Messages

1

Software & Accessories / Re: RAW Processing and what the hell is a DNG

« on: January 24, 2013, 05:12:11 PM »

I shoot with 7d and 60d generally always in RAW.

My process generally follows:

Load RAWs into lightroom
Process with standard exposure/colour adjustments
save in lightroom and export as JPEG for web publish.

Sometimes when I need to edit further I:

Open into PS for any masking/layering.
Save as TIFF to preserve the layers.
reimport backinto lightroom and export as JPEG.

I've seen people converting to DNG rather than process the raw files but I don't know why?

also when I import RAWs into lightroom, the pictures start off punchy and vibrant (like the JPEG preview on camera), and then when it renders they go all soft, mushy, lack contrast and the colours (particularly reds) become quite weak. Am I doing something wrong? I've never really touched "camera calibration" in lightroom, should I be exploting some features in there?

Thanks for your time

1. I like DNGs a bit more because I would lose all my sidecars because the files are being moved and backed up all the time. DNG's are a really convenient package and allow me to reverse any changes easily and although I doubt the .CR2 files will ever become obsolete and impossible to find a converter, I never have to bother with a converter if I need to look at old pics 15 years from now... simple.

2. If you are processing the pics as they are coming into lightroom that can drop contrast and vibrance if auto-tone is selected for example. I think this is what is happening to you because canon naturally oversaturates reds because it yields nicer fleshtones although it sucks because I've blown the red channels on a bunch of red flower pics in direct sunlight (Nikon seems to oversaturate greens). The lightroom conversion will naturally correct the canon image because although it may be prettier with overdone reds its not really accurate.

3. Although your camera is taking pure sensor data to make your RAW file your camera is most likely set with a certain picture style that will affect the display on the back of the camera. Hence I always set my picture style to neutral so I know right then if one of my high ISO pics is not looking the way I want it to. If you like what you see on the camera, you can process with DPP and it will use the jpg processing settings from the camera to render your images and it should look identical to what you see on the back of your camera unless you:

4. Have an uncalibrated monitor that does not display colors properly. Most monitors are pretty crappy at accurately portraying colors and yours may not display red, contrast, gamma or any number of other image characteristics properly. In this case you can try color correcting with websites which will get you maybe a bit better or suck it up and buy a colormunki.

5. You may have incompatible color spaces on the camera, LR settings and/or the monitor. I'd check all three and make sure its consistent. Given your workflow I'd probably just shoot in sRGB, have lightroom display in sRGB because its really not going to make a difference most of the time. Using AdobeRGB gives you a tiny bit better color accuracy but a huge headache if you are not 100% confident at what you are doing. Color space issues usually show up in the jpeg export process and yield mushy pics when posted on the web but I have no idea what buttons you may or may not have pressed on the back of your camera, in lightroom and what type of monitor you have (although 99% of monitors display in the sRGB color space).

My guess you have problems 3+4 and possibly 2 and its combining to create mush images. Who knows what the people on the web are seeing though because their monitors will most likely be equally out of whack.

 

2

Canon General / Re: FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

« on: January 20, 2013, 06:00:31 PM »

White balance a bit cold I think.

Yes, Obama has orange teeth IRL.

3

Lighting / Re: Birds with Better Beamer & sync times

« on: January 10, 2013, 10:42:11 PM »

You should be able to get handheld shots sharp at 1/250s with the 600mm and 1.4x. I'm in Costa Rica right now and I have been getting sharp shots with a 2x and the old 500 (2 stop IS as opposed to the 600mm II's 4 stop) handheld at 1/300s (1DIV max sync speed). Of course not every shot is sharp but the birds here don't spook from the flash. The flash output even with a better beamer at the distances that you will be shooting at with 840mm will not be sufficient to mask shadows if your bird is in the shadows or really heavily backlit. Improve, yes but fix no. If you are off high speed sync you should be fine with the output. I am bigger than most (6'5") but if you work on your technique and arm muscles you should be fine. The technique is far more important than the arm muscles though. If you throw your arms out to the side and don't press the camera to your face with your feet square to the bird you'll have a hard time getting a good shot at 1/1000s.

4

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: January 02, 2013, 11:59:07 PM »

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

Probably not.  The reason I haven't been terribly motivated to set up the test is that I've done the test between the 7D and cropped 5DII (about 18 months ago, now), so I know the only difference is MP not IQ, and the 1D X is better than the 5DII for sensor IQ.  I assume the test with the 600 + 1.4x on both bodies would show the same, or an advantage to the 1D X at higher ISO. That test is less relevant now that the 1D X supports f/8 AF - not much difference in pixel-level magnification comparing 2x on FF to 1.4x on 1.6x crop.  I disagree with natureshots that the 7D + 1.4x will optically outperform the 1D X + 2x.  That might be true with a lesser lens, but the MkII supertele lenses just don't take that big an IQ hit from a TC, even a 2x (and keep in mind that the 600 II + 1.4xIII beats the 800/5.6 for IQ).  As for AF, while the 7D's 19-points are very good, the center point of the 1D X is better.  But the real kicker is that most times I've been out shooting with the 600 II, my ISO has ranged from 1600 to 6400. The bottom of that range is ok on the 7D, but the top end just doesn't cut it on the 7D. 

For those reasons, I'm pretty sure the 7D gives me no advantage over the 1D X, other than a few more MP (and not really all that many more, comparing the 1.4x on the 7D to the 2X on the 1D X.

The question I suppose I'm really asking myself is, do I want to keep the 7D as a backup body?  Or should I take what I can get for it, now, and put that money toward a 24-70 II?

So, between 20 and 30 yards, the 7D will work and the FF won't resolve. ... So your test shots depend on what you are photographing and how far away it is.

Would you expect that to be true at, say, ISO 6400?

I am sure that in real world applications the 1dx +2x will virtually always beat the 7D and 1.4x. My real curiosity about the performance of the 7D in bright light really has to do with the rumored 7D II's capabilities as a cheaper alternative to a 1dx for focal length limited applications. Of course you will always get better BIF and low light performance from a FF pro body like a 1dx but my idea is that if the 7D can do well in a situation like a bright field at low ISOs then it stands to reason that the 7D replacement will have better high ISO capabilities and hopefully some decent cross type AF points borrowed from the 1dx then there is great option for bird photographers as opposed to a $6000 camera. I hate spending money on bodies, there value plummets like used cars. By the same token neuro, a 7D will depreciate much less than a 1dx by virtue of the fact that its cheaper. If something happens to the 1dx I'd be psyched to have a backup 7D as opposed to a 600 II with no body. Just my thoughts....

5

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: December 31, 2012, 03:28:55 PM »

After seeing the results I got without one I knew there was no point in me testing with one, I even had a 1.4 and a 2x TC to hand at the time, though I no longer have the 7D so can't repeat the tests, but, for me, the results without a TC were conclusive enough to realise a 7D wouldn't serve me a useful purpose.

Still not exactly the point - the question was actually a comparison between the APS-C (1.6x) with the 1.4x TC (so, 2.24x total) vs. the FF with the 2x TC, in other words, is the better IQ of the FF sensor sufficient to overcome the greater decrement in the optics with the 2x vs. the 1.4x TC.  It's relevant because in the case of an f/4 lens, the 1.4x TC allows normal AF on the 7D (all points) whereas the 2x TC on the 1D X allows only a central cross-type point and 4 surrounding single-line points.

True, not exactly the point, but as so often we can become in danger of over thinking this. If you agree there is no practical difference in output between my two crops, and at reasonable viewing distances in print and on screen I have satisfied myself that there isn't, especially when used in real world shooting scenarios, then the obvious extension of that is to get similar results from the 7D and 1Dx you don't need to use different TC's, just slap the 1.4 on the 1Dx and crop, your results will be exceptionally close to mine.

The second thing I found that killed the 7D for me was noise, even in well illuminated situations at base iso you can see more noise than with a cropped full frame, start shooting in less ideal situations and the differences just get bigger.

As always, I am not saying the 7D is a bad camera, it is not, and I am not saying you can't take superb images with a 7D and print them big, you can. It is just that, IMHO, if you own a decent megapixel full frame body with good AF then there is no realisable IQ reason for you to own a 7D as well.

So, when you do get round to doing your testing, make sure you compare both with a 1.4TC and crop the 1Dx, you might be surprised.

For those of us that do small birds we tend to use really long lenses/extender combos and crop (focal length limited photography). I'm guessing that the 7D + 1.4 will pretty thoroughly outperform the 1dx + 2X in good light. If this is what your primarily doing the 7D can make a big difference. Also, when they update the 7D which will hopefully be coming soon I would hope that the low light performance will increase by a stop. If so, the 7D mkII will be a huge boon for bird photography so I'm kinda curious how everything comes out. It's important to remember that the 7D combo puts a good deal more pixels on your subject and offers tighter framing while avoiding the less sharp corners of the 1dx + 600 + 2x TC. Also you have the ability to put on a 2x on the 7d and I can 100% guarantee that you will get better results than the 1dx and stacked TCs. Its a nice option to have for some bird photographers who can MF and simply cannot get closer (yes, plenty of bird photographers have made sale-able images with stacked TCs). For those people who want to do pro photography this edge for focal length limited stuff is huge and can make a difference in your income. If you want to make the comparisons check out the digital picture. Too bad they don't have the 100% crops from a crop camera and the 600 combos .

6

Lenses / Re: Worth it to upgrade Extender 1.4 II to a Mk III?

« on: December 31, 2012, 03:03:40 PM »

Been contemplating if it's worth the upgrade, improved IQ and AF,  to upgrade to a 1.4x or 2x Mk III Extender.

With spring training (baseball) just around the corner here in AZ, I want to be ready if I choose to upgrade.  I will be using my 7D with my 70-200 2.8 II for outdoor games and once regular season starts (indoor games), I will use both my 7D and 5D3.  I'm more interested in the 1.4x but am considering the 2.x  Thanks

Consensus is for the 1.4x you gain practically nothing by upgrading from the vII to the vIII. The only good reason for the upgrade would be if you needed better AF for a supertelephoto vII prime ($6500+). For the 2x the vIII is worth the $400 for there's marked increase in quality. Its important to realize that if you are not going to use the 280-400mm range increase from the 2x then skip it. Even with the vIII its substantial hit with the 70-200mm. You will definitely get better results with the 2x vIII than if you crop with a 1.4x though.

7

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: December 31, 2012, 01:33:48 PM »

After seeing the results I got without one I knew there was no point in me testing with one, I even had a 1.4 and a 2x TC to hand at the time, though I no longer have the 7D so can't repeat the tests, but, for me, the results without a TC were conclusive enough to realise a 7D wouldn't serve me a useful purpose.

Still not exactly the point - the question was actually a comparison between the APS-C (1.6x) with the 1.4x TC (so, 2.24x total) vs. the FF with the 2x TC, in other words, is the better IQ of the FF sensor sufficient to overcome the greater decrement in the optics with the 2x vs. the 1.4x TC.  It's relevant because in the case of an f/4 lens, the 1.4x TC allows normal AF on the 7D (all points) whereas the 2x TC on the 1D X allows only a central cross-type point and 4 surrounding single-line points.

I do use back button focusing and recompose while leaving the AF in servo. Kinda gives you the best of both worlds so I'm primarily using just the central sensor unless I have extended time to switch AF points which is frequently not the case with erratic wildlife. If I was to guess I would say that the 7D with 1.4x will outperform the 1dx with a 2x unless the light gets low or you need great AF. Other variable in the test is the decreased precision of the 7D's AF points. Accuracy can be fixed with AFMA but I've seen a comparison of the precision between the two cameras and most canon FFs perform better.

8

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: December 30, 2012, 11:09:14 PM »

I've never done the 'how slow can I go' test, but I normally use a min shutter of 1/250 s.  As for technique, the usual - good stance, elbows against body with the left one braced to support the lens, eyecup against forehead as an additional contact point. The corners aren't as sharp as the center, but that's a relative thing - they're still sharper than most other lenses...

Definitely the right technique but I've noticed some people are simply better at handholding than others. I'm guessing you haven't compared yourself to others who atleast know how to support the lens. The 1/250th is with the 2x extender on right? Other question is have you compared the resolution of a 7D and 1.4x vs a 1dx and 2x? I know you'll take a big hit in AF and probably a little more than a stop of light (I'm guessing about 2.5 stops difference in low light performance, I'm assuming the 7D at 800 is similar to the 1dx at 4000ish in RAW noise level). Important thing to think about too is the 7D has the same MP and a higher effective magnification (1x2x600=1200 vs 1.6x1.4x600=1344). I'm really interested to see how a crop sensor can measure up to a FF on focal length limited applications. I realizing I'm asking a lot but I figure it might be an interesting comparison if you feel up to it. Thanks for the info, the wheels in my pixel peeping mind are turning  .

In response to the OP because I'm getting off topic: If shooting is a hobby the 500mm does sound like a better option. The added weight certainly will not add to your enjoyment of photography. The extra 20% magnification is not a big deal especially when it's really only about 10-15% magnification if you are cropping because the 500 is certainly a sharper lens. Plus the cost difference is extra money for vacation and that seems like a better use of the money. Also if your subject is between 12-15 feet not having to use tubes sure is nice.

9

Lenses / Re: 500 x $10K or 600 x$13K

« on: December 30, 2012, 08:54:04 PM »

Photography is also a hobby for me.  I had this choice to make over last summer, I chose the 600mm II.  The extra 100mm is useful to me, and performance with the 2xIII is very good. I can carry the lens on reasonably long hikes (on a Blackrapid strap), and handhold the lens. I've shot birds in flight at 1200mm handheld with the 1D X.

Just kinda curious, if you are doing stationary birds what shutter speed do you need for tack sharp pics with an extender on it? How are you in terms of handholding big lenses technique? I'm curious to see how good that IS really is compared to the mkI series. Do you see much of a sharpness drop on your corners if you pixel peep? I know that IRL the difference is negligible from what I have seen.

10

Lenses / Q

« on: December 30, 2012, 03:05:58 PM »

I've been thinking about the same question.
If you are going to hand hold for more than a few shots the 800mm is out. If your goal is to always shoot at F8 with TCs and a FF camera on a tripod the 800 is your best option as long as your subject does not get too close. One other option is to shoot at f5.6 with a crop sensor which is like adding a TC. I would assume that the replacement crop sensor should handle low light better so once it comes along this will be a nice option.  When you add the 2x TC the IQ difference between the 500mm +2x and 600mm + 2X is nominal. The corners are the main issue which will not be used with the crop. The sharpness difference is not a big deal unless you like to spend all day with a magnifying glass on your images and like to put your subjects in the corners of your FF camera.
Next big consideration is knowing what you can handhold if that's something you will be doing frequently. If you're not strong and have good technique you're going to probably have substantially sharper results with the 500. Handholding the 600mm with TCs will really amplify your motion blur because of the weight and the added magnification does not help much either.
The MFD is 20ft on the 800, 15 on the 600 and 12 on the 500. You can use extension tubes but your AF goes to crap. Not only will the extension tubes make AF more difficult but it will alter your AFMA so I'd plan on MF for optimum sharpness and with the time to put on the tubes your going to have your subject close for a while. So what it really comes down to is whether or not you will go with a crop for super long distance birds, how well you can handhold the different weights if you will be doing that and how close your subjects will be. I want to get the most reach possible, I will be handholding although I'm a big guy so I don't think the weight difference will be huge between the 500/600 and I will need the better MFD of the 500/600. I feel that for me the best bet is the 600mm but the 500mm or 800mm will be the right lens for others depending on how exactly you will be using it.
 I'm praying that the 7d mkII will have a good F8 AF and low light performance like the 1d IV. If so you've got an unreal cannon (pun intended) to shoot falcons which always see me coming from half a mile away. If you are shooting alot of wildlife and you're not trying to shoot shy wablers and falcons the closer MFD, lighter weight of the 500mm will probably be your best option. Just my thoughts but I'd love to hear some real life experience although the actual images produced by the 600 seem great and there are more than a few pro bird photographers that are crazy about the 600mm especially now that they can use their 2x III TCs on their 1dx's. Arthur Morris normally uses the 800mm and has a 500mm although he sold his 600mm because he shoots at f8 usually and he was using kenkos to allow AF with the 1dx. The kenko 2x and 600mm was less than ideal. He's planning on doing the comparison soon with the 600 vs. 800 and I'm sure it will be posted on his site.  Its also worth noting that there are some reports that the 600mm AF is better than the 800mm even when you start putting on TCs. These are my thoughts about the subject albeit poorly organized, now time to go back to work .

11

Lenses / Re: Which extender is best

« on: December 26, 2012, 10:24:51 PM »

I've owned the kenko dgx set, tamron 2x and sigma 2x and I've used the canon.
At 1.4x the kenko is pretty much indistinguishable from the canon mkIII. The kenko works with any lens and the canon with very few lenses. Get the kenko unless you have one of the new mkII canon supertelephoto primes which I'm taking a wild guess is a no.
At 2x the Canon mkIII is substantially better. Kenko comes next, then the canon mkII, then the Tamron and then the sigma which produces mud (and also broke on me in 6 months although it was used/abused very heavily). Make sure your lens can accept the canon 2x if you want the best and can swing the extra $200 for the canon. Also be prepared to make some compromises with the 2x even with the canon. If the light is great and you have good technique you can even get some surprisingly good results with stacked Kenkos. Its less than ideal but I was pretty surprised. If your technique is not so great than you will not be able to stack TCs.

12

Software & Accessories / Re: Share here your Macbook mini experience

« on: December 19, 2012, 04:32:48 PM »

Hi,

I dont want to say the exact story because its long and irrelevant why I want to buy a Mac Mini Server. And its not even important.

What I would like to know is how does the Mac Mini 2 ghz quad core i7 (I will upgrade it to 16gb ram) perform with photoshop, lightroom and premier pro.
In photoshop sometimes I put 10, 22 megapixel raw shots, and in premier pro full hd videos, but with a few effects. I would like to ask if anyone has experience.

Intel HD 3000 vs 4000?

And how is the 2ghz quad core i7 with 8gb or 16gb perform in editing?

The HD 4000 graphics are a big step up in graphics power. The extra RAM will not make a huge difference right now but it will in the future when applications get heavier unless you are doing heavy multitasking (which wont really work well on a mini anyways). The mac minis use mobile processors which are considerably less powerful than a desktop processor at a similar clock speed/architecture . Photoshop and Lightroom will run well, the main issue will actually be disk speed that you can fix by upgrading the HD to an SSD if you need more speed. Running Premiere will be a problem. The integrated graphics, mobile processors, slow hard drives and poor heat disipation of a mini won't work so hot for video. Will it work? YES! Will you wait a lot longer than if you got an equivalent PC desktop or iMac? DEFINITELY. You will probably get limited life out of the mini for video editing and it all really depends on how much time you have to wait around for rendering. What is your workflow like? Are you professional?

13

Canon General / Re: necessity of photography school

« on: December 19, 2012, 04:13:31 PM »

And from 1 to 10, where would you say you were at before and then after 1 = not knowing you can take off the lens on a slr.  10 = Neuroanatomist

Edit- I do consider photography a form of art and when I said learn, I meant more than just the tech aspect.   
   

Your scale should reflect that edit. No disrespect meant to Neuroanatomist but more like...

 1 = not knowing you can take off the lens on a slr.  1000 = Mann, Friedlander, Avedon, Leibovitz, Cartier-Bresson... etc

...and many of them never went to "school".

You forgot Ken Rockwell.

14

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Birds in flight, advice wanted

« on: December 03, 2012, 04:49:14 PM »

Thanks again, natureshots, your advice is very helpful.

I just ordered a new tripod and much better ball head. Perhaps I'll order a gimbal head too, but only after I see how well I do/don't do with handheld panning.

Do you have a preferred method of handholding for BIF? Is standing better than sitting, for instance, or the other way around? And how about Image Stabilization. My EF 35-350 doesn't have it and some BIF shooters say it's essential. Others say "turn it off even if you have it." Then there are the lenses, like my 70-300 DO, that have two IS modes, including one for panning. Any advice there?

I really appreciate your input. Thanks.

I've heard IS adds to sharpness but not for 350mm.  Once you are a good deal past 500mm then IS becomes useful, otherwise you have the chance of losing shots while the IS readjusts to your pan. Some IS systems are better or worse when it comes to high speed pans. Experimentation is usually a good idea but at 350mm on a full frame I wouldn't waste my time messing around because I'm nearly positive you will get better results without IS. That being said I usually leave my IS on because every time I turn it off I forget to turn it back on when I return to shooting stationary subjects and I rarely have problems. 
When shooting BIF the second image mode is rarely useful unless you are panning in a perfect plane which is highly unlikely in real life. 
I stand usually because it is easier to crane my head around and adjust to unusual flight patterns unless I am concealing myself from the birds in a low position. When crouched or sitting I tend to have many more problems keeping up a good pan but its better than scaring off all the wildlife I spent 15 minutes trying to get close to.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Birds in flight, advice wanted

« on: November 30, 2012, 02:54:19 PM »

Thanks for the tip, canon816, it's a brand new camera, so I will check to see if there's an issue that might need warranty attention. That would be a real bummer if it did, but better to find out now.

Lnguyen1203: Your baseline information is extremely helpful and your osprey looks great at 1/2000. I have to figure out why slowly gliding sandhill cranes moving at a fraction of the speed of your hunting osprey required 2X the speed to stop...

natureshots: My tripod had a loose panning head--even worse--and I was jerking it around, trying as best I could to steady it, then fire when the birds flew into my FOV. Thanks for your input and references. The one comment I kept making to my wife as I got better and better at zeroing in on my settings was that my results were shockingly INCONSISTENT. This may have been, as you pointed out, due to the herky-jerky nature of that tripod!

Packlight: 10-4

I can pretty much guarantee that's what's causing the problems. I am very happy handholding and generally this is the best technique for BIF. Some lenses are extremely heavy and hand holding is too difficult but your lens should not fall into that category. If it is definitely too heavy for you your best bet is getting a gimbal head (I recommend the wimberley WH-200). Most will prefer shooting by hand to a gimbal head if they can for BIF but gimbal heads are your second best bet. Gimbals still can be restrictive for birds too far over head or super fast movement but if you can pan more smoothly that will give you the best results. Natural handshake is invisible at 1/2000+ but that speed is still vulnerable to improper panning (i.e. from using a ball-head for BIF). People who pan well can generally get good shots at 1/1000, that is enough to freeze wing motion on larger birds and once your are accustomed to smooth panning you can experiment with slower shutter speeds. If you check those references you will get access to an incredible volume of advanced sharpness techniques. You could spend weeks reading on how to improve your photography. Also for correct exposure I recommend using evaluative metering and doing some experimenting with dialing in the right exposure compensation. This will definitely give you the most consistent and quickest results but has a slightly larger learning curve then other techniques. You will have to learn to evaluate sun position, bird highlights/shadows to get the right shot and this is what most pros use for BIF. If you shoot raw you will have the ability to adjust for the mistakes you make early on.