Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mk3 Reliability

« on: Today at 12:11:57 AM »

wow an amazing camera
upgraded from the 5DC which is also a very good camera only lacking in the AF Dept for moving subjects.
the silent shutter mode is the best for not spooking wildlife on the 5DIII
The only improvement would be faster frames per second but that is what you pay for in a 1DX
6 FPS is still pretty good especially for 22MP
I have to say when I do my part right the image quality is excellent.
I cannot fault this camera and I have used it vigorously since it was launched.

Higher FPS isn't the only thing the 1Dx better... Faster lens focus drive, much better metering, Much better sealing and construction, Dual CF cards ... list goes on. I do like the 5D3 silent shutter for weddings and events where the 1Dx shutter makes too much noise, like shooting golf.

Be invited into a tennis match to shoot between two courts at the net.  Shoot a few frames with the 1Dx and see how long you last!  I luckily had my 5D3 on me, promptly switching to silent shutter mode 

Yup, I have not had a chance to do any tennis yet, but Polo is another sport like that. I spooked a horse with the shutter sound on the 1Dx and was asked to swap to something a bit more quiet~

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mk3 Reliability

« on: May 23, 2013, 08:26:48 PM »

wow an amazing camera
upgraded from the 5DC which is also a very good camera only lacking in the AF Dept for moving subjects.
the silent shutter mode is the best for not spooking wildlife on the 5DIII
The only improvement would be faster frames per second but that is what you pay for in a 1DX
6 FPS is still pretty good especially for 22MP
I have to say when I do my part right the image quality is excellent.
I cannot fault this camera and I have used it vigorously since it was launched.

Higher FPS isn't the only thing the 1Dx better... Faster lens focus drive, much better metering, Much better sealing and construction, Dual CF cards ... list goes on. I do like the 5D3 silent shutter for weddings and events where the 1Dx shutter makes too much noise, like shooting golf.

3

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 22, 2013, 11:11:00 PM »

Set 2

4

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 22, 2013, 11:10:05 PM »

Kayaking Boater X

1Dx 200 f/2 Case 2

5

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 18, 2013, 12:16:34 AM »

Shot a river fest/kayaking comp this last weekend. Too many photos to post em all so here is the full gallery, Whole day 1Dx, 200 f/2 and RRS Monopod.

Shot Case 2 most of the day.

http://rmc33photography.zenfolio.com/p563465063

6

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 02:04:29 PM »

Luckily we have ankorwatt to correct Nikon's statements

Mmm, yes...such an extremely lucky happenstance...

And we are so lucky that he has time to correct us as well.

Ya, Seems very reminiscent of other threads...

7

Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.

« on: May 17, 2013, 03:27:07 AM »

Honestly, id love to see the 135 f/2 updated. I would LOVE to see the return of DO lenses, Got to use a 400 f/4 DO today and it was a joy, the contrast/color is a bit off but super easy to fix in post. The owner gave me a LR profile to use with the lens and it works great. I would DIE to see an updated 50 1.4 too, without IS and a 90 MM TS-E.

8

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 17, 2013, 12:24:24 AM »

and what do you think I have,  I have tested lenses from Leitz, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon ,Pentax since 1978 , if you even was born at that time, but MTF is the only real test .
 no human errors, its a measurements of the lens only
nothing you can explain away

Lens is not the only factor in making great images. If you have been testing for the last 35 years you would know this. Real MTF/any test chart is great for finding out how a lens performs in a controlled test environment, but outside of this environment you do not have this luxury. I trust a test chart and the data it produces to tell me the assumed optical performance and to calibrate my gear for the best shot possible, not how it will do in -30 degree weather, snow storms or other less then ideal (Read: non test environments ) conditions. Also, no human error? Did a Human invent the test and is a Human performing the test? If so, then there is always space for error.

Please start reading my posts and don't stoop to assumptions of my age/experience if you want people to take you seriously.

9

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: May 16, 2013, 09:59:01 PM »

17mm TS-E, 1Dx 3 exposure HDR 32 Bit. 4mm of tilt (down in this case) and 4mm of shift to the left.

Shot from the 17th story penthouse after a day of shooting kayaking. It was nice to have a chance to take a picture I could think about. Shot at around 8:30pm in Reno, Nevada. Here it is at Flickr Full size: http://rmc33.com/13A6Yhi

10

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 16, 2013, 07:59:27 PM »

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results trump test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear.

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.

there are no test who can go against a real mtf test if we are talking about resolution and contrast t, you can think what you want, but no test can compete with a real MTF test and done by for example Hasselblads lab, if you think otherwise its means you have not a clue about resolution and contrast and a real measurements with out any feelings about a brand

Well you must not have read what I posted and went straight off of emotion about my dis-agreement with you. I have loyalty to Canon because they have delivered time and again in quality not of JUST the lens, but the overall camera eco-system.

Real world results/testing can go up against your coveted "real MTF". A real world test will show more useable data then a test chat in a controlled environment.  I have a good eye for solid resolution and contrast, trust me. The IQ of any shots my friend (Nikon shooter) or I (Canon shooter) make are identical in a controlled environment. In an un-controlled environment test, say a sporting event, will show the true value of the quality of the WHOLE system and not just the lens.

Stop blindly following this "Hasslebad Real MTF" and go out and shoot. That is the ultimate test.

11

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 15, 2013, 10:50:49 AM »

I have a friend I shoot with some times. He has the Nikon 500 VR II and the D4. With and without t.c.'s that is an excellent lens. Optics are superb. I shoot with Canon and love it. But in the field I cannot tell a difference between the two in sharpness? And the price is 2K cheaper. This is shooting birds only. My views anyway.

Just for clarity, the argument is not that Nikon's lenses are not good lenses. They definitely are...in fact, some of the best in the world, and better than Canon's older generation of telephoto great whites. Canon has a number of superior factors that just make them a bit better. Fluorite is a valuable material in that it offers superior CA control over UD/SuperUD/ED/SuperED (not by a huge margin, but by enough of a margin), but also because it is a little lighter in weight, and in the case of Canon's newer lenses...it allowed them to eliminate an element (600mm f/4 L had 17 elements in 13 groups, two UD one fluorite; 600mm f/4 L II has 16 elements in 12 groups, two fluorite.) The new Canon 600mm II is 8.6 pounds (3920 grams), vs. the Nikon 600mm which is 11.2 pounds (5060 grams).

The other benefit is tighter matching of firmware between Canon's newer generation of lenses and their newer bodies. The 1D X, 5D III, and probably 7D II all have better firmware feedback for IS and AF (particularly AF). People have been getting at least 5 stops if hand-holdability improvement with IS and newer bodies (sourced from TDP, DPR and other review sites). When it comes to AF, phase-detect AF is as good and consistent as contrast-detect live view AF when a new Mark II lens is paired with a new body (1D X or 5D III; sourced from LensRentals Blog.) AF is also extremely snappy with Canon equipment, something that has NOT been demonstrated even with the top of the line D800 and D4. Overall, the improved IS and AF functionality, along with considerably lighter weight and top notch optical design, lead to overall better real-world IQ with the new Mark II Canon lenses, even though the MTFs are similar (both are similar in the center, Nikon loses out a bit more as you reach the corner.)

I can second this from real world testing/working with a Nikon shooter (both using top-end gear/been shooting 10+ years now)~ When we both nail focus on a subject you can not tell the difference, just the Canon lenses/bodies seem to nail it more often/reliably. I know his 200 f/2 had some serious back focus issues too that took 3 trips to Nikon to fix, but it also took Canon almost a month to do the service on my 200 f/2 for the 5D3, and shipped it back sans lens hood. In all honesty IQ is just a fraction of the equation, and both Canon and Nikon do that very very well. Over all use of the system (lens, body etc.) are FAR more important then just IQ, which is on equal footing.

  It honestly blew my mind the other night using live view on my 1Dx (never had before) and how good the QOF/Speed was. The contrast detect goes for non-supers as well, my 24-70 f/2.8 II performs like a champ under these circumstances. I will have to try some of my older lenses, but I was just amazed.

12

Lenses / Re: Who has pre-ordered or will order 200-400

« on: May 14, 2013, 11:39:59 PM »

None of the above. I own a 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8.

13

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:38:54 PM »

Jrista and Neuro , you call a manual procedure with live view and 4 small Canon/Nikon flashes a optimal set up?
well I have news for you, I don't compared to a real MTF test

Again, test charts are just that, controlled tests. Real world results trump test results every day. I can handhold my 400 f/2.8 II for 30-45 minutes without a monopod, can't do that with my friends Nikon. He even agrees the ergonomics are far superior for the lens AND the body (1Dx v D4). We shot kayaking for two days straight (slalom, boater X, freestyle and River test) using 200 f/2's and 400 f/2.8's + other gear with extenders at some points. IQ wise I beat him out most of the time, not due to better glass but a much better AF system, focusing speed and ability of the lens and lighter weight gear that does not tire you out as much so you can hoist up and get that shot. Shooting an event all day (7am-7pm) in the hot sun with 20 kg of gear is much different then 12 hours and 15kg of gear.

So, lets see this Swedish photo mag's real world working photographers test results and not charts, which serve two purposes: Forum arguments and lens calibration.

14

Lenses / Re: Canon Tele lenses vs Nikon tele lenses ( both with converters )

« on: May 14, 2013, 04:05:25 PM »

Nikon claims that fluorite cracks more easily than glass, and is more susceptible to heat

Both are true.  However, do those facts have any practical relevance in terms of lens use in the field?  A 10 M solution of sulfuric acid is more acidic than an eqimolar solution of hydrochloric acid - but if you annoy someone to the point where they push you into a vat of either there no practical difference - you'd be just as dead either way. 

And thats how I had my chemistry lesson for the day.

15

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70mm F2.8 L ver 2 or 3 Prime Lens

« on: May 14, 2013, 01:50:52 PM »

Pretty much what Neuro said. I honestly love my 24-70 MKII but still use my 50 1.4 quite a bit.