1mkii tips
Here are two things I discovered when I moved from 10D to 1dmkii, perhaps they will help you, too.
There is some magic that allows you to make the WB buttons (one for each shutter button) into a "choose favorite focus point" button. It only is in effect as long as you hold down the button. I have it set of center focus point, but for vertical portraits, you could imagine choosing a differnt point. Anyway, I love this feature. Most of the time I let the camera do it's thing and it does it very well. But sometimes, we (the camera and I) have different ideas and then it's great to be able to override without having to think about it. It's become a finger habit.
Getting the images from the camera to the computer became an issue for me when I started to shoot raws. I think it's going to be an even bigger issue for you. I had always used PCMCIA flashcard converters for notebooks for this purpose, but they were too slow and seemed to have a huge impact on other things that were going on at the same time. Firewire card readers were similar in terms of speed and system impact. I've found that USB2 flaschcard readers are much better both in terms of speed and system impact on both Macs and PCs (with linux.) These are really cheap, (<$30), so there is no harm in tryinng if you don't already have one.
Anyway, I'm sure you'll have fun with this camera. I tried to convince Elsa Dorfman to try something like this, but no dice. She is more likely to choose a gigapixel alternative or retire.
I "froogled" and found them in the $350-$450 range. Pretty good, I think. Damon bought some sort of ipod-min clone and broke it open to get the 5gb minidisk out of it. According to CMR, minidisks are as fast as solid state on the canon pro cameras.
the 16-35L, razor sharp on my 20d, is a bit soft at the edges.
you need two fingers on left hand and your right forefinger to change iso
i'm sure that i can get over the last issue with practice / use, but if i can't use my 16-35L i think i'd :cry
I have this lens, too, and have always been a little disappointed by its sharpness. Recently, I've been leaning hard on my 24-70, even for wide angle. It seems so much sharper. Maybe there is some trick to sharpening wide angle that would give me better results.
I "froogled" and found them in the $350-$450 range. Pretty good, I think. Damon bought some sort of ipod-min clone and broke it open to get the 5gb minidisk out of it. According to CMR, minidisks are as fast as solid state on the canon pro cameras.
The Rio Carbon has a 5 gig Seagate drive in it. It cost me $250. The drive works great...no problems aside from write speed but that's not an issue since I can shoot while the 10D writes.
Getting the images from the camera to the computer became an issue for me when I started to shoot raws.
I have a sony pc box that has a built in card reader. Pop the CF card in and you can download a 1GB card full of images in a couple of minutes or less.
I have a sony pc box that has a built in card reader. Pop the CF card in and you can download a 1GB card full of images in a couple of minutes or less.
How big are your raw images? Are you using USB2.0?
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I have this lens, too, and have always been a little disappointed by its sharpness. Recently, I've been leaning hard on my 24-70, even for wide angle. It seems so much sharper. Maybe there is some trick to sharpening wide angle that would give me better results.
Funny...same here, but with the 17-40L. I don't know where some of the guys on other forums get off saying it's razor sharp. I've never been satisfied with either the sharpness or contrast. The 24-70L, on the otherhand, has been wonderful. If only it went just a tad wider.
I think I'm going to sell the 17-40L and try something else, whether it's a EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or a sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM or something.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
I have a feeling there's going to be an inflection point where the risk of losing a bunch of images will outweigh the size of the card. Not sure where that point is, but can you imagine doing an entire shoot on an 8GB card, then zapping it with ESD as you insert it into your card reader?
I like andy's idea of having a few 2gb cards.
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
That's not a nice question to ask in polite company. :nono
"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
I have a feeling there's going to be an inflection point where the risk of losing a bunch of images will outweigh the size of the card. Not sure where that point is, but can you imagine doing an entire shoot on an 8GB card, then zapping it with ESD as you insert it into your card reader?
Yes. But I think that point is different depending on the raw image size.
As an example, I shoot with 512's for my S50 and 2G's for the 1{0}d.
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Funny...same here, but with the 17-40L. I don't know where some of the guys on other forums get off saying it's razor sharp. I've never been satisfied with either the sharpness or contrast. The 24-70L, on the otherhand, has been wonderful. If only it went just a tad wider.
I think I'm going to sell the 17-40L and try something else, whether it's a EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or a sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM or something.
I have a SIgma 12-24 and it is the least sharp lens I own, particularly at the wide end. And its slo.o.ow to boot! I'll trade you my Sigma 12-24 for the Canon 16-35 F2.8 that people are so unhappy about any day!!
Regarding the 17-40 L Fish - the deer footprints on the bridge were shot with the 17-40. I have not found it lacking at least with an APS sized sensor. For Andy's full frame it might not be as good as the 16-35 L.
Waxy, I remember the first time I plugged a 4Gb Micro Drive in my 10D and saw it say that it had capacity for 999 images - Large fine jpgs! Wow - I could go on vacation for a week and not remove anything from the camera! And the limit of 999 was not the size of the MD, but the limit of the file naming/numbering system in the 10D!
I use the 4Gb MD in the 1DMkll - It usually allows about 275 RAW images.
How big are your raw images? Are you using USB2.0?
Ian
My RAW images are about 6 MB. When I used USB 1.0 the transfer times were very slow. I seemed like it took forever to transfer 60 images. I have not tried USB 2.0 because my new computer came with a card reader "built in". It is light years faster than USB. It has totally changed the whole tranfer issue for me. I just pop in the card and can download a 1GB card full of images in just a few minutes.
Waxy, I remember the first time I plugged a 4Gb Micro Drive in my 10D and saw it say that it had capacity for 999 images - Large fine jpgs! Wow - I could go on vacation for a week and not remove anything from the camera! And the limit of 999 was not the size of the MD, but the limit of the file naming/numbering system in the 10D!
I use the 4Gb MD in the 1DMkll - It usually allows about 275 RAW images.
i'm quoting pf but it's really in resp to this whole discussion ...
i'm finding that i don't shoot hundreds and hundreds in a shoot. if i come home after a whole day even, i maybe have 100 shots to go thru.. i chimp as i'm going, delete what i can in the field, mainly b/c i want to reduce time in post sorting thru the images.
now when i'm away for an extended time, as now in california for a few days, the same goes, b/c i can dump to laptop at night.
on vacation, i take my laptop, too, so i'm covered there. i think that when i go on one of andy biggs' african safaris i'll need a mess o' cards though
i chimp as i'm going, delete what i can in the field, mainly b/c i want to reduce time in post sorting thru the images.
now when i'm away for an extended time, as now in california for a few days, the same goes, b/c i can dump to laptop at night.
Thanks Andy.
I think the "chimp/delete" method is better in many respects. You
spend less time copying and processing the raw image later and save
some space in the field.
But I'm curious. Does chimp/delete significantly affect the read/write
performance over time? When the file is written to a fresh card, it's
written contigiously. When you delete a file, a gap is created. As the
card fills (and you continue to delete), it's harder to find 8MB in one
chunk (to write the new image). So the camera writes to the gaps
created where the delete files were. Finding free space is an expensive
operation--as any computer user with a severely fragmented disk can
tell you. But does it matter on CF?
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I think the "chimp/delete" method is better in many respects. You
spend less time copying and processing the raw image later and save
some space in the field.
But I'm curious. Does chimp/delete significantly affect the read/write
performance over time? When the file is written to a fresh card, it's
written contigiously. When you delete a file, a gap is created. As the
card fills (and you continue to delete), it's harder to find 8MB in one
chunk (to write the new image). So the camera writes to the gaps
created where the delete files were. Finding free space is an expensive
operation--as any computer user with a severely fragmented disk can
tell you. But does it matter on CF?
I should add that I think formatting the card in-camera before using it is
important (Because the preference is to write to empty space before writing
to space where a deleted file is).
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I think the "chimp/delete" method is better in many respects. You spend less time copying and processing the raw image later and save some space in the field.
As some know, I shoot mostly JPG and seldom shoot raw, especially if I'm reasonably certain the camera will do just fine with the exposure and white balance. I don't see a point in shooting raw when the camera will do just fine on its own and save me the hassle. But I'll shoot raw if the light is difficult, or the shoot is very important. But then I won't delete in the field, and for only one reason: when I use Canon's EVU to convert raw images I will often re-name the files as well. And if I don't delete raw files, then my file numbering for the JPG's matches the raw file. In other words, its easy to find the raw again.
How do others handle this? (or do you rename your raw file to match the jpg you just created?)
But I'm curious. Does chimp/delete significantly affect the read/write performance over time?
It would have to once the card becomes fragmented enough that holes are not available that are large enough for one file. However, this problem affects a mechanical device such as a microdrive much more than solid state memory. Disk drives have considerable lag as the drive head is repositioned to a new spot. Flash memory is "random access" -- going to any random memory location is the same latency as any other location. What I do not know is how the file system on a CF card is done. If it is exactly like a hard disk (i.e. any given file might reside in multiple non-contiguous "sectors"), in which case the performance penalty will be neglible. Or if the contents on the card must be re-arranged to create a contiguous hole large enough for the file, in which case the penalty is huge. I suspect the former.
It would have to once the card becomes fragmented enough that holes are not available that are large enough for one file. However, this problem affects a mechanical device such as a microdrive much more than solid state memory. Disk drives have considerable lag as the drive head is repositioned to a new spot. Flash memory is "random access" -- going to any random memory location is the same latency as any other location. What I do not know is how the file system on a CF card is done. If it is exactly like a hard disk (i.e. any given file might reside in multiple non-contiguous "sectors"), in which case the performance penalty will be neglible. Or if the contents on the card must be re-arranged to create a contiguous hole large enough for the file, in which case the penalty is huge. I suspect the former.
The file system is FAT32. Same as Windows. Be equiv to creating a disk in
memory (do people still do that?) for performance reasons.
I think the mitigating factor is that, generally speaking, file sizes are similar
enough so that a hole created by deleting can probably be filled by another file.
Geeze, what a geeky question I asked
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
I run the raw images through Dr. Brown's Image processor. That creates matching jpegs.
So if I don't want files named "img_0037.jpg" ....
This is why I don't delete in-camera those few times I shoot raw. That way "some_session_name_0037.jpg" matches "crw_0037.cr2". Guess I'll keep doing it my way.
one shot and a brief report from california
took the 1ds mark 2 out today for a little beach shooting, with my good friend and fine photographer steve cavigliano, this time, half moon bay, about 30 miles south of san francisco. really we went there becuase there's a nice italian joint where the dinner's really good
we managed a few shots down on the beach. i put my 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. on board, a lens which i found a bit long for me on my 20d but i am enjoying it more on the ff body.
took the 1ds mark 2 out today for a little beach shooting, with my good friend and fine photographer steve cavigliano, this time, half moon bay, about 30 miles south of san francisco. really we went there becuase there's a nice italian joint where the dinner's really good
we managed a few shots down on the beach. i put my 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. on board, a lens which i found a bit long for me on my 20d but i am enjoying it more on the ff body.
I knew I should have called in sick
Looks like a nice evening. Gazo's Creek?
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
iso 3200 - canon shoots in the dark
i am absolutely stunned by canon's high iso performance. it's good on the 300d and 10d. it's absolutely stunning on the 20d, and equally as good if not better on the 1ds mark 2. the canon engineers should all get bonuses, man, becuase this camera was made for low light. i haven't yet owned the 1d mark 2, but i have seen equally good examples from that box as well.
here's just a shot for the heck of it, with a couple of 100% crops. ignore the white balance, as i only could work from the in camera jpg, i don't have the raw converter on my laptop yet. these pics are unprocessed whatsover, only the least in-camera processing possible for sharpening, contrast etc.
i'm certain that iso 3200 would be improved via normal raw conversion process in acr, c1, bibble, or even dpp for that matter. anyhow, here they are.
pics taken at iso 3200 would respond well to noise removal tools like noise ninja or neat image. however, i should add that i routinely shoot at iso 1600 on my 20d and do not do nr at all on the images - it's that good.
detail is there
the croppabilty factor is high with this beast.
handheld, 70-200 f/2.8L i.s., iso 400, f/4, 1/80th sec. this is a 100% crop from the center of the frame, 800 pixels by 533. i snapped this just to see what the resolving power is, and it appears to be pretty darn good imo...
handheld, 70-200 f/2.8L i.s., iso 400, f/4, 1/80th sec. this is a 100% crop from the center of the frame, 800 pixels by 533. i snapped this just to see what the resolving power is, and it appears to be pretty darn good imo...
Michael Reichman has related the the 1Ds, and even more the 1DsMkii, will demonstrate lens weaknesses or technique weakenesses like no other 35mm camera. The resolution is so high that it is much more demanding of optical quality and of photographer's technique. He feels the 1DsMkii is superior to medium format film images for most subjects. The next step up is the 22 Mgpxl digital back on a Hasselblad. Then things really start to get expensive!!
vignetting
the ff sensors show the light fall-off on even the best glass. i have seen vignetting on my 50 f/1.4, my 70-200L f/2.8L and my 16-35L. from others i've spoken with, this is a ff thing, and so if this camera is staying in my bag i have to learn to deal with it.
two ways, of course:
1) since there are 16.7 mpx, i could re-train myself to compose differently at shoot, leaving plenty of room to crop.
2) adobe just updated adobe camera raw to support the 1ds mark II files (yay on ya, thomas knoll and crew!) and so acr has a "anti-vignetting" feature, whereby you can minimze the vignetting in the raw conversion process. i've tried it, it works. need to play with the settings / sliders but it does work.
getting better results with the 16-35
full shot, for comparison purposes. 16-35 f/2.8L, iso 100, f/11, tripod mounted. shot in raw, converted in acr, in ps cs, applied usm of 350, .4, 1)
and a 800x800 100% crop from the lower left corner
i also shot the same scene with a canon 10-22 ef-s lens mounted on my 20d, same settings f/11, iso 100. the corner sharpness was very very similar, but i give the edge to the full-frame though. there was more ca (cyan, purple) with the 10-22 than the with 16-35. neither lens' ca was difficult to correct, either in acr or by using shaytech's color fringe remover.
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Here are two things I discovered when I moved from 10D to 1dmkii, perhaps they will help you, too.
- There is some magic that allows you to make the WB buttons (one for each shutter button) into a "choose favorite focus point" button. It only is in effect as long as you hold down the button. I have it set of center focus point, but for vertical portraits, you could imagine choosing a differnt point. Anyway, I love this feature. Most of the time I let the camera do it's thing and it does it very well. But sometimes, we (the camera and I) have different ideas and then it's great to be able to override without having to think about it. It's become a finger habit.
- Getting the images from the camera to the computer became an issue for me when I started to shoot raws. I think it's going to be an even bigger issue for you. I had always used PCMCIA flashcard converters for notebooks for this purpose, but they were too slow and seemed to have a huge impact on other things that were going on at the same time. Firewire card readers were similar in terms of speed and system impact. I've found that USB2 flaschcard readers are much better both in terms of speed and system impact on both Macs and PCs (with linux.) These are really cheap, (<$30), so there is no harm in tryinng if you don't already have one.
Anyway, I'm sure you'll have fun with this camera. I tried to convince Elsa Dorfman to try something like this, but no dice. She is more likely to choose a gigapixel alternative or retire.TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
Ian
I think I'm going to sell the 17-40L and try something else, whether it's a EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM or a sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM or something.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
I like andy's idea of having a few 2gb cards.
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
Ian
As an example, I shoot with 512's for my S50 and 2G's for the 1{0}d.
Ian
I have a SIgma 12-24 and it is the least sharp lens I own, particularly at the wide end. And its slo.o.ow to boot! I'll trade you my Sigma 12-24 for the Canon 16-35 F2.8 that people are so unhappy about any day!!
Regarding the 17-40 L Fish - the deer footprints on the bridge were shot with the 17-40. I have not found it lacking at least with an APS sized sensor. For Andy's full frame it might not be as good as the 16-35 L.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Waxy, I remember the first time I plugged a 4Gb Micro Drive in my 10D and saw it say that it had capacity for 999 images - Large fine jpgs! Wow - I could go on vacation for a week and not remove anything from the camera! And the limit of 999 was not the size of the MD, but the limit of the file naming/numbering system in the 10D!
I use the 4Gb MD in the 1DMkll - It usually allows about 275 RAW images.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
TML Photography
tmlphoto.com
i'm quoting pf but it's really in resp to this whole discussion ...
i'm finding that i don't shoot hundreds and hundreds in a shoot. if i come home after a whole day even, i maybe have 100 shots to go thru.. i chimp as i'm going, delete what i can in the field, mainly b/c i want to reduce time in post sorting thru the images.
now when i'm away for an extended time, as now in california for a few days, the same goes, b/c i can dump to laptop at night.
on vacation, i take my laptop, too, so i'm covered there. i think that when i go on one of andy biggs' african safaris i'll need a mess o' cards though
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I think the "chimp/delete" method is better in many respects. You
spend less time copying and processing the raw image later and save
some space in the field.
But I'm curious. Does chimp/delete significantly affect the read/write
performance over time? When the file is written to a fresh card, it's
written contigiously. When you delete a file, a gap is created. As the
card fills (and you continue to delete), it's harder to find 8MB in one
chunk (to write the new image). So the camera writes to the gaps
created where the delete files were. Finding free space is an expensive
operation--as any computer user with a severely fragmented disk can
tell you. But does it matter on CF?
Ian
thanks for the tip
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
important (Because the preference is to write to empty space before writing
to space where a deleted file is).
Ian
As some know, I shoot mostly JPG and seldom shoot raw, especially if I'm reasonably certain the camera will do just fine with the exposure and white balance. I don't see a point in shooting raw when the camera will do just fine on its own and save me the hassle. But I'll shoot raw if the light is difficult, or the shoot is very important. But then I won't delete in the field, and for only one reason: when I use Canon's EVU to convert raw images I will often re-name the files as well. And if I don't delete raw files, then my file numbering for the JPG's matches the raw file. In other words, its easy to find the raw again.
How do others handle this? (or do you rename your raw file to match the jpg you just created?)
It would have to once the card becomes fragmented enough that holes are not available that are large enough for one file. However, this problem affects a mechanical device such as a microdrive much more than solid state memory. Disk drives have considerable lag as the drive head is repositioned to a new spot. Flash memory is "random access" -- going to any random memory location is the same latency as any other location. What I do not know is how the file system on a CF card is done. If it is exactly like a hard disk (i.e. any given file might reside in multiple non-contiguous "sectors"), in which case the performance penalty will be neglible. Or if the contents on the card must be re-arranged to create a contiguous hole large enough for the file, in which case the penalty is huge. I suspect the former.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
jpegs.
The file system is FAT32. Same as Windows. Be equiv to creating a disk in
memory (do people still do that?) for performance reasons.
I think the mitigating factor is that, generally speaking, file sizes are similar
enough so that a hole created by deleting can probably be filled by another file.
Geeze, what a geeky question I asked
Ian
So if I don't want files named "img_0037.jpg" ....
This is why I don't delete in-camera those few times I shoot raw. That way "some_session_name_0037.jpg" matches "crw_0037.cr2". Guess I'll keep doing it my way.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
took the 1ds mark 2 out today for a little beach shooting, with my good friend and fine photographer steve cavigliano, this time, half moon bay, about 30 miles south of san francisco. really we went there becuase there's a nice italian joint where the dinner's really good
we managed a few shots down on the beach. i put my 70-200 f/2.8L i.s. on board, a lens which i found a bit long for me on my 20d but i am enjoying it more on the ff body.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Looks like a nice evening. Gazo's Creek?
Ian
Thanks for sharing.
Dave
http://www.lifekapptured.com (gallery)
i am absolutely stunned by canon's high iso performance. it's good on the 300d and 10d. it's absolutely stunning on the 20d, and equally as good if not better on the 1ds mark 2. the canon engineers should all get bonuses, man, becuase this camera was made for low light. i haven't yet owned the 1d mark 2, but i have seen equally good examples from that box as well.
here's just a shot for the heck of it, with a couple of 100% crops. ignore the white balance, as i only could work from the in camera jpg, i don't have the raw converter on my laptop yet. these pics are unprocessed whatsover, only the least in-camera processing possible for sharpening, contrast etc.
i'm certain that iso 3200 would be improved via normal raw conversion process in acr, c1, bibble, or even dpp for that matter. anyhow, here they are.
pics taken at iso 3200 would respond well to noise removal tools like noise ninja or neat image. however, i should add that i routinely shoot at iso 1600 on my 20d and do not do nr at all on the images - it's that good.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
the croppabilty factor is high with this beast.
handheld, 70-200 f/2.8L i.s., iso 400, f/4, 1/80th sec. this is a 100% crop from the center of the frame, 800 pixels by 533. i snapped this just to see what the resolving power is, and it appears to be pretty darn good imo...
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Michael Reichman has related the the 1Ds, and even more the 1DsMkii, will demonstrate lens weaknesses or technique weakenesses like no other 35mm camera. The resolution is so high that it is much more demanding of optical quality and of photographer's technique. He feels the 1DsMkii is superior to medium format film images for most subjects. The next step up is the 22 Mgpxl digital back on a Hasselblad. Then things really start to get expensive!!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
the ff sensors show the light fall-off on even the best glass. i have seen vignetting on my 50 f/1.4, my 70-200L f/2.8L and my 16-35L. from others i've spoken with, this is a ff thing, and so if this camera is staying in my bag i have to learn to deal with it.
two ways, of course:
1) since there are 16.7 mpx, i could re-train myself to compose differently at shoot, leaving plenty of room to crop.
2) adobe just updated adobe camera raw to support the 1ds mark II files (yay on ya, thomas knoll and crew!) and so acr has a "anti-vignetting" feature, whereby you can minimze the vignetting in the raw conversion process. i've tried it, it works. need to play with the settings / sliders but it does work.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
full shot, for comparison purposes. 16-35 f/2.8L, iso 100, f/11, tripod mounted. shot in raw, converted in acr, in ps cs, applied usm of 350, .4, 1)
and a 800x800 100% crop from the lower left corner
i also shot the same scene with a canon 10-22 ef-s lens mounted on my 20d, same settings f/11, iso 100. the corner sharpness was very very similar, but i give the edge to the full-frame though. there was more ca (cyan, purple) with the 10-22 than the with 16-35. neither lens' ca was difficult to correct, either in acr or by using shaytech's color fringe remover.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter