Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D vs. 6D AF

« on: May 11, 2013, 10:51:51 PM »

So, I'll get to my question. I would certainly love to have 61-point AF, but if the 6D AF is equivalent to or better than the 40D AF, that'd probably be good enough for me. Has anyone upgraded from a 40D to a 6D who could share some thoughts? How are the outer points? The 40D has 9 cross-type, the 6D has only one. In actual practice, has that been noticeable?

Thanks so much!

I haven't done exactly that upgrade. I have a 5DII I upgraded from an older rebel (the former is pretty similar to the 6D). The outer points are usable, but I usually go with the center and focus-recompose.

Having more AF points and some more advanced features for AF tracking would be useful for sports shooting, but for one shot AF mode it works quite well. I've even found servo quite good with the center point -- I recently took shots of the finish line in a 5K race (subject running straight at the camera) and didn't bother with several shots per subject and it turned out I didn't need to. Keep rate was very good. I used center point with servo. Most of the misses were "user error" (subject "fell off" the AF point) which could have largely been fixed by taking more shots.  The lens by the way was the 135L.

In your case it seems like a no-brainer -- your overall system will be much more usable if you spend the extra money on glass (and a flash if you don't have one yet)

2

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: New Real Estate Photography - What do you think?

« on: May 01, 2013, 08:38:32 PM »

My $0.02:

(1) horizon line is right in the middle of the picture. I'd like it with more sky.
(2) my favourite of the bunch. You see more of the house, the composition works (for me)
(3) I find this composition a bit awkward. Swimming pool is clipped on the right, and the house is right in the middle of the frame and the sloping horizontals make it look like the image is about to slide out of the left side of the frame. I'd like this more if the picture had been framed with the house on the left hand side (more of the pool, house to the left of the frame). Since that's not possible now, I'd like it cropped closer to the left of the house.
(4) I'd like this more if the staircase were to the right (the staircase directs the "flow" of the picture)

3

EOS-M / Re: To buy M or not to buy M?

« on: May 01, 2013, 08:22:06 PM »

I don't think the M is the best mirrorless by any stretch.  Certainly you can do better with a Fuji or Sony.  But for the price, since the recent drop, it's unbeatable. 

It's the best Canon mirrorless,  for sure.

Outside of Canon, you can get mature Nth generation mirrorless cameras with touchscreens and all that, not to mention more complete lens systems for well under $400-.

The only compelling advantage of the EOS-M is that you get AF with EF lenses. It is "off balance" with these lenses, but you're presumably carrying the bulk of the weight by cradling the lens with your left hand instead of trying to grip the body, so it's quite usable.

4

Lenses / Re: What exactly is a 100% crop?

« on: April 28, 2013, 08:13:45 AM »

For years I've seen people post examples of a "100% crop" to show the sharpness of a lens or the noise level of a sensor.  Today I was thinking about posting some images from a EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS that I just picked up and realized that I don't know how to do a 100% crop.  Can someone provide brief instructions on how to do that?  I'm using Lightroom 4 if it matters.

It really is quite confusing because of the issues that come up when you try to display the image on the web.

The 100% crop itself just means some cropped of the image that is not rescaled in any way.  So for a 4000x3000 original, a "100% crop" of the top left quarter of the image would be 2000x1500.

Generally, at this point, you don't have a problem -- if you ask your software package to "crop",  it will typically do a "100% crop" for you -- that is, it will crop and NOT "crop and rescale" (why should it ? The latter is not something the user asked for!)

Another place an image can get rescaled is in the web browser. In html, the IMG tag specifies an image width and height for display which do not necessarily need to be the same as the original image dimensions.

Another place the image can be rescaled arises when you are uploading an image to a forum or any kind of website that displays pictures. In this case, the software on the server may rescale. If you are uploading an image that is larger than a typical screen resolution (e.g. more than about 2 megapixels), the image will not fit on a screen unless it is rescaled. So if you upload your original image and then the uploaded image fits on your screen, you can assume the server has rescaled it. The way to prevent the server from rescaling it is usually to crop out a small enough region image (e.g. 400x400) that any reasonable forum would allow it to be displayed at full size. In some cases, the server simply might not allow a very large image to be uploaded in which case you need to make the choice between cropping and rescaling the original. If your intent is to show a 100% crop, the choice is clear.

5

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: April 27, 2013, 01:28:30 PM »

Why all the hate on the M?  Anyone who has used mirrorless cameras knows the AF is the weak point, and otherwise the M is an amazing little camera.  It got some bad reviews from people who didn't take the time to get to know the camera, and those negatives have been repeated over and over by a bunch of trolls.  I'd like to see how many poopooers have actually used one.

The EOS-M is just dandy until you start comparing it with the competition. Canon's offering is too-little-too-late. Olympus and Panasonic have already spent years refining AF and developing a system of lenses.

Canon comes into the market late with a me-too offering -- no innovation, weak lens system, and under-speced compared to similarly priced peers. You can get away with charging a premium if you are the market leader (as they are in DSLRs). The mistake is that they are not a leader in mirrorless cameras (actually they are pretty close to dead last at least among the major players).

As a DSLR vendor, they are justly aggorant.
As a mirrorless vendor, they are just arrogant.

6

EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]

« on: April 27, 2013, 01:24:06 PM »

They(Fuji) are also twice the price.I owned one(EX-1) it doesn.t focus very fast either,it was no better than my M and by the way do own an EOS-M or have tried one,I didn't think so.

The Fuji came to the market with some decent (fast prime) lenses -- a normal fast prime (street shooters lens), a wide prime and a macro. No ho-hum consumer zooms.

They also tapped into an unfilled niche that the mirrorles enthusiasts had wanted for quite a while -- a rangefinder styled MILC with a built in viewfinder.

The camera is more expensive than Canon's offerings, much like a 1 series body costs more than a Canon 6D. It's in a completely different league.

The OM-D and Panasonic GH3 are also in completely different league (to the EOS-M) and sit at comparable price points.

7

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: March 26, 2013, 06:09:41 PM »

If you read my original post, I rented the 6D to try it out. I did not buy it.  I was seeking other opinions because many have said the 6D's AF was in the same ballpark of the 5D m III. I found this not to be the case with the kit 24-105 f/4.

Have you also tried the 5DIII ?

8

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: March 26, 2013, 06:09:03 PM »

I rented a 6D camera body to take helicopter skiing in Canada. I brought my 24-105 f/4, 40 f/2.8, and my 50 f/1.8 lenses. I found the autofocus to be slow with all 3 lenses, especially in lower light. I really experimented by changing many of the autofocus parameters and resetting the rental body to factory settings to make sure nothing was amiss. I found the 6D autofocus to be for the most part as good as my Rebel 550D with each of my lenses. I was really disappointed because a want a new body to replace my Rebel.  Lensrentals.com checked the 6D and found it up to factory specs.  Looks like I may have to pony up for the 5D m III.  Does anyone think the climate and elevation had anything to do with the slow AF?  Or does the 6D really have a mediocre AF?

Can you provide more details ? How were you using it ? Green box mode ?

9

Lenses / Re: Prime vs zoom

« on: March 25, 2013, 10:25:44 PM »

I'm not a pro, so I am never under pressure to "get the shot".  I also have plenty of access to my primary subjects. So it's primes all the way for me (35L/50mm f/1.4/siggy 85/135L and on a panasonic gf2 the 20mm f/1.7 and the 45mm f/1.

Having said that I owned the 15-85mm EF-S lens and it was quite nice for outdoor shots -- it would make a fine travel zoom. It was very good for what I used it for (outdoor walkaround-ish shots), it's just that I didn't take these shots very often. I liked it very much as a wide angle lens (where I am more likely to want more depth of field and hence aren't bothered that it's a slow lens), I didn't use the tele lengths on it as much.

The primes: 35L : my "wide lens". Siggy 85: my "indoor portrait lens". 135L : my outdoor tele. 50mm f/1.4 -- this one's a bit of an odd duck (it was my favourite lens for APS-C and I couldn't bear to part with it) but when I have to choose exactly one lens, this is the one.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 25, 2013, 08:05:48 PM »

I believe your guess also correctly explains exactly why AFMA is not included on the new Rebel SL1:  useless to most users, not a lot of requests for it.  So the manufacturer makes the most sensible decision.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  I think it's at least as easy to understand and useful to the Rebel user base as 2-axis white balance!

You're avoiding the question about whether the useful "edit CSS" feature should be offered to all WordPress.com customers,

Thought the question is not terribly relevant here, I did address it though maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Yes, of course the marginal cost of enabling that feature for the remainder of the user base is either zero or very close to zero.

In software, marginal costs of expanding or upgrading the user base are nearly always close to zero, but you will always lose if you price near or at marginal costs (because marginal costs are zero or close to zero whereas fixed costs are very high).

So the answer to your question which is, essentially, "why don't software vendors price at marginal costs" is:

"because marginal costs are dwarfed by fixed costs. If they price at or near marginal costs they don't recuperate their fixed costs).

Also, in this particular case (wordpress), it is most likely that the non-paying users if not free riders are not the primary source of profits (actually IMHO they are pretty close to free riders). This is not the way it is with cameras,  where (a) the marginal costs are not at all negligible, and (b) the cheaper models are a major (perhaps primary) source of revenue that the manufacturer can use to offset fixed costs.

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5Dc a good option?

« on: March 24, 2013, 11:36:20 PM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ff option does bring out more vignetting which isn't the biggest problem in the world, but it can turn a good ef lens on a aps-c  into a pain to edit on a ff.

For a given lens that's true, but that's a property of wide fov lenses, not full frame. To compare apples to apples, you need to compare equivalent focal lengths (same fov) and either optimal apertures on both bodies, or "equivalent apertures" (e.g. to take into account that you can stop down a bit more and bump ISO if necessary on full frame for the same depth of field and comparable image quality)

Once you do that, it becomes much less clear that you'd expect more vignetting on FF. One thing that you do gain is that Canons wide primes are all FF lenses (and some of these, such as the tilts are outstanding). There's little point (in my opinion) in APS-C users going with FF primes wider than about 35mm because you're paying a staggering amount of money to cover a wider fov than you need. 

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrading from Rebel XT

« on: March 24, 2013, 09:08:26 PM »

So what do you think? Will it fit my needs, will it be a good upgrade for the cost? or should I hold off and see what happens to the price of the 7D, if a 7DMII is announced in the next couple of months?

Thanks, here's a small sample of some of the photos I take if that helps.

I think that seems like a reasonable choice. Your emphasis on glass is the right one. If you go full frame, you start several hundred dollars behind (even if you get a used 5DII) and you also need to find yourself a kit lens. So then you start close to $1000- behind, just to replicate your existing setup.

You could possibly save a little by going to an XXD series body, but then you'd lose the AF performance and possibly AFMA (depending on which body you use). Though for your current glass selection that's really a moot point. But overall I'd say don't go higher than the 7D for a body given your budget.

There are a bunch of obvious upgrade possibilities that would probably get you further than upgrading the body (from a 7D that is) --  upgrade the kit lens (either a 15-85mm IS, or a third party f / 2 . 8 zoom ) add a faster lens (e.g. 50mm f/1.4 or an 85mm) for portraits, and a decent tripod for the landscape photos, upgrade the telephoto lens (the possibilities here are endless ... ). Full frame wouldn't hurt but glass will help more (and hold its value much better than a body)

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 24, 2013, 08:50:56 PM »

Who said anything about extra physical controls?  All of those features could be implemented in the menus of the 5DIII.  The 5DIII already has "Scene Intelligent Auto" (the Green setting)

My point is that the green box itself is a top level item (it takes a spot on the mode dial, at least on the 5DII).

Putting the art filters inside any menu, which requires a few steps of navigation to reach and also generally requires taking ones eye from the viewfinder, renders them considerably less useful (aside from the fact that most users of this body consider such features useless in general this would make them a little bit more useless).

As long as they are buried inside a menu, those features wouldn't actually be harmful. I'm going out on a limb here, but my guess is that there haven't been a lot of requests for these features from 5D users. Your post is the first I've heard of this.

This is not about loss leaders/free riders.  People paying $0 for their blogs get ads on their site, so they are not necessarily loss leaders/free riders.

You seem to be trying really hard to not understand here. The marginal software development cost of adding users to a software product is 0. Therefore the economics of developing software are completely different to those of developing camera bodies.

Far from providing any illumination, your analogy is off base and amounts to a willful obfuscation of an issue that you are apparently unwilling or unable to address in a more forthright manner.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 24, 2013, 04:39:26 PM »

Let me ask you why they chose to omit the cool creative filters and scene modes in the 5DIII?  (Hey, I would really like them. )  Or why they chose to include the green Auto mode on the mode dial of the 5DIII?

Putting extraneous items on physical controls is not comparable to having an extra item in a 3 deep menu heirarchy -- since they can't custom build a camera for everyone, they need to make a cost/benefit call which means any item on the physical controls must be carefully thought out.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was some internal debate about the "green box" on the 5D -- there is after all already a P mode as well as Av and Tv.

Another analogy:  Wordpress.com offers three price levels for blogs they host, from $0/year to $99/year $300/year.  To get the ability to edit CSS on your blog (a "premium" feature), you have to go up from $0/year to $99/year.  Of course, you get some other premium features bundled together for that price. 

You have a lot of analogies but they aren't really relevant. The $0 a year option is obviously a loss leader. Also, the fixed costs of software development are very large but the marginal (per user) cost (of the software development itself) is 0. The close to zero marginal costs are why they can afford to have free riders. Camera manufacturers do have fixed costs but they also have marginal costs. There's not much point in them letting free riders in -- the sales of rebel units are large enough that it would be crazy for the manufacturer to price them at the marginal cost (e.g. as opposed to recuperating fixed costs/making a profit).  So I think another place where the analogy falls down is that the $0 a year wordpress customers are free riders while it is probably not the case that this is true of Rebel users.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Congratulations Canon to another great Camera release!!

« on: March 24, 2013, 12:18:42 PM »

Well, you are welcome to defend it as a business decision. However, Canon's policy of going out of their way to cripple their lower end products does make them less attractive (and difficult to recommend to someone on a tight budget!)

This is where we disagree.  The SL1 is no more "crippled" by the lack of AFMA than the 5DIII is "crippled" by the lack of creative filters and scene modes.

Canon has a nice 2,500 word article on their web site on AFMA and how to do it.  That's about 5 typewritten pages, single-spaced.  Who has time for that?  Advanced users and pros ... and no one else.

Which other features would you suggest removing based on this doctrine ? Support for raw seems like a pretty good candidate -- how many pages does it take to discuss the finer points of that ? Also, what do you think of having a white balance adjustment on two axes (not even a color temperature slider -- a two axis amber/blue and green/magenta control instead).  The Rebel also has in-camera correction for CA and vignetting, so it's not too much of a stretch to think that maybe AFMA belongs there.

So I'm afraid in conclusion I simply don't really buy your theory that Canon chose to remove AFMA to make a more minimal, focused and tightly integrated, easy to understand feature set. (the two axis white balance is the nail in the coffin for that theory -- there is no way the average rebel user understands what that feature does, let alone how to use it effectively)

I have already discussed at length why creative filters on the 5D are not analogous to AFMA on a Rebel body (basically the creative filters need to take up real estate near the top of the decision tree to be useful. 5D users would laugh at them but not really be too upset if they were, like AFMA, buried in a 3-level menu so that they didn't interfere with typical operation)