August 22, 2014, 10:06:57 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Marsu42

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 293
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D True High ISO King?
« on: Today at 05:23:48 PM »
Once again, I disagree. I don't have any issue taking picture with 5D3 under any lighting condition.

That's probably because you've got fast lenses, try af'ing with a f5.6 lens (70-300L on long end) at dusk and you're happy about the 1 more stop of af capability the 6d provides. It's very slow though in these cases, but nice for landscape and such. It really does af in moonlight, I've tried it with my one fast f2.8 100L lens.

Or should I send it back to CPS (after I return) and get it replaced?

My advice would be not to tinker with it yourself, you might worsen it and cps might say warranty doesn't cover it. Better get it serviced once you're back, on a lens this expensive this is bound to be replaced for free, my (cheaper) L lenses never showed something like this.

Still can be a fairly high failure rate though.

Great to find someone who had the same idea and actually tried it!

What's the cause of the high failure rate - problems figuring out the correct afma setting for the distance offset or the fact that you need different afma settings for different subject distances?

When I view a shot such as this I think, well maybe a little back focused but how in the world could the focus ever be 100% - an eyball is not likely going to catch the algorithim like an eyelid so it may be focused on the front or rear eyelid or .....??

I deeply sympathize because I recently tried to shoot macros of horse eyes to see other horses reflections. You don't really want to know how many frames I needed to get one in focus shot with f5.6 on ff. If you look closely, you can see my shadow with the macro lens directly in front of the horse :-p

The reason I'm posting this shot is to agree that afma doesn't matter at all in these cases, there are so many other variables that determine where the focus ends up. The afma idea of this thread is for tracking something like horses 5-30m away.

Edit: Reposted, mackguyver's comment above now applies to this post below. Please note that I managed to annotate the picture with the camera settings used, including the object distance :-)

But how good is your eyeball? Some people believe they can do better than their camera. I doubt that.

I know I can mf better than my camera's for handheld macro, i.e. when the camera and/or the object are not steady. Not because my eyesight is better than the latest japanese tech, but because the lag between mf+press shutter button is shorter than af lock + picture taken. If I try to one-short af in these cases, the focus has changed already.

For other occasions esp. f2.8- at closer distances, I would speculate that I'm at least as good as my camera simply the 6d's af is so bad with fast lenses.

I am mostly one shot AF, but when I use Servo I have "Back Button OFF" for AF not back button ON, I find I get better results and my thumb doesn't work a fraction as hard.

That's interesting and worth starting this thread alone, I'll try that - I've always been wondering what this "af stop" setting was really about :-o

Part of that is the crappy AF focus screens in most cameras these days that make f/8 look as bright as f/1.2.  That's nice, but even with my better than 20/20 vision, I can't focus worth a damn using them.

Good to hear I'm not alone with this problem :-\ ... the vf of my old eos film camera is magnitudes better than my 6d for mf. I also cannot exchange the focus screen as my f4+ lenses would be too dark, and I need the grid screen to get the camera lined up ("horizontally challenged").

Marsu, I can't really answer your poll unless there was a response that says "It depends".

In this case I suggest voting af with ftm as this might be the most unusual setting. We all use one-shot/servo/mf sometimes, but this is about either af override with ftm or selecting af/mf via backbutton af. I'll try to clarify the poll above.

If it were a simple switch, that would be fine, but otherwise, it's too slow, and if you forgot to switch it back, all other shots would be out of focus.

No problem there, I can program/script Magic Lantern to tie different afma settings to a button.

but it would be possible to lock onto the head (or riders head [even at f/2.8, 300mm] as shown below) with relative ease using a 5DIII or 1D X and have AI Servo track it.

It depends on the distance, but with my 70-300L @300mm/5.6 or @180mm/f4 the dof on horses near you is way to thin for this to work. They eyes are out of focus, and even if only slightly so this kills the "alive" look of the animal. Using a deeper dof is also no option as the background quickly gets too distracting or the shutter speeds is too low.

You can pre-focus as well to get perfect focus for action shots and use an off-center point, or focus/recompose on the eye for portraits.

Hmmmyes, but the wild horses have the uncanny tendency to do something different than you expect them to :-p ... I've gotten better at predicting them though, that's why I manage to get any servo af shots in focus at all.

On the slight chance anyone has figured this out, unlikely as it is:

I'm often playing back postprocessed images onto the camera for viewing and reference. This worked just fine with my 60d, but the 6d crashes on zooming if the file as *any* exif metadata attached. So the only way is to remove all exif data which is unfortunate since it cannot be used as in-camera reference anymore.

Did anyone manage to figure out what exif data is required for proper in-camera usage? Even copy/pasting the whole metadata from a sooc file doesn't work, I think the embedded jpeg thumbnail (or lack of) is to blame.

The full frame 'look' such as it is is likely (as mentioned above) the ability to use shallower depth of field and more vignetting - but this is only the case for certain lenses, at certain apertures.

This, plus occasionally
- better tonality (bigger pixels (yeah! :-))
- less postprocssing artifacts on heavy edits
- less noise reduction, i.e. less "wax" look
- vastly different bokeh look ef lens on crop vs. same ef lens on ff
- a more "optical" and less "digital" look, not only by vignetting but also by sharpness falloff

Another difference is typically the FF body/lens combo will have the optics stopped down more, potentially getting it nearer to optical perfection than the smaller sensor equivalent.

... unless you're shooting macro, with the ff I end up well in the diffraction zone in no time so actually the my crop 60d produces the better images than my shiny new 6d. Plus with macro, to get the same fov crop & ff the latter will have a lower effective f-stop at close distance, so the iso advantage is no good either.

the big advantage of mf in landscape is to achieve maximum depth of field using hyperfocal distance. sometimes focusing in the point of interest isnt the better choice if the subject is beyond a certain distance and you will lose DoF

Indeed, and in these cases I use Liveview, Magic Lantern and focus peaking (and their hf calculator). The occasions when I struggle between af and mf are live scenes with people or animals, it's either af with focus & recompose or mf (override) attempts.

Btw: I split the poll options above between mf/back button af and mf/ftm, maybe we'll get some more people to vote and then a precise result might be interesting.

I get the AVAILABLE LIGHT => LENS/Aperture => SENSOR => READ OUT SYSTEM, but I am under the impression that there is a difference in image quality, as in how an image looks scaled down on a monitor or in a print, between a smaller and a larger sensor, all else equal, with the size of the sensor as the only variable.

Nope, I don't think so, don't let marketing get you. Unless you're limited by the smaller sensor's issues and benefit from the larger pixels (yes, do try shoot red gradients and postprocess them). A ff sensor doesn't have any "magic", you can either name the problems it solves or the creative potential it adds or there's nothing to it.

Btw, if crop is becoming 'good enough' in good light, wouldn't FF still be better than good enough, and remain so as technology advances? So the threshold would move with the technology.

Fortunately, there is such a thing has human perception. You can only recognize and tell so many colors apart, see only so much resolution (compare a 200ppi vs 300ppi print...). FF will keep giving you an edge in difficult situations like thin dof, very low light or higher shutter speeds, but personally I think the 18mp crop generation is "good enough" already in good light. At some point, the picture content isn't disturbed by tech limits, and that's what counts.

But I see a similar difference between 40D and 600D where the 40D has approx. two times the pixel size of the 40D. Shure, the 600D gives more detail but the 40D has sometimes the "shinier", more realistic photos. More "brilliance" is a good description.

That is even after downsizing 18mp->10mp and proper postprocessing? I know the 40d seems to have hit the sweet spot back then, but I often find people tend to compare sensor generations at 100% crop sooc.

My original decision for Canon back then was because they had these fantastic silent usm lenses that allow you to mf at all times even when the lens is set to af. However, nowadays I find myself using af most of the time except for macro (Magic Lantern focus peaking...) and some in between landscape shots. When in doubt I rather take some safety shots in case the camera's af screws up.

I am wondering: Do I have to learn to mf because I'm missing out and would get better results?. One opportunity would be horse shots, I often struggle to get the eyes in focus as they are rather tricky to af when the horse is looking directly towards the camera. Another opportunity would be people portraits and mf'ing the eyes with thin dof.

The reasons for me using af (except for macro) are:
  • The vf on my crop 60d is too tiny to see anything and the 6d is still a lot smaller than my old analog film eos cameras. This makes it very difficult for me to see where the focus is, esp. outdoors.
  • I don't have much experience setting the correct mf override, so af focus & recompose is quicker.

I'd like to ask for your experiences and input on this: (When) do you use mf or af override? Thanks!

Edit: Clarified poll options, I hope if squares with the intent of the people who already voted. Usually you perform a pre-test when doing polls :-o

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon's $40 Super-Macro Lens
« on: Today at 05:27:17 AM »
Not sure what to make of this posting. It's a verbatim copy of this posting, which is 4 years old and actually offers the images promised in the text

Probably a smart spam bot that posts some legit-looking messages before posting the ads... advertisements from just registered accounts on first post get deleted immediately, but if the account is a bit older and has some legit posts it might just work.

Maybe it's just as simple as 'more light = better image'.

Indeed, though nowadays there is a threshold where there is enough light even for a smaller sensor to be "good enough" unless you're shooting for house-sized commercial posters. Sooner or later, the ff advantage will probably be gone altogether for everyday shooting in good light, leaving the thinner dof as the only advantage from a technical aspect.

On the creative side, there definitely is a "ff look", but imho this has to do more with lenses, their bokeh and vignetting than just the sensor.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 293