April 18, 2014, 01:29:01 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 - CarlTN

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144
1
Neither am I.  That, and the lower cost, is what helped convince me I could use a 6D.  I am happy with it.  As I don't do wedding photography with flashguns or strobes, I don't need a 5D3.  If I did professional sports, I would buy the 1DX without question.  All of these cameras have their place in the line.  Those that have not used a 6D for very long, who drone out their perpetual, boring, uninformative monotone about how it should not be produced or sold, are just plain wrong.
The 5DIII is much better than the 5DII, but the 1D X seems much better than the 5DIII in low light.  I don't know why anyone would say that about the 6D, it's an excellent camera and unless you shoot sports, wildlife, or other  action, center point AF is really all you need, and by all accounts it's very good on the 6D.  We got by for years with the 5DII's lousy AF, so anyone whining about the 6D needs to get a life.

+1 million!!!  I completely agree!  They need to get a life, and stop posting so much!

2
Full size uncropped image.  Autofocused with the 6D center point on the yellow bubble level, then recomposed.  Apparently nobody else can do this, but my camera can while I'm bending over, and handholding it in a very dark room, at 1/13 second, f/1.8, 24mm, about 4 inches from the lens front element, with no image stabilization.  It looked darker than this to my naked eye, and I don't think I used exposure compensation (the metadata doesn't show it if I did).  Shot only as a jpeg, with some NR applied in LR.  ISO 25,600.

What's all the fuss about focusing and recomposing?  If little old me can do this, hand-held with no image stabilization, why can't others do it at 1/200 second in good light, or especially with strobes or flashguns?  Not saying all lenses and focal lengths are the same...but gee whiz.  It's not unheard of, because I did it.

The 'fuss' is that focus/recompose causes backfocus.  It's simple geometry– the focal plane is flat (field curvature notwithstanding), and you're rotating the camera after locking focus, which moves the focal plane to a position behind the subject after recomposition.  With a narrower aperture, the deeper DoF is often sufficient to mask the effect of the backfocus, but with a wide aperture, you'll see the backfocusing.

Frankly, your image of the ballhead is so dark and noisy that it's difficult to say anything is in sharp focus.  But one thing that seems at least close to in-focus is the index mark on the left side of the clamp, and that's well behind the bubble level.  That index mark is certainly more in focus than the lettering on the front of the clamp, despite that lettering being much closer to the bubble level.  So if you did indeed successfully focus on the bubble level, then you've demonstrated (albeit poorly) the problem with focus/recompose.

It's not that 'nobody else can do this', but can ≠ should, and many of us know that focus/recompose causes problems with fast lenses shot wide open.  If you're using a slower lens, stopping down your fast lens, or aren't a stickler for critical focus on your intended subject, focus/recompose can work.

You're conveniently ignoring the angle the shot was taken at.  The plane of focus is on a double diagonal, relative to the plane the quick release plate exists in.  Look at the area around the bubble level.  What is immediately in front of it, is not in focus.  What is immediately behind it, is not in focus.  Sure there's noise, but I was making a point about the low light autofocus ability of the center point, to myself (I shot this in January).  The 5D3 and 1DX, would not have autofocused at all in this light.

And of course the bubble level is not razor sharp.  But consider the conditions.  1/13 of a second, at a distance of 4 inches, no image stabilization.  The point is, the bubble level is in the plane of focus.  You can try to deny it, but I'm sorry, it is.

Surely you're not saying the plane of focus at f/1.8 and 24mm, at a distance of only 4 inches, is more deep than the plane of focus of a 50mm f/1.2 lens, at a distance of 6 feet or greater (or whatever the average portrait distance might be the choice for such work with that lens)? 

I'm not saying what you say is not correct, regarding the problems inherent with focus recompose technique.  Also not saying it would automatically work as well with the 50L or 85L, with the 6D, because I have no experience with those yet, on it.  However, other people who have posted recently, have related their efforts with the 50L on a 6D, and at least one has said they use "focus-recompose".  If you have a problem with the technique, take it up with them.  In any case, you have almost no experience with the 6D, thus your contributions to this thread are less valid, than those with more experience with the camera. 

3
6D's AF capabilities and focus points are just plain sad for today's standards for a camera worth that much money and a FF label. Some people defend it by saying "it can take sports photos too!". Sure it can, I did it with my 550D also. I can make my eggs on a hot engine of my car, but I can do better.

Nobody denies 6D's low light focusing ability though.

6D low light focusing  sensitivity -3Ev is not bad compared to -2Ev in 1DX and 5Dmk3 and I'm not happy with 5dmk3 ability to lock in low light.

Neither am I.  That, and the lower cost, is what helped convince me I could use a 6D.  I am happy with it.  As I don't do wedding photography with flashguns or strobes, I don't need a 5D3.  If I did professional sports, I would buy the 1DX without question.  All of these cameras have their place in the line.  Those that have not used a 6D for very long, who drone out their perpetual, boring, uninformative monotone about how it should not be produced or sold, are just plain wrong. 

4
- The 6D's -3 EV lowlight sensitivity is currently unmatched by any DSLR on the market

If you shoot lowlight, sunsets, night photography or landscape photography the lowlight AF performance on the 6D wins.

As I pointed out a few pages ago in this thread:

How do you define 'low light'?  For example, the difference between shooting at -2 EV and-3 EV could mean 1/15 s, f/2.8, ISO 51200 vs. 102400.  Neither is very usable from an IQ standpoint.  What most people call 'low light' is generally substantially brighter than either spec.

Long exposure night photograpy might benefit from that extra stop of AF capability (but in that situation, you are on a triod and probably using Live View to focus anyway).  Sunsets, landscapes and general shooting have plenty of light relative to the AF sensitivity of even lower end dSLRs. 

I think the -3 EV spec of the 6D is Canon saying 'we did it because we can, and to throw a bone after otherwise limiting AF functionality of this body' - it looks good on paper, but is of little practical benefit in the vast majority of shooting situations.

As I've said many times, due to the low noise of the 6D, the low light sensitivity of the center AF point, can be very useful in the majority of situations where you are shooting wildlife (or people) around, before, or after sunset.  Or else if you are shooting landscape hand-held, with an IS lens, up to an hour after sunset...or during a full moon.  Or if you are shooting inside a club, or outside on a dimly lit city street at night, that -3EV capability is very useful.

ISO 6400 is extremely usable for professional prints via the 6D (with a bit of post processing), and ISO's a bit above that are still useful.

As for bashing the other AF points on the 6D, you need to bash the 5D2's as well, because they were no better.  It might not still be on sale, but plenty of forum readers still own and use the 5D2.

For anyone shooting with strobes, or shooting fast sports action in well lit areas, the 5D3 or 1DX is the camera you need (or perhaps a D800 at low ISO).

If you're shooting portraits with an f/1.4 lens, wide open at f/1.4, and require peripheral AF points to be used (for focusing on eyes, etc.), then yes the 6D will not give consistent results.  But then the 1DX and 5D3 don't fare much better in that situation, which is why serious portrait photogs who shoot this way, either manually focus, or use live view.  Of course most of them are closing that fast lens down quite a bit, in which case there is more wiggle room for AF inaccuracies.

And besides, in that peripheral area of these lenses (other than the Zeiss Otus)...those eyes that you claim are so razor sharp...actually are not, and are suffering from coma and astigmatism.  It's unavoidable...especially with such lenses as the 50L and 85L.
This was fine until you mentioned the 5D3 not being much better than the 6D for f/1.4 portraits using the outer AF points. The 5D3 makes the 6D look broken doing this and it's a shame a 60D or a 7D would also make the 6D look broken.

+1 with RLPhoto, I have no problem with outer AF points on my 5D III. Doesn't matter 85L II or 50L

Photo below was taken with 5D III + 50L, outer AF point @ f1.2. Oops...sorry, that was f1.2 not f1.4 as he mentioned

That's a chair, not someone's eyes.  Post one of those please.

A lot of thing to say...little to show ::)

1st photo SOOC, untouch: 5D III + 85L II, 1/160 @ f1.2, outer AF point, was focus on her left eye
2nd little edit in LR

BTW, I have no problem using AF in -3EV lighting condition, yes, with 5D III. Wanna see sample photos?

I thought you were discussing side AF points.  Those eyes look pretty centered in the FOV to me, unless this is heavily cropped...which I doubt.

As I mentioned, 1st photo came straight out from camera, untouch, JPEG. 

The only I did reduced photo size down to 3000x2000 for posting purpose(zero cropping). It was a 3rd outer AF point, from the center.

I'm not bashing 6D, but the #1 reason I went from 5D II to 5D III is 61 AF points. 5D II feel much better in hand...that just me of course.

That's fine for you, and that reasoning makes sense.  If I needed 61 AF points, I would have bought something that had them.  Again though, what I was referring to earlier, was the part of the image of an f/1.2 lens, that was outside the center 50% of the image.  That is where the "sharpness" breaks down with such lenses, on a full frame camera, when set to full wide aperture...especially when you compare it to the center 50% of the image.  Downsampling makes things look even sharper, but that is kind of the opposite of what I was speaking about.  It's the conventional way of using such portrait lenses, because it works. 

5
While it is true you are more limited with your AF points on the 6D, keep in mind you can focus and crop instead of recompose.

Certainly, but I'd consider it a a workaround in the extreme.

Well, considering that the 5D3 AF points definitely are far from filling the entire frame, it is a workaround you will have to employ on the 5D3 as well - perhaps just less frequently.  At f/1.2, one should never focus and recompose even a smidgen as you well know due to the thin DOF.

Quote
More importantly, the 6D allows for easy switch to Eg-S focus screen unlike the 5D3 - so IMO 6D actually has a significant advantage for manually focusing the f/1.2 lenses and seeing their true DOF in the viewfinder. 

Yes, the focusing screen can be installed (I have the Eg-S screen) but I'm specifically commenting on the AF which doesn't work too well with very large aperture lenses.  Comparing the 5D3 AF with the 6D MF with Eg-S screen is like comparing apples to oranges. The 5D3 outer AF points will lock on with superb precision and you would have already taken the shot and moved on to another in the same time you would be focusing manually with the 6D.

Its not really comparing apples with oranges because the Eg-S allows you to see in the viewfinder more accurate DOF - even when autofocusing - than the 5D3's stock screen which is not user replaceable.  5D3's fixed focus screen only shows about f/2.8 DOF while the Eg-S on the 6D will come close to the DOF of f/1.2.

So, the fact that the 6D allows the user to swap to Eg-S means that what you see in the viewfinder when both AF *and* MF will more accurately represent the end product.  If you do choose to MF to that end product, it is worlds easier on the 6D using Eg-S vs the 5D3's fixed screen.

Yes, the 5D3 will likely allow to set up your shots faster, but that does not make the 6D AF useless.

Quote
One could argue you are looking for trouble in general if you try to autofocus at f/1.2 all the time no matter what camera you use.

All EOS cameras AF with the lenses wide open, so a f/1.2 lens will AF wide open at f/1.2 no matter what settings you use to shoot.

Correct, when aperture is set to f/1.2 DOF is so thin that the very slightest difference between where you thought you were focusing and where the actual camera focused will cause loss of detail. MF with Eg-S/matte screen allows you to easily see if you got the shot or not before you take it - and you don't even have to go into Live View.

Quote
The cross type outer AF points work extremely well on the 5D3. See below photo taken with a 5D3 with 85L II - 100% crop of the AF area also provided - I have been using this combo for quite a while now and am happy with the results.

Not saying that 6D is a bad camera, but the whinging that takes place over the AF happens deservedly so.

Edit: I'm not sure how to post the 100% crop. The 100% crop image that I can view here on CR is larger than what I see in LR with a 1:1 view - any tips on how to post the exact image?

I think the whining about the 6D AF depends of what you take shots of. Birds, sure, the 6D AF probably not good for that.  But for shooting people, the 6D AF is superb.  Finally when one wants to MF (or see DOF when AF in viewfinder below f/2. 8), as one often may want to with an f/1.2 DOF, the 6D actually is better than the 5D3 IMO.

If the 5D3 had a user replaceable focus screen like the 6D (or a stock screen similar to the Eg-s) I'd be quicker to throw the 6D under the bus, but the 5D3 does not, which is certainly a large demerit against the 5D3 when AF or MF in the viewfinder with fast lenses at apertures wider than f/2. 8.

Very interesting and thoughtful observations, thanks very much.  I am learning from you!

6
CarlTN: I focus and recompose too. It's never been a problem, even with a 50L on a 6D. If I am getting paid for the shot then sure, I bag a few extra shots before I move on. The same goes if the subject is a person and he or she is not perfectly still, if its windy, or if I've had a couple of glasses of wine. As long as I am not careless I am fine. I always pixel peep, so as to learn from my mistakes. Focusing and recomposing is not the end of the world as some would have you believe. That being said, I do look forward to the day there is a camera that lets me place the focus point fast and effortlessly and that provides the same hit-ratio as focusing and recomposing + practice does. If you feel the need to use anything but the centre point, I do agree that the 6D AF is inadequate.

Well said, and I'm glad to see you weighing in on the focus recompose technique, especially considering you're using the 50L.  But as I've said before, it's not so much that the outer points are useless in good light.  It's that the processing that runs the autofocus system, will tend to deliberately not lock on anything if you leave all points active.  It will bounce around all the points, and then arrive at a compromise of them all, which too often compromises the focus plane, and avoids the area with the strongest contrast (the area that a 5D3 or 1DX would have locked onto).  Also, it gives too much weight to those outer points (again with all points active), and denies the better center point the precedence it should have.  So, frankly I've had better success when relying on the outer points, if I just select one, rather than leaving all points active, especially in servo mode.  That is just asking for trouble big time.  I suppose it's easier for those with prejudice against the camera and its users, to just bash the camera and ignore people like me who point this out, though.  To them, what is easiest and simplest, is best.  But it's not accurate.

7
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: April 17, 2014, 04:20:17 PM »
What do you think? Over-edited or cool?

Nice but just a tad overdone to my eyes.  I do love cloudscapes...

8
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: April 17, 2014, 04:18:19 PM »
I occasionally see raptors flying high, usually too high for photos. I took the kestrel (middle) and buzzard (bottom) last weekend and the marsh harrier (top) last December. They are all 100% crops, with the birds occupying only 400-500x600-700 pixels, which gives an idea of how far away they were. All are hand-held using the 5DIII + f/2.8 300mm II + 2x TC III at f/5.6. 600mm and iso 640. (I saw them while walking around and could not have used a tripod).

The kestrel looks the best of this group of images, in my opinion.  Did you set ISO to 640, or was it in auto ISO?

ISO 640 was set manually.  It is my default setting for reasonable light as I find the noise level acceptable and very well suppressed with DxO prime. So, I use AV, with f = 5.6, ISO 640 and let the camera take care of the speed for shots like these.  Also spot metering + 2 ev to get the right exposure against the sky.  Focal gives f/5.6 as the sharpest aperture for my lens at 600mm.

I agree the kestrel is the best.  The buzzard is of very marginal quality as it was just a dot in the sky and I photoed it just for identification. In extreme situations such as these the Canon 300 II + 2xTC III combo has a real edge over the Tamron 150-600mm, though for closer situations the Tamron is nearly as good at f/8.

Very interesting, but hold on a minute.  You've piqued my interest, but I doubt it means what I think it does.  Are you just referring to the sharpness being better due to being open to f/5.6, or are you saying the Canon combo can also give better sharpness at a longer focus distance ?

Carl
What I mean is that the canon combo is slightly sharper than the Tamron and that this becomes noticeable when you very highly crop and in effect are pixel peeping. If you have a subject close up then much of the fine detail is spread over many pixels and so you don't notice a small amount of blurring at the single pixel level. However, when the subject is far away, the same fine detail might occupy one or two pixels and so any blurring becomes apparent.

Ok, that's what I thought.  Thanks for clarifying.

9
Landscape / Re: Total Lunar Eclipse - #1 of 4 - April 2014
« on: April 17, 2014, 05:11:00 AM »
Thanks everyone!

It was very neat to witness and capture.

You're most welcome!

10
Full size uncropped image.  Autofocused with the 6D center point on the yellow bubble level, then recomposed.  Apparently nobody else can do this, but my camera can while I'm bending over, and handholding it in a very dark room, at 1/13 second, f/1.8, 24mm, about 4 inches from the lens front element, with no image stabilization.  It looked darker than this to my naked eye, and I don't think I used exposure compensation (the metadata doesn't show it if I did).  Shot only as a jpeg, with some NR applied in LR.  ISO 25,600.

What's all the fuss about focusing and recomposing?  If little old me can do this, hand-held with no image stabilization, why can't others do it at 1/200 second in good light, or especially with strobes or flashguns?  Not saying all lenses and focal lengths are the same...but gee whiz.  It's not unheard of, because I did it.

11
Animal Kingdom / Re: MY dog
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:53:14 AM »
a year ago this poor dog had been locked up for 5 years, but he's so well behaved when he looked for permission to go a single quiet word was all it took and he never  took even one step towards them.


Please! Can I go! by Tom W W, on Flickr


Yes, I like this shot!

12
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:51:20 AM »
I occasionally see raptors flying high, usually too high for photos. I took the kestrel (middle) and buzzard (bottom) last weekend and the marsh harrier (top) last December. They are all 100% crops, with the birds occupying only 400-500x600-700 pixels, which gives an idea of how far away they were. All are hand-held using the 5DIII + f/2.8 300mm II + 2x TC III at f/5.6. 600mm and iso 640. (I saw them while walking around and could not have used a tripod).

The kestrel looks the best of this group of images, in my opinion.  Did you set ISO to 640, or was it in auto ISO?

ISO 640 was set manually.  It is my default setting for reasonable light as I find the noise level acceptable and very well suppressed with DxO prime. So, I use AV, with f = 5.6, ISO 640 and let the camera take care of the speed for shots like these.  Also spot metering + 2 ev to get the right exposure against the sky.  Focal gives f/5.6 as the sharpest aperture for my lens at 600mm.

I agree the kestrel is the best.  The buzzard is of very marginal quality as it was just a dot in the sky and I photoed it just for identification. In extreme situations such as these the Canon 300 II + 2xTC III combo has a real edge over the Tamron 150-600mm, though for closer situations the Tamron is nearly as good at f/8.

Very interesting, but hold on a minute.  You've piqued my interest, but I doubt it means what I think it does.  Are you just referring to the sharpness being better due to being open to f/5.6, or are you saying the Canon combo can also give better sharpness at a longer focus distance ?

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 01:17:23 AM »
Well, since it was "purely coincidence" and not directed at me, I will be happy to delete it myself.  One thing is certain, it's not difficult to annoy a photography snob!

14

While your image of the girl looks sharp, all I can say is, her nose occupies the right side of the "center 50%" of the image.  My previous point, had to do with the nasties that come about when you go outside that 50%, with an f/1.2 lens, shot at f/1.2.  I thought the side AF points of the 5D3, were well outside this center 50% image area.  In fact I'm pretty sure they are.  The 6D's side point is almost at this location...but would be closer to her ear ring...hardly a matter of much focus and recompose.

Not sure what you mean. The focus was on her left eye with the outer AF points

I'm saying my previous point had to do with the part of the FOV that was even farther outside this area.  I thought the width of the AF sensor area in the FOV of the 5D3, was wider than that. 

15
Mostly because most of the same folks who are bashing its AF, spent 5 years thinking their 5D2 was a superb camera at a superb price, and rarely complained, if EVER, about its AF performance.   

That's some serious revisionist history.  Complaints and bashing on the 5DII's AF are legion.  The original 5D's AF system was often likened to the 20D, and there was major flak from the beginning when the 5DII came out with the same AF.

For example, this from just after its release: http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-not-all-it-could-have-been/

I think the 6D suffers even more from the backlash of having an AF system not significantly better than that of the original 5D, and that backlash is made even worse by the stellar AF put into the 5DIII.

But most of the defenses come off as apologies - 'the 5DII's AF isn't bad considering the image sensor is the same as the flagship 1DsIII' and 'the 6D is great for the price'.  Both statements are true, but the fact remains that the old 40D had a better AF sensor than the 5D/5DII/6D, and the 40D's AF sensor has now trickled down into the Rebel/xxxD line, while the 7D and 70D have an AF sensor that's far better than those in the lower end FF bodies.


Well your history is different from mine.  I'm not revising anything, I'll leave that to you and your little helpers. 

All I ever read, was how great the 5D2 was.  And the people I knew who owned it, thought it was the best camera ever made.

Not sure what other backlash you are talking about of the 6D, besides its AF sensor.





Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 144