can't even remember what it was like to shoot.
Or is there a better body for this kind of work? (7D) I really like the high frame rate for the difficult subject, but higher ISO performance would be awesome.
Thoughts?
Or is there a better body for this kind of work? (7D) I really like the high frame rate for the difficult subject, but higher ISO performance would be awesome.
Thoughts?
Are the majority of the pictures to be candid or would it make sense to spend some of the money on a reasonable light kit and backdrop? For what you're trying to accomplish do you really want to make use of the F1.4 aperture? I feel like the baby's eye lashes would be in focus but not the nose (or vice vs). 
Aside from that, the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L MKII is very nice. It's a bit expensive for what it is, but I like it. it will give good colors and decent sharpens with the added flexibility of the focal range. We've been using it paired with a 5D MKIII for candid wedding portraits (indoor and out) and it does an excellent job in low light situations. I think that's overkill for what you're trying to do but it's a nice setup. That way you can bump the ISO up a bit and still try for an F4 or higher to get more subject in focus (assuming that is what you're going for).
If proper portraits are the goal, I'd say a light kit and back drop make more sense and then just use the body and lenses you have now with a higher aperture value.
Aside from that, the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L MKII is very nice. It's a bit expensive for what it is, but I like it. it will give good colors and decent sharpens with the added flexibility of the focal range. We've been using it paired with a 5D MKIII for candid wedding portraits (indoor and out) and it does an excellent job in low light situations. I think that's overkill for what you're trying to do but it's a nice setup. That way you can bump the ISO up a bit and still try for an F4 or higher to get more subject in focus (assuming that is what you're going for).
If proper portraits are the goal, I'd say a light kit and back drop make more sense and then just use the body and lenses you have now with a higher aperture value.
I hate doing shoots, and I dislike flash. The best work I do is candids with natural light. My wife likes shots with shallow DOF, but she doesn't like anything with a fisheye distortion. This is correctable in software, but makes in-camera composition more difficult.
Here are some of her favorites in the last couple weeks:
The two on the left were shot in the middle of the night with a very dim light source with the 50/1.4 at ISO 1600. In order to get that far away I was standing on the bathtub, balancing on one foot, in the dark.
Here are some of her favorites in the last couple weeks:
The two on the left were shot in the middle of the night with a very dim light source with the 50/1.4 at ISO 1600. In order to get that far away I was standing on the bathtub, balancing on one foot, in the dark.
It's all personal taste so if you prefer the very shallow depth of field then the only other recommendation would be a camera with better noise handling capabilities if a flash or other supplemental light source isn't an option. There aren't many better options in the Canon line unless you want to spend lots of money. The 6D might be a viable option with claimed low light handling abilities and decent picture up to ISO 6400. It's max shutter speed is slow though compared to yours. You could see about renting one or both of the lenses you are interested in before making a decision. I've not used either of those so I can't really comment other than what various online sources say.
mubs
0
Sounds familiar, haha. The combined Prime Minsiter, Finance Minister, Home Minister wields the most power!
Beautiful pics, DD. Soon you'll have to buy a sawed off shotgun to keep the boys away. Budget for it now.
Stereodude
Not really a
Or, you could learn how to use a flash optimally so the pictures look well lit instead of the typical awful flash look.
I'm actually considering selling all my L-series lenses in preference to a simple point & shoot. Over the years I have found that I just don't take that many pictures anymore. The hobby isn't as appealing to me as it used to be. The one true benefit of buying high-end lenses is that they do not depreciate much in value.
Nope. There are many things on my list to learn, and that isn't one that I feel like pursuing. Too bulky, too intrusive for candids, and too tricky to get "right" unless you are in a studio environment. I've done a few studio shoots, but I borrow a friend's place and he already has everything set up (backdrops, massive sync'd flashes with lightboxes, etc).
Is anybody buoying some of these new CF cards?
Stereodude
Not really a
Those are a little small for what I'm after, so no.
Dare I ask your application that requires more capacity, perhaps the EOS-1D C or one of the magic lighting hacked DSLRs?
Stereodude
Not really a
I don't have an application. I was just messing with you because 256GB and ~$1k seems a bit outlandish.
I don't have an application. I was just messing with you because 256GB and ~$1k seems a bit outlandish.
I wish they were closer to $750.
Many of my useable cards (400x+) are 32GB, and none are under 16GB. The most recent few cards are 64GB 1000x.
The problem is that I'm traveling far south and may have to abandon the laptop to save on weight in favor of sufficient photo hardware. Normally I travel with the ~3lb. laptop which has two internal 1TB drives (one of which is the Crucial 960GB). An external drive (bare SSD) is used for the third simultaneous copy, and resides mostly in my pants. By the time I add up the weight of the slipcover, AC adapter, cables, card reader, mice potato, etc. it is over 5 lbs.
In addition there are usually two 1TB PSDs and a portable 2TB HD.
The card I leave in my camera is the 128GB version of that one. In case of a really large shoot I have a pair of 64s and a small army of 32s.
You mean the older UDMA 7-labeled 128GB card? These new ones have been recently announced, although they may not be any different at the smaller capacities.
32Gb is a nice size as far as risk goes, but too bulky for larger amounts of storage. It is interesting that the 256GB card is less per GB than the 128.
In fact I just checked and it is older than that, a Lexar Professional 400x UDMA7. Only 60MB/s.
Obsolescence is always the problem. Reading this announcment, I scratch her head and wonder if buying $3K of CF cards is a good idea for two weeks on location.
I don't think that link points where you wanted it to. Spending $3k on CF cards would only make sense to me if it was a six-figure shoot.
Stereodude
Not really a
So, how do you get those speeds from it? Are they making a SATA III reader for CF cards or do they live in some imaginary world where USB 3.0 delivers those sorts of speeds?
Stereodude
Not really a
Well, that's better than a Thunderbowel adapter I suppose.
time
0
I dunno, I like the sound of Thunderbowel.
Stereodude
Not really a
That's not quite the name...
Howell
0
If you are having thunderbowel problems, head to the thunderbowl.
Side note: my phone wanted to correct the first to thunder vowel and by the time I made it to the second it wanted to correct it to the first. I'm sure one or both will embarrass me with an unententional autocorrect one day.
Side note: my phone wanted to correct the first to thunder vowel and by the time I made it to the second it wanted to correct it to the first. I'm sure one or both will embarrass me with an unententional autocorrect one day.
How thin is the DOF on a 24/1.4? Very.
Looks nice. How do you like it? Did you end up buying it or renting?