Canon M3

In article ,
Savageduck wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

In the making of many photos timing is
everything,
Not always.

Oki...

There is always dumb luck, or the magnificent accident.

Or getting captures dead animals...
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
Savageduck wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

In the making of many photos timing is
everything,
Not always.

Oki...

There is always dumb luck, or the magnificent accident.

Or getting captures of dead animals...
--
teleportation kills

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:50:43 -0500, rwalker wrote:
: On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:49:43 -0500, rwalker
: wrote:
:
: On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 19:27:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
:
: Hi,
:
: I am very happy with my Canon G7X II in terms of image quality and flexibility.
: it is not quite a jacket pocket camera, but does readily fit into a coat pocket. Its
: "lens speed" at the tele end is great for indoor scenes where one cannot get close
: enough indoors, e.g. at religious functions. (I formerly used Nikon and Canon
: SLRs in my younger years.)
: Mort Linder
:
: Thanks for a nice, infromational, and polite answer. Civil
: conversation is pretty much a lost art.
:
: Actually, the more I play with the M3, the more I like it.

The M5 looks to me like a significant improvement. Not to the point where I'd
buy one, but it does give me hope for the future of the "M" series.

Bob

In article ,
Robert Coe wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:50:43 -0500, rwalker wrote:
: On Tue, 03 Jan 2017 22:49:43 -0500, rwalker
: wrote:
:
: On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 19:27:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:
:
: Hi,
:
: I am very happy with my Canon G7X II in terms of image quality and
: flexibility.
: it is not quite a jacket pocket camera, but does readily fit into a coat
: pocket. Its
: "lens speed" at the tele end is great for indoor scenes where one cannot
: get close
: enough indoors, e.g. at religious functions. (I formerly used Nikon and
: Canon
: SLRs in my younger years.)
: Mort Linder
:
: Thanks for a nice, infromational, and polite answer. Civil
: conversation is pretty much a lost art.
:
: Actually, the more I play with the M3, the more I like it.

The M5 looks to me like a significant improvement. Not to the point where I'd
buy one, but it does give me hope for the future of the "M" series.

The 12bit RAW in continuous shooting mode is big WTF for me! And others
I would think... I understand that Canon want to deliver a high FPS on
limited hardware but having two different FPSs, one 12bit fast and one
14bit not so fast would not be hard to implement in firmware should
already been so. The M1 have 14bit RAW regardless!
--
teleportation kills

On 1/4/2017 9:25 PM, Davoud wrote:
The idiot RichA wrote:
Plus, any discussion on the quality of EVF's is water under the bridge now
as good ones (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji) have long since passed
optical viewfinders in-terms of flexibility. You simply cannot focus as
well with a DSLR as you can an EVF that can magnify images 3-10x with a
button press or even just a touch of focus ring on a lens.

I wonder if RichA has ever--just once in his pathetic little
life--gotten anything right. In the making of many photos timing is
everything, and the time needed to fiddle with an EVF magnifying images
can often mean an opportunity lost. The most one can say about
electronic viewfinders is that they represent one of several ways to
focus a camera. I'll put these photos, focused manually with an optical
viewfinder, against any photos focused by any camera in any way.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/26603800350
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21925559786

Both use a macro lens and precise focus to reveal microscopic detail
that is not visible to the unaided eye.


Did you use high speed sync for the second one?
--
PeterN

Davoud:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/26603800350
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21925559786

Both use a macro lens and precise focus to reveal microscopic detail
that is not visible to the unaided eye.

PeterN:
Did you use high speed sync for the second one?

Sheesh, you're squeezing my secrets out of me. Sadly, that spider was
not among the living, so freezing motion with HSS was not necessary.
The Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens has no focusing mechanism; the
camera-and-lens assembly are moved to and fro on a precision focusing
rail https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14480135987. Depth of
field is very shallow, so I used focus stacking in Photoshop CC. Here
is a photo of the lens and focusing rail in action
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14480135987.

And, since you're wringing the truth out of me, inspection of that
photo will show unsharp region(s) to the viewer's right of the
cephalothorax. That's not a focus error, but a failure of the software
to select the proper region for stacking. I throw a lot of light on
such a subject when I am focusing. And I use the optical viewfinder.
And I am 72 y.o. and still manage to get it right the great majority of
the time.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thu, 05 Jan 2017 06:06:42 -0600, Savageduck
wrote:

android wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

In the making of many photos timing is
everything,
Not always.

Oki...

There is always dumb luck, or the magnificent accident.

.... or Louis Klemantaski?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/5/2017 7:00 PM, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/26603800350
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21925559786

Both use a macro lens and precise focus to reveal microscopic detail
that is not visible to the unaided eye.

PeterN:
Did you use high speed sync for the second one?

Sheesh, you're squeezing my secrets out of me. Sadly, that spider was
not among the living, so freezing motion with HSS was not necessary.
The Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens has no focusing mechanism; the
camera-and-lens assembly are moved to and fro on a precision focusing
rail https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14480135987. Depth of
field is very shallow, so I used focus stacking in Photoshop CC. Here
is a photo of the lens and focusing rail in action
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14480135987.

That explains your fine image. I have never tried focus stacking,
probably because with my style of shooting there is little need.
I suspected HSS because of the dark background, and clear subject
separation.


And, since you're wringing the truth out of me, inspection of that
photo will show unsharp region(s) to the viewer's right of the
cephalothorax. That's not a focus error, but a failure of the software
to select the proper region for stacking. I throw a lot of light on
such a subject when I am focusing. And I use the optical viewfinder.
And I am 72 y.o. and still manage to get it right the great majority of
the time.


I use MF For most of my macro shots, and despite that have a few years
on you, get reasonably accurate shots..

--
PeterN

Davoud:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/26603800350
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/21925559786

Both use a macro lens and precise focus to reveal microscopic detail
that is not visible to the unaided eye.

PeterN:
Did you use high speed sync for the second one?

Davoud:
Sheesh, you're squeezing my secrets out of me. Sadly, that spider was
not among the living, so freezing motion with HSS was not necessary.
The Canon MP-E65mm f/2.8 1-5x macro lens has no focusing mechanism; the
camera-and-lens assembly are moved to and fro on a precision focusing
rail https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14480135987. Depth of
field is very shallow, so I used focus stacking in Photoshop CC. Here
is a photo of the lens and focusing rail in action
https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/14480135987.

PeterN:
That explains your fine image. I have never tried focus stacking,
probably because with my style of shooting there is little need.
I suspected HSS because of the dark background, and clear subject
separation.

Thank you. I use black foamcore for the background, about 2 feet from
the subject, and with the flash(es) feathered to keep light off the
background. If some light spills onto the background and there are gray
areas I fix that in Photoshop. I also place white foamcore reflectors
around the subject as needed to avoid detail-obscuring shadows.
Foamcore is handy, cheap stuff for tabletop photography.

And, since you're wringing the truth out of me, inspection of that
photo will show unsharp region(s) to the viewer's right of the
cephalothorax. That's not a focus error, but a failure of the software
to select the proper region for stacking. I throw a lot of light on
such a subject when I am focusing. And I use the optical viewfinder.
And I am 72 y.o. and still manage to get it right the great majority of
the time.

I use MF For most of my macro shots, and despite that have a few years
on you, get reasonably accurate shots..

Yes. My point is that the electronic viewfinder is but one of a number
of ways to focus a camera, not the be-all and end-all of focusing as
suggested by that dodo RichA.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 03:11:23 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 3 January 2017 21:54:20 UTC, rwalker wrote:
My primary camera is a Canon 5D3. I decided recently that I wanted a
smaller camera for short trips, carrying around casually. I finally
decided on a Canon M3. I looked around in here for some discussion
about it, but don't see anything. So far, I don't have any dedicated
M lenses. I do have an EF adapter, and have been using my Canon F.14
50 mm EF, and a Rokinon 8mm wide angle. The wide angle is fun. Size
wise, it reminds me of my old Pentax Auto 110, 110-film SLR. Couple
of things I notice though, is that if you have big hands, this thing
is almost too small. Very easy to hit controls when you are just
trying to hold it. The other thing that I've found bothers me is the
electronic view finder. I hate holding a camera at arm's length to
look at the display. So I bought the electronic view finder. If this
is any indication of EVFs, I'm happy to stick with an SLR for serious
phnotography. I can't make out if it's in sharp focus or not. Anybody
else notice these things?

Once things are in focus, I've got no problem with the pictures it
produces.

I've found it slow to focus especially in low light so I use manual focus more than the auto focus. I didn't consider buying the EFV due to price.
I can usualy see the LCD enough to know whether it;s in focus enough at half arms lenght and glasses or a magnifing galss can help. The magnification option does have it;s uses although sometimes it's difficult to hold the camera steady at that magnification for focusing.
I do find the camera just small enough to carry in my pockets, The body in one inside pocket and the lens 18-55 (kit lens) in the other.
If I want to do anything else I have to carry abround the EF adapter and my 10-22mm ans 75-300mm EF lenes but only do that when I'm going out to particually take photos.
I do find it a little to easy to hit the wrong button on occasions but I'm mostly happy with it.

I've now had nearly a week to play with it, and I'm becoming more
happy with it all the time.