Messages

1

Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

« on: June 11, 2013, 09:51:56 AM »

The 16-35 2.8 L is way past replacment date! (as well as the 14mm 2.8 II and the 24mm 1.4 II)

Reading this review makes me loose faith in the person writing it!

When you buy a 2.8 lens, you buy it to be usefull wide open in low-lit scenes.
Wide open, the 16-35 2.8 II is suffering from severe CA and Coma, in particular in the corners, not to mention the vignetting and corner softness.

It is disrespectful of Canon to launch the 1D-X, the 5D-3 without a new optically competitive wide angle lens to go with it. Canon seem to have forgotten their wide angle department, focusing only on tele-lenses and cinema-lenses.

I have had the 16-35 II, sold it and replaced it with the Nikon 14-24 (with adapter) and the Samyang 14. The Canon 16-35 is nowhere close optically to these lenses. The only advantage the 16-35 holds is the autofocus. But still, when taking the price into consideration makes you wanna laugh!

Canon, look at the Nikon 14-24, and get your fingers out of your **** !!

2

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 30, 2013, 01:53:38 AM »

Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions.

The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.

The worst negative of this lens however is not the CA, but the coma distortion.

I work a lot in night/low light photography, and stars in the edges of this lens get distorted to the level that they look like "bananas". If you shoot wide open in contrasting light sources, eg. night photos of a city, the coma distortion in the edges is so bad that it is ridiculous!

A slight positive is that the 24mm 1.4 from Nikon is not any better. But that still does not mean that this lens from Canon is optically a good lens.

The Samyang 24mm 1.4 which I also own 2 samples of, may not be as sharp in the center as the Canon/Nikon 24, but it is virtually free of CA and coma distortion in the edges, and the Samyang even has more glass/lens elements!! Hence I more often tend to use my Samyang 24 than my Canon 24.

The Canon 24mm 1.4 II, as well as all other of Canons L wide angle primes (14mm 2.8 II/35mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/1.8/1.2) are in desperate need of upgrades! I wish Canon would start to prioritize the wide angle department, and not only focus on tele-lenses.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Fluorite

« on: February 26, 2013, 03:19:30 AM »

So why fool around with a me too lens?

As Sigma already makes a 12-24 zoom (I owned a ver1) it seems to me that Canon could do Nikon one better and make  a 12-24 f4.
My Sigma was sharp in the center at f8 and smaller and sharp-ish at the extreme edges only at f13. I have heard reports that the ver2 is much better.

If Canon did this they would trump Nikon in the UWA zoom range and if we have any justice it would be as sharp as the new 24-70II.

Sigma 12-24 is S**T in the corners! No point in getting the extra 2mm focal length when it is so difficult to construct a 12mm lens, and when corner performance is as bad as it is on the Sigma, completely useless!. Also before Canon tryes to make a 12mm lens they need to prove they can compete with the rest on 14mm!!  And forget about f/4, we need f/2.8 just like the Nikon and the Samyang. Canon need to release a 14-24 2.8 lens, no point in making a new 14mm alone, when Nikons 14-24 is sharper and optically superior @14mm to Canons prime 14mm lens. Also you can not use filters on Canons 14mm, so it basically has no advantage what-so-ever over the Nikon 14-24! I have both the Samyang 14mm and the Nikon 14-24, which I am using on my 1DX/5d3/5D2, and I have been using the Canon 14mm 2.8 v2 a lot, so I know Canon need to get a grip!

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 14 f/2.8 with Flourite

« on: February 25, 2013, 07:09:30 AM »

Please GOD let this be true!!! And please give it to us now!!!!

5

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 1D X - Clean HDMI out

« on: February 08, 2013, 08:37:23 AM »

Not that I use clean hdmi, but I completely agree with your logics and I was very surprised that the 5d3 had this added in firmware and nothing about it for the 1d x.

Yeah thats what I mean, it is not logic if it stays that way.

Clean HDMI for the 1DX NOW !!!

6

EOS Bodies - For Video / 1D X - Clean HDMI out

« on: February 08, 2013, 05:34:15 AM »

Now that we know that the 5D Mark III will be getting clean uncompressed HDMI by April 2013, I think it's time Canon also confirms this feature also will be made available for us who chose to spend even more money on buying the 1D X.

I work with both stills and video, and I bought the 1DX for it's extra low light performance and DR over the 5D3.

Given what we now know, that the much cheaper 5D3 will get clean HDMI out, it will be absolutely unacceptable if the 1DX does not get the same upgrade!! We know it is possible since the 1DC already have this option on 1080p footage.

So I really hope Canon would please give us who spend all our money on them, what we want!!

It would be remarkable if the 1DC and the 5D3 should have clean HDMI out, and the 1DX would not!!
This would mean Canon would try to force me to sell my house to get the ISO and DR performance on video of the 1DX through the 1DC. Which of course will not happen!

A faster and cheaper solution may be to just buy the Nikon D4!

Your thoughts?

Ola

7

Lenses / Re: Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?

« on: December 30, 2012, 03:07:26 PM »

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

Well, the Nikon 14-24, @14mm, with a Canon EF adapter, has already made the Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II obsolete.

Canon has got only one thing to do, really, and that is not what you are suggesting. But I am not even sure Canon is capable of making a new EF 14mm 2.8 III prime which is better than the Nikon 14-24 @14mm.

Canon sure is taking their time though, so let's hope they prove me deadly wrong!

Well, I'll just keep posting pictures taken with my flagship Canon cameras 1DX and 5D3, paired with a 14-24mm lens from their main competitor!

My corner soft, CA, vignetting EF 16-35 2.8 II lens was sold years ago. Only comfort is, this lens is not worse than the newer Nikon 16-35 f/4 optically. 

8

Lenses / Re: What's your dream lens

« on: December 05, 2012, 01:34:43 PM »

EF 14-24 2.8 L USM
EF 24 1.4 III L USM (without the horrible corner performance and coma and CA like v2)

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Firmware 1.1.1 Now Available

« on: October 18, 2012, 06:00:20 AM »

It's hard to even see it is blinking red when shooting in daylight - Even if set to bright... How annoying

Given the fact that Canon allready said this update would not please all, I think it is apparent a solid red follow-focus point in AI-Servo, is something we will never get on the 1DX, or the 5D3.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: September 20, 2012, 03:48:03 AM »

Canon has some catching up to do with respect to sensor performance as measured by http://www.DxOMark.com. Canon doesn't even come close to the top performing Nikons.  (High score is better.):

Pts Model
=======
96 Nikon D800E
95 Nikon D800
94 Nikon D600
81 Canon 5D III
79 Canon 5D II

(The Canon 1Dx is not yet rated.)
What are the chances that one of the reasons for the new sensor in the 6D is to catapult Canon's sensor performance into the mid 90's? I can't see Canon doing that considering the $3,500 EOS 5D III just came out and has a score of just 81. But Nikon's new $2,100 D600 kicks butt with a score of 94!

Sensor performance isn't everything... but, if I were to choose Nikon or Canon today, I wouldn't be choosing Canon.

I have said this many times. You CAN NOT compare dynamic range on ISO100, and assume everybody works in ISO100, and that this is the correct ISO to measure by, like DxO does. I RARELY go below ISO 1600 for my kind of work.

BTW! Anyone find it strange DxO has the finished analysis/review of the D600 days after it is released? And they still haven't finished they analysis/review of the 1D-X !?

Well I don't find it strange at all, DxO is tight with Nikon, everybody should know that by now. I will not be surprised if they rate the 1D-X below the Nikon D3100, and neither should you! Do not expose your low intelligence by actually believing DxO is the standard for measuring camera low light and dynamic range performance.

The 5D3 has a MUCH better dynamic range, not to mention the low light ISO performance, than the D800 above ISO600.

Who cares what the Nikonioans down at DxO says, not me!

Have a nice day everyone!

11

Lenses / Re: How do you update Canon lens firmware?

« on: September 01, 2012, 07:29:41 AM »

I have the EF 300 2.8 L II IS, and I want to upgrade the firmware from v.1.0.0 to v.1.1.1, which can be done through either the 5D3 or the 1DX.

Anybody know If the firmware is downloadable from somewhere? I cannot find it anywhere.
I can find though the firmware for the EF 40mm 2.8 lens. So Canon think it is ok for us to upgrade the 40mm ourself, but want to ruin us in shipping cost when sending the 300 II + 5D3 to service repair centre?

Kinda stupid that I should have to ship both my 5D3 and the lens, which is very costly and time consuming, to be able to upgrader the lens, when I can do the exact same procedure from home!! I mean why did Canon include this option in menus (to upgrade fw on lens through camera) when they do not release firmware files to the public??

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 1DX exposure metering in manual mode

« on: September 01, 2012, 06:46:30 AM »

Anyone else using the 1DX has discovered that displaying of exposure metering is gone in the top display when camera in manual mode?

You still have exposure metering displayed in viewfinder and LCD screen, but it is obviously more difficult to use, and uses more power (LCD screen on). Come on Canon what is the reasoning behind this?

Really annoying when working with landscape photography for me!!!!

Has it always been like this on the 1D series?? (1DX is my first 1D series)

13

Lenses / Re: Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....

« on: September 01, 2012, 06:43:17 AM »

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled.  It is notorious for flare.
Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.

I find it hard to believe you know what you are talking about.
I among many, is using the Nikon 14-24 2.8 og my Canon FF bodies 5D2/5D3/1DX with an adapter.
And even if the lens becomes completely manual, and even cumbersome to operate, I still prefere it.

No lens is perfect, neither the Nikon 14-24 2.8, but even if it is a little prone to flares yes, it is still the overall best ultra wide angle lens on the market. Optically the Samyang 14/Rokinon 14 is slightly sharper in the corners, but it suffers from severe vignetting and moustache distortion in the center. I have them both.

The Nikon 14-24 on the Canon is my preferred choice in 90% of my usage scenarios, and I will continue to use it until Canon releases something equally good.

PS! The Nikon 14-24 should not be compared directly to eg. the Canon 16-35, since they are two completely different designs. The Nikon 14-24 is havy, big and bulky compared to the Canon 16-35, but still it is in another class optically. The Nikon 16-35 is comparable optically to the Canon 16-35.  But I would love to have a Canon 14-24 2.8 which performs optically comparable to the Nikkor, even if it becomes LARGE and HEAVY !!

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Manual Posted

« on: June 12, 2012, 08:28:30 PM »

1) Ron's numbers are wrong, sadly, check my proof video I posted in this thread. I have used the fastest memory card available, Lexar 128GB CF UDMA7 Pro, which I use daily with my 5D3. The 5D3 Canon also claim to be able to fully utilize any UDMA7 card with up to 167MB/s, which I have found to be wrong.
The 5D3 is capable of almost 100MB/s, about the same as the D4. (tested with speeds which allowed for continous shooting without the buffer stopping)

2) I am capable of shooting 33-34 RAW images at 6fps on my 5D3 with the Lexar UDMA7 card before buffer stops.

3) Seem like I am not entirely correct on the D4, (although I have read several places it could go higher), this guy is achieving 6-7 seconds continous shooting until buffer is full (at 05:45), this should mean 60-70 RAW files:
XQD + Nikon D4 full speed test

I have also done extensive speed testing on my own with the 5D3, 5D2, the D4, D800 and D800E, all with the Lexar 128GB UDMA7 CF Pro 1000x, since I work a lot with stop motion video in the dark, and need the cameras to be able to shoot as fast as possible without the buffer stopping. The 5D3 has about the same write speed as the D4. IMO the D4 is actually slightly disappointing in its computing power, taking into account its fast shutter mechanics. Still its buffer seem to be larger than the 1DX, since RAW files of D4 is actually 33MB compared to 28 on the 1DX.

With the price tag, and the shutter speed and the computing power availbale on the 1DX, I have to say I it is  disappointing Canon did not implement a bigger buffer, given also how cheap flash ram is these days, even if it might be enough for many people.

For my type of work, I am guessing the 1DX will still outperform the D4 (shooting as fast as possible without the buffer interfering), but thats not the only point. Even if my type of work is not what most people do, I also do regular work, such as wildlife and bird photography (BIF), and what If I am shooting an eagle diving down for a fish? This is a moment which could take much more than 3 seconds, sometimes 7-8seconds. But then the buffer on the 1DX is full.. 

And if I have to turn down the shooting speed of the 1DX to not fill up the buffer, then what is the point of me spending 7000 dollars on the 1DX rather than just using my 5D3 ?

See, now you're going to make me go and buy a Lexar 1000x to get that 33-34 RAW on my 5D3.   

I'm assuming the 1Dx you had was a pre-production unit, so perhaps it's still got a firmware update to go before it's at full speed. (Maybe).

It's also kind of weird that the D4 being 16Mpix has a larger RAW file than an 18Mpix 1Dx or a 22Mpix 5D3?

And I totally agree with you on the fact that RAM is cheap....it would be next to nothing to implement a RAW buffer of 60 to 96 RAW images for a 5-8 second burst buffer.

Hehe... Those Lexar cards are expensive, but IMO to fully utilize the 5D3 (and the 1DX) you probably need one.

I agree about the file sizes and megapixels on D4/1DX, strange. Let us hope this is not an indication of the 1DX getting crushed by the D4 in DR! Those pics I have done with the cameras does not indicate that, but we need to see more extensive tests done under controlled environment and lightning conditions.

And yes I really hope the model I was using was an early pre-production model, and that the final model is improved a lot. But to be honest I doubt it. But nothing would please me more than my doubts being proved wrong!!

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Manual Posted

« on: June 12, 2012, 07:42:32 PM »

Jax, those lenses are extremely slow. They will most definitely shoot at a slower speed since the AF will take longer to lock on. And while I know my 1D MK IV never really gets 10 FPS unless I hit have the camera in one shot, I can use the AF stop button on my super-telephoto lenses to get the max burst speed. This works great for baseball if you want a shot of the ball leaving the bat. 12 FPS just means that I should get at least 10 in AI-Servo. I also noticed a frame rate increase when I updated my 70-200 f/2.8L IS to the newest version. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II seems to give me an even faster frame rate than my 300 f/2.8 IS or 200 f/2.0 IS but maybe that is just me.

The buffer should hold around 50 RAW images, the 30 image buffer must have been an early model. Keep in mind we are still dealing with pre-production bodies. Lord knows what is inside those.

People are still comparing the 5D MK III to the 1DX, they are completely different monsters. In my testing I saw only a little more than 1 stop improvement in high ISO with the 5D3 over the 5D2. I've downloaded and played with several 1DX files and they look absolutely phenomenal. The 1DX probably has at least a 3-stop advantage over the 5D2.

This is a great year for Canon and I'm excited to finally get a camera body that combines my favorite features of the full frame bodies with the pro sports bodies. At one point I almost switched to Nikon but this is truly the year the be a Canon shooter. I'm already in love with the radio capabilities of the 600EX-RT.

I know I'm a noob to the forum but here are my credentials
http://markwebbphoto.com/

I am sorry Mark, but your assumption of 50 RAW files until buffer stops on 1DX is wrong, read my post and watch my video. Buffer stops camera from shooting after 35-36 frames. I wish it was twice as big.

Also, I have tested the 1DX and compared it to my 5D3, 5D2, and the D4, D800,D800E.
No way if the 1DX has a two stop advantage on the 5D3 as you claim, the 1DX has maybe 1/2 stop
advantage on the 5D3. And even if this is good, and just as good as the D4, I was hoping for more from the 1DX. I have lots of RAWs from all cameras, even underexposed to try to lift shadows and check DR in post.

Some beautiful photos at your webpage, great work btw!