« on: May 18, 2013, 02:27:40 PM »
Well, that's certainly a new angle on sports photography.
1Dx 85f/1.2 L II, Shot @ f/4.5 & 1/160th ISO320
Love this Lens
More and more users keep reporting how much they enjoy and are satisfied by the 6D.
It just goes to show how an excellent camera cannot be seen beyond its specs by the spec sheet nazis who wanted to leave Canon as soon as it was announced.
I've had no issues with my 6D AF in real life. On the internet, I've found that it can't even capture pyramids in focus, and forget about getting a clean shot of a bride walking down the aisle.
According to the manual, the M Raw uses 11M pixels, so what I should have probably asked is if this is equivalent to a full RAW file shot with an 11m camera? I had a 5D, which was only 12M, and it still took beautiful photos, but it sounds like there is some degradation of the data to get the 20M pixel photo down to 11. Which probably doesn't make it worth it. Thanks for the help everyone.
What's 'wrong' is Canon's explanation of M RAW. It doesn't have 'all the advantages' of RAW because the data aren't raw. A RAW file is just that - the actual pixel luminance values with the color assignment from the CFA. The M RAW file is de-mosaiced and color interpolated (and 1/4 of the pixels are double-interpolated - their color value is interpolated from their already-interpolated neighbors).
Good question because why using an inferior raw file?
The purpose of getting the most of a picture is lost!
Some good explanations from Canon:
Hope it helps,
All is not in vain
If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance.
Trouble is I don't intend to swim one handed whilst holding the camera up above the water, and I can't afford a 600mm lens
What to do ?
Landscapes are my favorite to photograph but I can never really capture the true beauty that I see with my eyes. The view from the top of this mountain was incredible but the picture is mediocre at best.
Summit by Joe Beckwith, on Flickr
Of course, there's always the Fuji X-Pro1 with both an optical viewfinder and EVF. Best of both worlds.
While I'm not an EVF advocate and generally prefer an optical viewfinder, I find an EVF sometimes useful in low light because of the way the EVF can boost the image - Easier to frame and ensure focus is spot on. When it is REALLY dark, you'll get a lot of noise, but I'm not sure is a pentamirrored, low magnification SL1 would be any better. EVFs are also much better with infrared filters - Anyone tried focusing or framing through an OVF with an R72 filter recently? Without removing your eye from the viewfinder, there is also instant playback of the image you've just taken, focus peaking, image magnification, and the ability to see how the photo looks before taking the photo, along with adding some extra information such as a level, grids, highlight warnings etc. Like most things, some downsides but also some upsides.
NEX 6, Mirrorless is the future.
Nope. Mirrorless is the ancient past. Most of the early digital cameras used electronic viewfinders. There's a reason DSLRs ate their lunch: You can't usefully use an EVF at night or in the dark. EVFs blow out your night vision in one eye.
Having used both, I really can't imagine ever going back to the dark days of EVFs. And by dark days, I mean dark nights, and by dark, I mean in the one eye that you've had up to the camera, and light in the other....