Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 23, 2013, 11:02:24 AM »

1DX raw files have more DR in the shadows and highlights.  Where the 5D3 shines is in the smaller size of the noise patterns at higher ISO.  They can be filtered out to a higher degree than on the 1DX.  However there are tricks you can do to make the noise less visible..such as overexposing and bringing the exposure back down in post.  You can also do the same with the 5D3 but you cannot pull the exposure too far or you will destroy the highlights.

Each one has it's benefits.  I shoot mostly wildlife and that involves a lot of cropping.  The 5D3 can be cropped way farther than the 1DX due to the higher pixel density...and still any high iso noise is easier to filter out due to the smaller noise patterns.

However, one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance.  Both cameras were purpose built and you need to choose the best one based on the overall package.  DR and noise can be compensated for to some degree but other factors cannot.

does it, 1dx is sure cleaner in the shadows because of less banding than 5dmk3 at base iso, more high lights DR ? what is that? you mean that you can  cover more  stops  from middle grey up to clipping?
I dont think so

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Foveon Sensor

« on: May 23, 2013, 09:38:26 AM »

well MTF diagrams  gives you good information about the lens you are picking, so does this curves about problems with 3 layers of filter, there are other constructions  , read earlier answer
IF there had  been only minor problem with a Foveon or similar construction you can be sure there had been  sensors  out on the market since  years back
And Foveon is not the first with a construction like this.They are the first to do a commercial product

3

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...

« on: May 23, 2013, 09:31:49 AM »

Being relatively new to the Canon DSLR world, I have been reading up on various lenses.  Many lenses that are just fantastic to have but cost a pretty penny or three.  I am in the process of (FINALLY) getting a Canon 70-200 IS II and will be here in three weeks.  Just need another $300 and it's in my hands.  So, this dream lens will finally come to fruition and I cant wait to use it for sports.

But a new lens that I want has emerged and it's going to take much longer to save for but will be worth it.  The Canon 200 f/2 lens.  The wrestling matches I attend for my nephews and high school are usually in gyms with some craptastic lighting and when they are at an awards ceremony, the auditorium lights are even worse.

The reviews for the f/2 200mm have been superb.  I wish I had this lens for my nephew's graduation at the end of this month but maybe next time for when the other nephews graduate.

So, that's my dream lens.  The Canon 200mm f/2.   A 400mm 2.8 is also on the list.  What about y'all?  Which lens would you like to obtain and why?

Just curious and I like reading about the varying subjects that people use for their photography.  I use mine primarily for sports.

Canon 200/2 should handle flare better than it does/shooting against the light , a new  1,8 with 4 stops IS  and better balanced and not are so top-heavy , then  Im satisfied .

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Foveon Sensor

« on: May 23, 2013, 06:23:03 AM »

Foveon rocks! 
FF+Foveon=FFF
FFF+mirrorless=me happy 

foveon dont rock, if so there have been a good foveon sensor out by now with good high iso properties and easy to to convert  to color true pictures with out tons of mathematical calculations.
se my earlier answer:

a Foveon solution with different layers is not a good solution, there are already other solutions tested, a single cell with prismatic properties that divides the RGB to surfaces that are equal and not stratified

Foveon is NOT about high ISO.
Leica is NOT about high ISO.
Medium format is NOT about high ISO.
Why so many people are going crazy about high ISO? I understand that it's useful, specially when you are shooting for money and you need to deliver. I'm not a pro, I shoot for pleasure and I prefer noise-free low ISO camera with better DR and resolution. Sigma Merrill series Foveon is not perfect, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it is only 3-rd generation sensor and at ISO100 it kicks the color-guessing CMOS technology in their balls.

no it doesn't regarding  colors and how we se colors. Bayer sensors don't have a lower limit on color accuracy, they can achieve literally perfect (100% match to human eye perception) color.
http://alt-vision.com/documentation/AeroSense-2003-Oral.pdf

Diagrams that can help make sense of this can you found on pages 20, 21, and 22.
The diagram on page 22 is the one that will give you the true, better insight. Look at the human eye curves (upper left graph) and the Bayer camera curves (lower left graph)
Pay attention to their shapes, and how they interact with each other. The Bayer curves is similar to the eye curves. Blue barely crosses red, and green is definitely a hump in the middle. All the slopes are similar.

Now look at the Foveon (upper right) curve. Its nowhere close. Look at where red and blue cross. Instead of being below 10% of their peak values, they're at 50%. Blue should have been finished (totally out of the picture) by about 550n, but it's still going strong all the way to 660nm (pretty deep red). Green and red should both be sloping downward from 600nm on, but instead red is sloping up. This is example  why the Foveon sensors have considerable difficulty discriminating many colors.

Eric Fossum ones wrote, clarity and richness from  the Foveon image  is a equal wonder  as when a jumbo jet taking off. 

5

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: May 22, 2013, 04:10:53 PM »

It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise...

Are suggesting the lens is causing the image noise?

I know what you're saying, Neuro, and I know that a lens can't cause noise. It's just not what I was expecting after dropping all that money on it.


It's been love/hate so far. I'll try to knock up some crops to show what I mean and see if it's just me expecting too much.

well it is not Canons best lens, in fact rather mediocre regarding resolution at the edge and corners , except in the middle,  where the lens is good .
When Hasselblad Lab  measured the MK2  lens for the magazine Foto with real MTF test (lens only)  and compared it to the old lens  they thought it was  some problems with the new lens and  they requisitioned another new  lens , but it had the same characteristics.
Photozone has also their comments on the lens  they have tested. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=2
Expensive but where are the real benefits of  the mk2 version compared to version 1?

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Foveon Sensor

« on: May 22, 2013, 03:44:36 PM »

Foveon rocks! 
FF+Foveon=FFF
FFF+mirrorless=me happy 

foveon dont rock, if so there have been a good foveon sensor out by now with good high iso properties and easy to to convert  to color true pictures with out tons of mathematical calculations.
se my earlier answer:

a Foveon solution with different layers is not a good solution, there are already other solutions tested, a single cell with prismatic properties that divides the RGB to surfaces that are equal and not stratified

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 22, 2013, 03:34:50 PM »

To bring some new points to the discussion... the 1Ds Mark III and the 5D Mark II have both the same sensor, but a different CPU. The Digic III and Digic IV may differ a lot in signalprocessing. Which doesn't mean that one or another is better. The same goes to 1DX and 5D Mark III, of course they both share a Digic V+, but the 1DX has two of em.

As you all know from the Intel or AMD Market, a CPU has a lot of steps and internal improvement from one series to another, even if they share the same name (f.e. Core2).

Last but not least, the internal firmwarealghorithm may differ from cam to cam. So somethimes the raws are getting better with a firmwareupdate, no one knows why

no , they have not the same sensor, there are different regarding CFA  ,  FWC , QE and read out noise

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon Foveon Sensor

« on: May 22, 2013, 11:28:38 AM »

A foveon-style FF sensor in a canon body would be sweet.  Canon, dooo ittttttt.....

a Foveon solution with different layers is not a good solution, there are already other solutions tested, a single cell with prismatic properties that divides the RGB to surfaces that are equal and not stratified

Canon is not a company who have a front edge machinery park , on the contrary they are far behind in downscaling  individual pixel size and with different solutions , therefore 18MP at APS a long time now.The major inovation are made ​​by Omnivision, Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Aptina and others who are produces mobile cameras

9

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: May 20, 2013, 04:49:27 PM »

have I said anything else? I have tested 1dx and d4 by my self regarding picture quality, signal, noise, resolution.
I know these guys and have talked to one of them about the AF,  I mean it takes a month to evaluate this cameras AF and the benefits one or the other have in different situations, Canon are initially faster (if we now are talking about speed) but the keepers are  then lower in a series of pictures. Then you have the raw buffer etc etc. But my answer was about signal and noise at high iso and picture results and a answer to Jrista who seems to have much faith in 1DX high iso properties compare to others.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: May 19, 2013, 09:41:48 PM »

what do you now mean?
I say go out and try for you self , you have to expose the 1dx 0.5 EV and even  more compared to D4 and they are then similar in signal noise and RAW in high iso.That  D4 are a lot better at base iso regarding DR are no news to anyone
do now this simple comparison and come back with your results

this link is translated by google
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fcldoc%2Ftest-canon-eos-1d-x-mot.htm&act=url

11

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: May 19, 2013, 06:50:10 PM »

well  you are wrong about high iso, if you shall have the same results from 1dx and D4 and brightness in the images you have to expose the Canon more/richer/longer  than Nikon, so overall there is no difference in high iso between the two cameras if you look at the raw file regarding signal /noise. About DR and low iso, base iso the 1dx has no chance against D4 due the signal/noise, go out and try d4 and 1dx side by side at high iso and you know/ se  what Im is talking about "real life shooting as some people called it"

12

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

« on: May 19, 2013, 06:42:12 PM »

Martin Agfors  have been shooting  with the new canon lens . Martin is a serious test editor at Profs Foto  here in Sweden.
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotosidan.se%2Fcldoc%2Fvi-har-provat-canon-ef-200.htm&act=url

13

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

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:48:01 PM »

Yes the 300/2.8mk2  from  canon looks very good in the MTF lab and Hasselblads measurements

14

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

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:42:37 PM »

All this to fluorite or not.....

The nikon 800 f5.6 (latest tele from nikon)

''The AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR is a marvel of NIKKOR optical design. The lens is comprised of 20 elements split into 13 lens groups. The front and second elements are fluorite (a lightweight mono-crystal optical material), which provides superior optical characteristics and reduced weight for balanced handling.''

Looks like nikon is also going to fluorite from now on

But Mikael/ankorwatt says that Nikon's SuperED glass is just as good as fluorite optically, and stronger, too. Why would Nikon need to use fluorite at all, much less state that it "provides superior optical characteristics"?   

no, I said that Nikons conclusion is that their super ED glass has the  characteristics that make it possible to chose ED glass  as well as fluorite  for some designs, fluroite glass  is nothing Canon are alone to use in their lenses

15

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

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:39:32 PM »

They all use different  glass for different purpose, and fluorite is also used by Nikon.