-= 90D owners unite! Discuss and Post Photos

John Sheehy wrote in post #19393306
As I mentioned previously, the R7 has a great new tool for high-DOF photography with fast lenses that experience focus shift; you can focus and view live, stopped down to the shooting f-number. Hopefully, it works with all lenses.

OK, that should be useful. Anyway, I doubt that the 100mm L has much focus shift, so not sure how much that feature would help with quality macro lenses.

Here is a longlegged fly, challenging little critters to photograph.

Photo from Archibald's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1164420)

Yeah one thing I have noticed, in working on both 90d and R5 files, is that Topaz plays better with the 90d files especially on gigapixel. I'm guessing this is due to pixel density. It's WILD what you can get out of a highly cropped 90d file vs. an R5 file...

It will be awesome if Canon has an R5 "s" or "sr" with 100+mp, same pixel density of the 90d... but.. .I'm sure it'll be 3-5 years before it's used price falls into more manageable levels. Otherwise, what I have learned a ton as of late, doing landscapes, is that the 90d really needs a tripod, and you need to do some long exposures in those low light situations to get rid of the noise, then do composite work to layer in other sections... Basically the R5 is a time saver when it comes to low light situations, but you pay more $$ for the camera/lenses...

So to me it becomes a time on the computer editing vs. $$$ factor... Which, coincidently, is kind of how real life works. Lots of people have tons of disposable income, but, little time to enjoy it.... or you're in the other camp: tons of time, no $$$$. Remote work has greatly helped narrow the extremes however...

Archibald wrote in post #19393298
If the R7 had come out before the R5, I would probably have bought the R7 and never got the R5, same as what markesc suggested. But I would have missed something. The R5 is phenomenally croppable, and the 24-105mm/4 lens supports that capability. Many times I have saved a shot by doing a major crop of an R5 shot. Typically this was not anticipated when taking the pic... but then in post, I see the opportunity. Those extreme crops retain pretty good IQ.

I have had a great time with the R5 these almost two years and would have missed that waiting for the R7.

Yet when doing macro, I still favor the 90D. The pixel density is a big plus, and it seems to be more responsive doing the extreme closeup work. I'm thinking that the R7 will be even better. So no rush, but I will probably buy the R7 in time.

Looks great!!!

I'm always impressed by single shot 100mm L macro photos. That lens is a LEGEND!! You can put that lens on an old Rebel T whatever, and get amazing results!

Looks like it plays well is the 90d!

Archibald wrote in post #19393322
OK, that should be useful. Anyway, I doubt that the 100mm L has much focus shift, so not sure how much that feature would help with quality macro lenses.

Here is a longlegged fly, challenging little critters to photograph.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by Archibald originally in forum: Macro

I'm curious. Has anyone else used the Mitakon Zhongyi Creator 35mm f/2 lens? It is a purely manual lens, no auto-focus, no electrical connections to the body. So I set the lens to f/2 (it does f/2 to f/22) and put the camera in manual mode. I figured I'd need to set the aperture on the body as well so that it could correctly calculate exposure, but it only gives me a choice of f/1.4 or f/1.6. What gives?

hobs1466 wrote in post #19395308
I'm curious. Has anyone else used the Mitakon Zhongyi Creator 35mm f/2 lens? It is a purely manual lens, no auto-focus, no electrical connections to the body. So I set the lens to f/2 (it does f/2 to f/22) and put the camera in manual mode. I figured I'd need to set the aperture on the body as well so that it could correctly calculate exposure, but it only gives me a choice of f/1.4 or f/1.6. What gives?

This is the first I've ever heard of any Av value but "00" with a non-communicating lens.

Where are you seeing 1.4 and 1.6?

Definitely in the Q menu aperture setting field, but I think also in the view finder.

hobs1466 wrote in post #19395540
Both in the view finder and in on the screen if I go into the Q menu and try to change aperture.

What if you replace the lens with a body cap? Do you still get those numbers?

Are you sure the lens doesn't have a focus confirmation chip? Can you see that there are no contacts on the lens?

If the camera thinks that the f-ratio is f/1.6 or f/1.8, it may cause a slightly over-bright image if the lens is actually much slower because the photosites on the sensor do not receive all the light that they should in theory, with small pixels and f-ratios lower than 2.8, as the camera usually pushes the conversions a little, but otherwise, you shouldn't have any issues with metering, but your EXIF info will be wrong all the time for the Av value..

Other than the fast lens issue I mentioned above (which could cause the images to look like up to +1/3 stop of exposure compensation, the camera should have no problem with exposure just because it doesn't know the real Av value (f-ratio). Whathappens when you actually take photos? I would expect the only problem to occur when you set the shutter speed and ISO manually in Tv mode, and the Av value can't be automated by the camera, but very few people use that mode (Tv) with manual ISO settings. Most people do not want the Av value to float all over the range.

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure about the lens communication. The product description and specs indicate that it does not communicate with the body at all. The q&a about it on B&H give somewhat mixed information, but the answers predominantly say it does not communicate at all. Yet there appear to be some contacts.

I'll have to do some playing.

Okay, second newbie question in two days...

What color space are poeple shooting?

I started a photography class at my local community college and one of the first things the instructor said was that you definitely want to shoot AdobeRGB because it has 16 million colors while the default sRGB only has 256.

Some googling the next day quickly revealed that as false and that they both provide 16.7 million colors. More importantly, it seems like while AdobeRGB does offer a roughly 35% broader color pallette, it is primarily intended for prints. Anything on a screen is going to be sRGB, either natively or converted. That conversion can be done manually, which works well, but if not it will be done on the fly by the displaying software/hardware which frequently does not work well. So it seems to me that unless you are dealing primarily/exclusively with high quality physical prints, sRGB is the way to go.

Of course it seems like if you just shoot raw it is a moot point since it seems you can set the color space to whatever you want in processing. Which I suppose raises a related question. Do you shoot raw, jpeg or both? I have generally been doing both, figuring it gives you the best of both worlds. I'm seriously considering switching to just raw though. While I have been shooting a lot of pictures, I generally only post/share/print a select few of them and I do at least minimal touch-up before doing so. So having the jpgs out of the camera doesn't really save me any time and costs me a lot of space.

hobs1466 wrote in post #19395570
Okay, second newbie question in two days...

What color space are poeple shooting?

I started a photography class at my local community college and one of the first things the instructor said was that you definitely want to shoot AdobeRGB because it has 16 million colors while the default sRGB only has 256.

Some googling the next day quickly revealed that as false and that they both provide 16.7 million colors. More importantly, it seems like while AdobeRGB does offer a roughly 35% broader color pallette, it is primarily intended for prints. Anything on a screen is going to be sRGB, either natively or converted. That conversion can be done manually, which works well, but if not it will be done on the fly by the displaying software/hardware which frequently does not work well. So it seems to me that unless you are dealing primarily/exclusively with high quality physical prints, sRGB is the way to go.

Of course it seems like if you just shoot raw it is a moot point since it seems you can set the color space to whatever you want in processing. Which I suppose raises a related question. Do you shoot raw, jpeg or both? I have generally been doing both, figuring it gives you the best of both worlds. I'm seriously considering switching to just raw though. While I have been shooting a lot of pictures, I generally only post/share/print a select few of them and I do at least minimal touch-up before doing so. So having the jpgs out of the camera doesn't really save me any time and costs me a lot of space.

I shoot only RAW on my 90D & G7X Mk II and ProRAW on my iPhone 12 Pro Max when I use it. Part of that is that I really enjoy post-processing (Lightroom Classic). I'll occasionally shoot JPEG when I just want a quick picture of something to give to someone else right away.

hobs1466 wrote in post #19395562
To be honest, I'm not 100% sure about the lens communication. The product description and specs indicate that it does not communicate with the body at all. The q&a about it on B&H give somewhat mixed information, but the answers predominantly say it does not communicate at all. Yet there appear to be some contacts.

I'll have to do some playing.

If there are contacts, then there is probably a focus confirmation chip that makes the AF points light up in manual focus. If the camera thinks that the lens is f/1.6 or f/1.8, though, that may cause default conversions to push the images about 1/3 or 1/4 stops brighter, because most digital sensors with smaller pixels (at least front-side-illuminated ones) lose some of the extra light that the lens passes when a fast lens is opened wide.

There may be other EXIF info passed by the lens to the camera.

The auto focus points definitely do not light up.

June 24, 2022 before dawn while gazing at the planet alignment.

Gorgeous! Exactly the kind of thing I'm hoping to achieve.

Curious why you went with Lightroom Classic?

At the moment I've just been using Canon's DPP. I did play with an evaluation version of Elements because it allowed me to make a collage I was trying to do, but Adobe does not seem to be overly clear about the differences between Photoshop and Lightroom, other than that Lightroom Classic is not subscription based ( a big plus as far as I am concerned). And why would I want Photoshop/Lightroom over the less expensive Elements?