Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1ds mk3 samples  (Read 13745 times)
cescx
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


WWW
« on: November 01, 2007, 06:03:42 PM »
ReplyReply

For those seeking examples of the new eos you shipping this link.
Some pictures are not very good but...  

Kenia mark III
Logged

Francesc Costa
Peter Gregg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2007, 01:29:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For those seeking examples of the new eos you shipping this link.
Some pictures are not very good but...   

Kenia mark III
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am very interested in this camera, but you guys have scared the crap out of me with all the conversation of the AA filter. Then MR pulls his own comments, so I am lef not knowing what to think.

I went into it thinking this was going to be the bes images I can get for higher end wedding and portrait photography. Then I paid some attention to the Nikon D3, but after testing all the files in actual print form from the D3 and what I can get around the net from the 1Ds MKIII, the 1Ds is not significantly behind and keeps pace fairly nicely. I am guessing it is the size of the file that is making up some groundwork between the cameras, and/or Canon has improved even more on it's process from the existing MK3 camera.

I sure would like to know what is up with MR pulling that article. How is that to be interperted? Is the preproduction camera carrying a stronger AA filter than a production model will?

Peter
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2007, 06:21:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am very interested in this camera, but you guys have scared the crap out of me with all the conversation of the AA filter. Then MR pulls his own comments, so I am lef not knowing what to think.

I went into it thinking this was going to be the bes images I can get for higher end wedding and portrait photography. Then I paid some attention to the Nikon D3, but after testing all the files in actual print form from the D3 and what I can get around the net from the 1Ds MKIII, the 1Ds is not significantly behind and keeps pace fairly nicely. I am guessing it is the size of the file that is making up some groundwork between the cameras, and/or Canon has improved even more on it's process from the existing MK3 camera.

I sure would like to know what is up with MR pulling that article. How is that to be interperted? Is the preproduction camera carrying a stronger AA filter than a production model will?

Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
I am getting a 1Ds III & until the I get one in my hands that is the only real test.
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2007, 12:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I sure would like to know what is up with MR pulling that article. How is that to be interperted? Is the preproduction camera carrying a stronger AA filter than a production model will?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Peter,

Chances are that pre-production camera will be just the same as production in terms of sensor.

As to why Michael removed his negative comments, no idea. He might have reached the conclusion that more testing was needed before forming an opinion on such a highly awaited camera.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2007, 05:01:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm with the doubters. You really have to wonder what the hell is going on here.

Given that they are about to launch what should be, arguably, the final nail in the coffin for any doubters about digital SLRs replacing medium-format film, Canon should be building up to an Apple/iPod type 'All will be revealed on........!". i.e. The BIG day!

Instead, the best we've got is '....end November'!

Excuse me?!  

Not good enough. From where I'm sitting, this stinks of last minute production problems, which have only been exacerbated by the problems surrounding the 1D Mklll, in that they only cause further bemusement about potential issues with the 1Ds lll.

I definitely want one of these, but I will certainly be waiting for the early adopters to iron out the problems for me.

Canon's handling of this launch just does not inspire confidence.

Meanwhile, I will continue to use my (sensational) 5D which, by the way, blows my Mamiya RB67 out of the water when the files are properly handled. But, I want the A3 size file that the 1Dslll will offer me.

D.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 05:03:13 AM by Dinarius » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2007, 07:31:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Read my addendum to the madagascar camera report...

Or, if that's too much trouble, here it is...
Addendum
Readers may recall that my initial 1Ds MKIII report a few weeks ago, when first published, contained some comments about how I felt that the camera might have too strong an AA filter, and therefore images not appear as "crisp" as they might without one or with a less strong filter.

A couple of hours after the piece first appeared I changed it so that this reference did not appear. Subsequently the conspiracy theorists have claimed that the "black Canon helicopters" must have started circling my house, (said in jest, I'm sure) or that some other form of coercion had been applied to make me change the article (not said in jest, I'm also sure).

Utter Rubbish as anyone who even has the vaguest knowledge of how I work would know. For the record, the truth of the matter, for what it's worth, is this...

During my initial few days of shooting with the 1Ds MKIII in Algonquin Park I saw several files that did not appear to me to be as crisp is I thought they should be. This was likely as a consequence of also shooting with people who had Hasselblads and Mamiya's with P45+ backs on them, which can be bitingly sharp and of extremely high resolution, in part because they do not use an AA filter.

My friends and I discussed what we were seeing and came up with the theory that it likely was as a consequence of the Canon's AA filter, and so as I was working on my report I added a couple of paragraphs to this effect. After reviewing my image files yet again I decided that this was an inaccurate analysis and so I deleted the offending paragraphs. They were never intended for public viewing, simply because they were based on a false assumption and inaccurate technical analysis.

Somehow I subsequently ended up publishing the version that had the deleted paragraphs, rather than the one that had them removed. Brain fade, or whatever. Simply a mistake.

A few hours later I received an email from a friend who is extremely knowledgeable technically, chastising me for saying something dumb, and I realized that I'd posted the old draft rather than the revised one. So, I quickly changed it to what it should have been and noted that the article had been "updated".

That's the story. Middle aged brain fade leading to an early draft being published instead of the polished final version. No black helicopters, no coercion from on high. Conspiracy theorists can now climb back under their rocks.
Logged
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 577


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2007, 08:23:03 AM »
ReplyReply

A black Canon helicopter would be a nice accessory, i'll have to see if i can find one.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2007, 10:27:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am very interested in this camera, but you guys have scared the crap out of me with all the conversation of the AA filter. Then MR pulls his own comments, so I am lef not knowing what to think.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150359\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not the least bit fussed about the AA filter, and I have two reasons:

(1) The actual prints I've seen from this camera have such incredibly fine resolution (see my post in the other thread), I can't imagine needing any more for 99% of my purposes (and I'm fussy about sharpness and sharpening matters).
(2) The samples from the link Kenia MkIII further above in this thread, if you have examined them, really look terrific.

For the benefit of the "doubters", Canon announced this camera would be available in November. They did not give a precise date, which is normal. It is still November. What is the hullabaloo? Since it is perfectly normal in this industry for announced equipment and materials not to hit the market for weeks or even months after the indicated availability date, even if it doesn't ship till some time in December it will still be perfectly normal. Whatever the reason, whether it is to fix minor issues they've recently found, or production or shipping bottlenecks, I have confidence that (1) they are doing their best to market the camera because delays of shipping mean delays of revenue, and (2) the more they catch and correct before they ship the happier I'll be with product I eventually get. Yes, of course, I'm anxious to have the new camera, but I've lived without a 1DsMKIII for many decades now, so whether it turns up at my dealer in a few days or a few weeks, in the final analysis, so what?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2007, 01:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Addendum
Readers may recall that my initial 1Ds MKIII report a few weeks ago, when first published, contained some comments about how I felt that the camera might have too strong an AA filter, and therefore images not appear as "crisp" as they might without one or with a less strong filter....

....During my initial few days of shooting with the 1Ds MKIII in Algonquin Park I saw several files that did not appear to me to be as crisp is I thought they should be. This was likely as a consequence of also shooting with people who had Hasselblads and Mamiya's with P45+ backs on them, which can be bitingly sharp and of extremely high resolution, in part because they do not use an AA filter.

My friends and I discussed what we were seeing and came up with the theory that it likely was as a consequence of the Canon's AA filter, and so as I was working on my report I added a couple of paragraphs to this effect. After reviewing my image files yet again I decided that this was an inaccurate analysis and so I deleted the offending paragraphs. They were never intended for public viewing, simply because they were based on a false assumption and inaccurate technical analysis.

Conspiracy theorists can now climb back under their rocks.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

I don't consider myself one of the conspiracy theorists since I never read your original report.

However, my reading of what you have written above (which I have edited in my reply) tells me that:

1. You and your friends felt that the images were not as sharp as might have been expected.

2. You attributed this, incorrectly you felt later, to the AA filter.

3. You revised your opinion in your report.

Notwithstanding your change of mind on the reasons, the fact is that the images were either not as sharp as they might have been, or not. You do not appear to have revised your opinion on the sharpness, only the reason for it. There is an implication in your text above that it may have been simply comparing them with MFDBs being used on the same day, but you don't make this clear.

So, were the images disappointingly lacking in sharpness? Is there no marked improvement on previous SLRs? Or was it all down to the presence of the MFDBs?

Thanks.

D.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2007, 04:58:02 PM »
ReplyReply

At the time that I wrote the first draft of the report I had concerns about the sharpness. I then did additional shooting with more lenses under a broader range of conditions and revised my opinion.

This is the sort of thing that happens all the time. It takes hundreds if not thousands of frames taken over time in a variety of situations to come up with a decent conclusion. I sometimes rewrite sections of a report and my conclusions a number of times. What I don't do is share them with the public until I have a pretty firm grip on what the truth is. That was my error in this instance.

There's an old saying about not wanting to see how sausages are made. The same might be said about camera field tests.

Michael
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7647


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2007, 05:20:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I think that in some circumstances there will be better sharpness without an AA filter than with an AA filter. I also guess that if there is an AA-filter you would need a bit more capture sharpening. I suspect that if you look, well "pixel peep", at a picture without AA filter and compare with a picture with AA-filter using the same sharpening the first will be more "pixel crisp". With higher resolution diffraction in the lens will act as AA-filter and therefore it will be less needed.

I also guess that almost all information lost in the AA-filter can be regained during "capture sharpening".

AA-filters are not exactly cheap, so I think that Canon and other vendors would probably get rid of them if they were not needed.

Best regards

Erik

Quote
At the time that I wrote the first draft of the report I had concerns about the sharpness. I then did additional shooting with more lenses under a broader range of conditions and revised my opinion.

This is the sort of thing that happens all the time. It takes hundreds if not thousands of frames taken over time in a variety of situations to come up with a decent conclusion. I sometimes rewrite sections of a report and my conclusions a number of times. What I don't do is share them with the public until I have a pretty firm grip on what the truth is. That was my error in this instance.

There's an old saying about not wanting to see how sausages are made. The same might be said about camera field tests.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 05:26:04 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2007, 06:35:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael,

................

However, my reading of what you have written above (which I have edited in my reply) tells me that:

1. You and your friends felt that the images were not as sharp as might have been expected.

2. You attributed this, incorrectly you felt later, to the AA filter.

3. You revised your opinion in your report.

Notwithstanding your change of mind on the reasons, the fact is that the images were either not as sharp as they might have been, or not. You do not appear to have revised your opinion on the sharpness, only the reason for it. There is an implication in your text above that it may have been simply comparing them with MFDBs being used on the same day, but you don't make this clear.

So, were the images disappointingly lacking in sharpness? Is there no marked improvement on previous SLRs? Or was it all down to the presence of the MFDBs?

Thanks.

D.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dinarius, While Michael is entirely capable of responding to the questions you put to him in his own way, I have a couple of things to say about all this, because I was participating in the Bill Atkinson/Charles Kramer workshop over a Saturday and Sunday at Michael's studio when he was analyzing images and drafting his preliminary report on the 1DsMkIII.

The camera was right there, and during a couple of coffee breaks I had an opportunity to take the camera out of doors and make some trial shots. On Saturday, the camera had a 16~35 lens on it. We put the images up on the monitor and I have to say they were under-whelming. I was more than a bit concerned because I have one of these cameras on order. So we discussed it, and the thought occured to me that perhaps it's the lens, not the body.

So on Sunday I brought MY 24~105 f/4 L lens, which I know is tack-sharp from what it does with my 1Ds (11MP). First coffee break I went out of doors, took a number of shots of gritty stuff with lots of texture, and a shot of Bill Atkinson talking to some students. We transferred them to my USB key, I brought them home, and subjected them to nothing more than the bare-minimum I would do for any image: normalize the histogram in CR4.1, a bit of contrast enhancement with the Parametric Curve, and PK Capture and output sharpen in Photoshop.

I printed the photographs on Epson Enhanced Matte A3 size. I found the results to be very sharp, very high resolution, e.g. for hair, skin texture, brick walls, hose pipes, paint peeling off wood, etc.

But to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I brought the prints to New York City when I attended Photo Plus Expo several weeks ago and showed them to three of the foremost digital imaging experts in the country (who will go un-named to protect the guilty). They confirmed that the resolution and overall image quality were fine. So the conclusion I came away with from this limited personal test is that the sensor is very unforgiving of second-rate lenses. (Sorry Michael, your 16-35 just doesn't cut it!)
 
Then, as I mentioned in my previous post, I had the opportunity of seeing some of Michael's prints of the images in the final field report, and commented on those here: [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20877]Previous Post 1DsMKIII Prints[/url], post #19.

Now all that said and done, suppose you can find someone like MaxMax to remove the filter for you. Then you will need some kind of post-capture processing software to deal with the issues the filter is designed to mitigate. Maybe it's easier to manage for MF cameras than it is for DSLRs, and presumably Canon has researched this alternative, because if it can occur to a photo-technics nonentity like me, it most likely occured to them - ions of time ago. Why would they want to market cameras with sub-optimal resolution? I think it is time to put the AA filter issue to rest.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
AJSJones
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353



« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2007, 07:25:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Now all that said and done, suppose you can find someone like MaxMax to remove the filter for you. Then you will need some kind of post-capture processing software to deal with the issues the filter is designed to mitigate. Maybe it's easier to manage for MF cameras than it is for DSLRs, and presumably Canon has researched this alternative, because if it can occur to a photo-technics nonentity like me, it most likely occured to them - ions of time ago. Why would they want to market cameras with sub-optimal resolution? I think it is time to put the AA filter issue to rest.

Mark
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Over at [a href=\"http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=116427]Naturescapes[/url] there was a similar discussion (AA filters and feather detail mainly    )  While it was a software-based theoretical exercise, I was surprised at how benign the effect of a  "1-pixel" AA filter might be if it worked as intended.  The 1 pixel radius Gaussian blur was waaay nastier in its effect on apparent resolution.  It put some context on the issue for me - until someone has the nereve to send a 1Ds3 to MaxMax  

Andy
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2007, 09:13:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a feeling that quite a few people are going to be disappointed by aspects of the 1DsIII, not because it's not the finest DSLR available, which it may be, but because the jump from 16 to 21 megapixels isn't going to show that great an improvement in the final prints. I suspect the improvement could be negated by differences between high-end glass and lesser glass, for example, or by differences in shooting technique. Seriously rational Canon shooters, who don't have lots of money or a job testing the cameras, might be better off skipping every-other iteration of the camera -- there'd be a pretty noticable difference between the 1Ds and the IDsIII, perhaps, but not so much difference between either of them and the camera in the middle, the 1DsII. Perhaps we've gotten to the point where new cameras will be like they were for the last thirty years of the film era -- the new F5 was great, but you didn't *have* to have it if you had an F4. On the other hand, you might want to go to it if you were still shooting an F2 or an F3...

JC
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2007, 09:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I printed the photographs on Epson Enhanced Matte A3 size. I found the results to be very sharp, very high resolution, e.g. for hair, skin texture, brick walls, hose pipes, paint peeling off wood, etc.

But to make sure I wasn't fooling myself, I brought the prints to New York City when I attended Photo Plus Expo several weeks ago and showed them to three of the foremost digital imaging experts in the country (who will go un-named to protect the guilty). They confirmed that the resolution and overall image quality were fine. So the conclusion I came away with from this limited personal test is that the sensor is very unforgiving of second-rate lenses. (Sorry Michael, your 16-35 just doesn't cut it!)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,

I am not questioning the qualities of the 1ds3, but my D2x produces amazing A3 prints too with very fine details when used with the right lens.

A2 should be the minimal size to check such things IMHO.

Besides, Michael's 16-35 might not be the best in town, but there is no reason to think it is not at least an average performer since he considered it good enough until now.

The question that I would personnally like to see answered in due time is how the 1ds3 performs compared to the 1ds2 when using the same lens, including the 16-35 and/or 17-40. Michael has mentioned he had done such a comparison, I just hope that the 16-35 was part of the deal.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8199



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2007, 09:53:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At the time that I wrote the first draft of the report I had concerns about the sharpness. I then did additional shooting with more lenses under a broader range of conditions and revised my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

How about the 1ds3 with the 16-35?

Do you consider that combination to perform well after further usage, or are you still concerned by the lack of sharpness?

Thank you.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2007, 09:56:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
'''''''''''''''''''''''''' there'd be a pretty noticable difference between the 1Ds and the IDsIII, perhaps,...

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154017\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I'm up-grading from the original 1Ds, a camera which I like very much, I'll be in for a 38% increase of resolution plus the theoretical advantage of 14 versus 12 bit depth, plus the lower noise of the DIGIC III processor. In principle, all this should allow higher quality larger prints of crops. Once it becomes available I intend to formally structure some comparison tests between the two bodies and see whether or to what extent the theoretical predictions are operational.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2007, 10:07:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael,

How about the 1ds3 with the 16-35?

Do you consider that combination to perform well after further usage, or are you still concerned by the lack of sharpness?

Thank you.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In respect to my post, I should clarify that I was the one concerned about several images I shot with that lens. Needless to say Michael has far more experience with that lens than I do, so he most likely knows how to use it better. That is why I was keen to re-test with my 24~105 which I do know how to use. My own assessment of the image quality from the 1DsIII is based on both my shots with the 24~105 and the work Michael printed from his Madagascar trip shot with a number of lenses as he explained.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2007, 10:16:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mark,

I am not questioning the qualities of the 1ds3, but my D2x produces amazing A3 prints too with very fine details when used with the right lens.

A2 should be the minimal size to check such things IMHO.

Besides, Michael's 16-35 might not be the best in town, but there is no reason to think it is not at least an average performer since he considered it good enough until now.

The question that I would personnally like to see answered in due time is how the 1ds3 performs compared to the 1ds2 when using the same lens, including the 16-35 and/or 17-40. Michael has mentioned he had done such a comparison, I just hope that the 16-35 was part of the deal.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Bernard,

I just addressed the 16~35 question in my previous post. I also have a 17~40. It's not bad, but not as good as my 24~105. I believe ultra wide=angle zooms are much more of an optical and manufacturing challenge than the ones with a longer focal length range.

As for the print size one uses to make tests, yes, I also print A3 from my 1Ds, which has slightly lower resolution than your D2X, and the results are fine. Once you see, however, that crops substantially less than half the image area also stand up well to A3 printing, that more than does the job of testing full-frame on A2.  I must caution that the work I did was rapid, hand-held, several photos. That's all I had the opportunity to do - but it was enough to satisfy me that the existence of the AA filter isn't a deal breaker.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2007, 06:48:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael,

How about the 1ds3 with the 16-35?

Do you consider that combination to perform well after further usage, or are you still concerned by the lack of sharpness?

Thank you.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

bernard,

Like all very high resolution full-frame cameras the IIIs is merciless in revealing lens flaws. This is particularly true with ultra wides and even more so with ultra-wide zooms. And since Canon ultra-wide zooms are among the (least good) of the breed, this is what that story is about.

I have the 16-35mm lens with me because I wanted to shoot some record shots of the seminar group at my gallery. These were done wide open in very low light. Naturally everyone wanted to look at the files, and they looked soft. Thus the issue. When Mark tried the camera with a much better lens the next day the issue went away.

And to answer the inevitable question, this was the original version of that lens and I have tried the new one and it's not that much better. Those who want to shoot very WA with high res Canon cameras and whose primary concern is image quality should shoot with primes.

Michael
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad