Messages

241

EOS Bodies / Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison

« on: February 18, 2013, 10:41:01 AM »

I just completed my two week eval of the Canon 1DX shooting wildlife exclusively.  I shoot regularly with a 5DIII and was curious to see what the 1DX might offer over the 5DIII.  I paired it up with a 600 f/4 and shot with and without a 1.4X III converter.  I tried the 2XIII but at AFMA -20 it was still not focusing...tried a few manual focus shots and LV but gave up.  I spent the first few days getting the 600 and 600+1.4x focus adjusted using AFMA.  Tried the dot method and Focal and just gave up and did it by hand shooting ducks on a lake.  All of my testing was done in RAW mode and images were compared/processed using PS CS5.

Here are my comments after using the 1DX for two weeks shooting various waterfowl and bald eagles:

•   12 fps does not really offer much.  Sounds nice in theory but for wildlife I think it’s excessive.  6 to 8 gives you enough to work with.
•   1DX shutter is LOUD!!!!  So loud that it scares away anything in earshot.  The 5DIII even in high speed drive mode is much much quieter.  Drop the 5D3 into silent mode and ducks within 20ft still cant hear it.
•   Shooting up to ISO 1000 I did not see any improvement in noise levels.  I’m sure it’s better but not enough to notice in real world situations.
•   1DX is 18MP full frame.  Compared to my 5DIII at 22MP full frame, I believe the noise patterns on the 5D3 are actually smaller and less noticeable.  Probobly due to the slightly higher pixel density.
•   I did not see any improvement in image sharpness
•   I did not see any improvement in dynamic range…though I’m sure it’s better…just cant see it in real world wildlife use.
•   The thing soaks battery like no tomorrow.  Had to charge the battery at 50% after two shoots.  Compared to two weeks with the 5DIII and dual batteries in the grip.  1DX you can only have one battery at a time.
•   Some of the added firmware features are nice and there are more programmable buttons but I didn’t find them useful or necessary over what I already have on the 5DIII.  None of the extra features on the 1DX offered anything useful for wildlife photography over the 5DIII.
•   1DX costs twice as much.

The 1DX is clearly geared up for action sports photography and is a bit more rugged and water sealed than the 5DIII.  As much as I wanted to qualify it as a BETTER wildlife camera, I just could not.  Pixel peepers will have their say but for those of us that live in the real world, the 5DIII is just as good as the 1DX and due to the higher pixel density I would put it slightly ahead of the 1DX for this kind of work.

These comments are based on my opinion shooting wildlife for 30 years.  Others will have their opinions and I welcome them for the sake of open discussion.

242

Software & Accessories / Re: Stolen Camera Finder?

« on: February 17, 2013, 01:56:51 PM »

Well depending on the circumstances you may be able to.  A stolen t4i may not be worth it.  But a 1dx may qualify for grand larceny and would depend on wether law enforcement wanted to be bothered.

Generally speaking, insure your equipment and replace it possibly with something better.  If you find your camera online you can report it to your insurance company and let them deal with it.

As I understand, if someone were to be dumb enough to post images online that have the exif intact with a camera they stole, it would find the images.
However, camera thieves steal cameras to resell to a unsuspecting third party, who than may indeed post images taken proudly with his new camera.
However, there is little you can do to recover it.

243

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 17, 2013, 12:58:29 PM »

One of the good things about FoCal is that it has a new software method for calculating an accurate focus using live view which uses a focal algorithm instead of either PD or CD built into the camera.  It's very slow but meticulous.

IF you want to make sure the dot method is working best, you can use focal to obtain the perfect focus, switch to MF on the lens then continue with dot method.

Still, it is not accurate in my testing on both the 5DIII and 1DX but at least you can use it to ensure perfect focus prior to any testing.

The "0" of my home grown system is placed in the same plane as the target. The ruler rests at about 30deg at the side of a cardboard box and the target is pasted on the front face.  The line on the ruler that touches the target is the 0 point.  The target is perpendicular to the line of sight from the camera.  What is not working is the dot assist on manual focussing relative to focussing in live view.  Does anyone use manual focussing and the dot assist regularly - the spread of 15-20 units is not impressive? Maybe my mistake has been to use the automatic focussing in live view and not tether to a computer and blow up for manual focussing in live view?

244

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 14, 2013, 10:02:05 PM »

I believe overall the AFMA is off.  The multiple catch eye could be due to the heat currents or perhaps the lens stabilizing to temperature changes.  Best results are when the lens reaches a uniform temperature.  Takes about 30 minutes to an hour for the optics to stabilize.

To all,

Thanks for your suggestions.  I'll redo the AFMA, perhaps something similar to neuro's.  At this time, I have it set to 0 which is pretty close to the original calculation from FoCal of -1.  Is it possible to set the AFMA through Canon's software?  It would be ideal to be able to do this as any touching of the camera during the calibration process is going effect the results (i.e. slight changes in distance to target).

I have used the lens/camera assembly attached to a Gitzo GT5541LS/Wimberley Gimbal Tripod Head II in manual focus.  I tried LiveView at 10X, but touching the focus ring resulted in too much movement.  4X seems to work pretty good though.  What experiences have you all had at an 840mm focal length?  The manual focusing results were not as sharp as I would expect from this lens; however, they are better than what I'm getting with AF.

I'm not sure if the problem was heat currents.  Towards the end, the cabin of the truck had pretty much acclimated to the outside temperature; nevertheless, I'll keep this in mind the next time I go out.

I'm still a little concerned about the multiple catch-eye signatures in the second photo.  Individually, they are tack sharp.  There's no way I can move fast enough (i.e. operator error) in a 1/3200 second of exposure to produce five or more catch-eyes on the target.  It's a very strange, but interesting phenomenon.

Wade

245

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 14, 2013, 03:34:23 PM »

My point was that with the 600 every error is magnified and if you dont have the "ideal" conditions to conduct a focal test you are just wasting time and shutter cycles.  Most people dont have a stable enough set up to conduct a focal test at 600mm much less with an extender attached.  I recall you needed a football field to conduct the calibration.

Short of making a recommendation to someone to fix their set up, the next logical course is to do it manually.  I find it quite easy to find the focal point when shooting ducks on the water and easy to see if you are 6" off in focus.  Seeing the difference between one AFMA is tough but if you shoot a range in the ball park you can pretty much tell which one is the best even if you find the ones that get fuzzy first of each end and extrapolate in.

2nd, I dont trust Focal after the 1.4 release.  The algorithm changed and I became less confident in the results.  It became more of a mathematical model rather than looking at the real sharpness of the target.  The argument has been beat to death in other forums.  So lets suffice it to say that if you did not get the desired result with focal your only recourse is to do it manually or send the entire setup back to Canon for calibration.

Regardless of wether you use focal or not, you should still validate the setting by taking shots through the +-5 AFMA range to validate that it actually calculated the right AFMA.

The best way is to just do it manually.  You can start by taping a newspaper to a wall and running through AFMA adjustments until you get the best image.  Then go out and shoot a duck on the water to dial in the adjustment. 

Makes sense...and that's pretty much what I do, although still using FoCal.  Basically, I trust an image analysis program to determine which is the 'best image' more than I trust my own eyes (and I should point out that my day job for many years was analysis of microscopic images, both 'by eye' and with digital image analysis algorithms). 

When I do a FoCal calibration, I use lots of light (my 600 II tests were in the EV 14-15 range) and a solid support (RRS TVC-33) on a stable surface (concrete or asphalt).  I don't tether the camera and let FoCal do the iterative adjustments...rather, I take 83 shots per 'test' - 2 shots at even-numbered AFMA values from |20| to |12| with one starting focused at ∞ and the other starting at the MFD, then three shots at every AFMA value from +10 to -10 (inclusive), one from ∞, one from the MFD, and then one without moving the focus ring.  I load the 83 images into FoCal in manual mode, and there are ample data to drive a curve fit.  I run a test at 25x focal length and 50x focal length, and for zoom lenses, at each end and 1-3 intermediate focal lengths.

I then take the value(s) from FoCal and do real-world testing with the lens with AFMA applied, to make sure I'm getting sharp images.

246

Lenses / Re: Canon 2X extender : Mk2 vs Mk3 on 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

« on: February 14, 2013, 02:53:38 PM »

So as I mentioned before the MKIII extenders were designed around the MKII lens optic design.  The Mark II extenders were designed around the Mark I lens designs.

MKIII is not about optical improvement other than it was designed optically for the mkII series of lenses.  So it would be safe to say that the Mkiii extenders will work better on MKII lenses than a mkII extender.

In testing, the 2X mk3 converter offers substantial image quality improvements when attached to any Canon lens over the mk2 version.

Can you please elaborate? Canon does not mention optical improvements.

Which lens did you use to compare EF2X II with EF2X III ?

Did you test wide open?

Did you compare the quality at the center, the edges or both?

Sorry for so many questions but I have EF2X II and if there is not much improvement in IQ I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.

Thanks

247

Lenses / Re: Focusing Problem with 600mm f/4.0L IS II with 1.4X Extender

« on: February 14, 2013, 12:38:33 PM »

I am no longer a big fan of FoCal.  Particularly when it comes to AFMA adjustment of long tele's.  There are too many variables that will skew the results...the largest being vibration.  The shutter activation even with Mirror lockup can affect the image.

The best way is to just do it manually.  You can start by taping a newspaper to a wall and running through AFMA adjustments until you get the best image.  Then go out and shoot a duck on the water to dial in the adjustment.  I also discovered that you have to bring the image onto your computer to accurately see where the focus point is.  Not accurate enough to just view on the LCD...so that means perhaps several trips to the shooting site.

With the 600mm and a 1.4 extender, your DOF will be around 12" or less.  an AFMA adustment of + or - 1 will shift your focus point several inches.  My guess is about 6 based on my set up at around 30 meters or so. 

So it has to be dead nuts on or you will get an OF image.

I appreciate the clarification.  I figured it was likely degrading the focus so I made certain during these images that the focus ring was not resting on the bean bag.  Nevertheless, there may be times where it did make its way back onto the bag.

I also forgot to mention I used FoCal for microadjustments and this combination came out to -1; however, I'm beginning to wonder if it was a valid result.  In addition, IS was off the entire photo shoot.

Wade

248

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 14, 2013, 10:46:41 AM »

I would have thought it would have more impact on subjects at farther distance and less effect at closer distances.  Otherise we would be AFMA testing at closer distances.  either way it must be coincidence then that 8 units appear to equal the depth of field on my 600 F4.

1 AFMA is 1/8 of the depth of field.

Point of clarification...  1 unit of AFMA is 1/8 the depth of focus, not depth of field.  The AF system doesn't know subject distance (that's estimated by the lens after focus is achieved).  Depth of focus is measured at the AF sensor itself (micron distances).  The practical consequence is that a unit of AFMA has more impact on depth of field the closer the subject is to the camera.

249

Lenses / Re: Using two Canon EF 1.4X entenders

« on: February 14, 2013, 10:40:40 AM »

You can use tubes with extenders but you will not focus to infinity anymore and it's possible the AF will not function.  you will may have to manual focus or use live view focus.

Can you put an extension tube between the extenders?

250

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 14, 2013, 07:34:49 AM »

And then you will find that your focus is no better than if you just turned off AFMA.  The setting is not something that you can average based on a set of bad values.  You can be off by 1 but any more than that and you are off.  1 AFMA is 1/8 of the depth of field.  For most telephoto lenses where AFMA makes the biggest change being off by 1 wide open makes a difference wether the eye of you subject is in focus or not.  There can be no guessing and no averaging of test values.  The setting has to be exactly where it needs to be.  The dot method doesn't get you there.  You still need to run your photo tests and dial in the setting.

To those have made repeat measurements and have found different values - you are experiencing the life of a scientist.  All measurements are subject to random and systematic errors.  Just repeat the experiment several times and use the average value, unless some of the values are absurd. Errors can obviously arise from the initial focussing or during the dot confirm.  I would not consider a series of AFMAs of say for example 2, 6, 4, 3, 3, 0 to be wrong but merely a mean of 3 with a not unsurprising standard deviation.

251

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 13, 2013, 10:31:24 PM »

It's of no use to me when the AFMA setting is off by 8, a full DOF.  Maybe Nikon has better AF confirmation.

Nope. As mentioned previously I had the same kinds of error.  So in essence the method is flawed.  Relies on an accurate AF confirm which we all have known for some time is pretty darned useless.

It's a very nice concept and one that someday may be refined enough to actually be built into firmware.  Right now it's even worse than FoCal.

I tried this today on the 5d3 with my 50L 1.2 and 16-35II's long end and it gave me very inconsistent results. I did this on a controlled light setup, marked my positions at max distance for both lenses, wide open aperture and aligned the target (from lens-align) parallel to the sensor. I tried this technique 3 times on the same positions with both lenses. I shut down the camera and restarted the test after each try. These are the results:
50mm 1.2
first try -5 to +12
second -9 to +9
third -8 to +16

16-35II on 35mm
first try -9 to 10
second -5 to +14
third -6 to +12

Did I do something wrong?

I'm actually surprised at how few people have reported DotTune isn't working for them. Not because I don't have confidence in my method, but because I expected the teething period to last longer as people sorted out the nuances of the viewfinder focus confirmation system, not to mention the percentage of users who report MFA issues using even existing methods. In my original dpreview Nikon thread the success rate was close to 100%, whereas on the Canon FM thread there were quite a few more people with issues. But nearly everyone who had problems later reported back and said the method worked for them once they followed the additional guidance I posted in my follow-up posts on that FM thread.

As for the accuracy and precision of the viewfinder confirmation system, I've actually found it to be extremely accurate on both the Nikon and Canon bodies I tried. But it takes patience, diligence, and some practice work through the nuances of its feedback.

252

Lenses / Re: Canon 2X extender : Mk2 vs Mk3 on 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM

« on: February 13, 2013, 10:28:49 PM »

It should work fine..maybe slightly better IQ.  However a Canon tech told me that the 2XIII was designed for the newer MKII lenses.  Will work with the older ones though.

Personally I would get the MKIII extender.  It's better built with more screws on the mount plate.

I Have 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM, and i need to extend the zoom range
Is it worth buying 2x EF Extender III over a used  2x EF Extender II

I have read in reviews that Mk3 offers gud IQ vth IS2 lens (70-200  f/2.8L IS II USM) where I couldn't find any reviews of Mk3 attached on IS lens.

 

Body: 5D Mark III

Please provide your valuable suggestions.

Thank you

253

Lenses / Re: 70-200 f2.8II + 2xIII on 7D vs 300 f4 + 2xIII on 5D3

« on: February 13, 2013, 05:42:46 PM »

I've given up on the 7D.  I now use the 5DIII exclusively.  Much better IQ even when cropped.  Less noise and better AF system is a plus.

Rent one of the bodies you dont have and see how it works for you with the 70-200II and 2XIII.  Then you will know if you need the 300 f/4.  There is also a 400 f5.6 which is reasonable too.

254

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method

« on: February 13, 2013, 05:15:02 PM »

Nope. As mentioned previously I had the same kinds of error.  So in essence the method is flawed.  Relies on an accurate AF confirm which we all have known for some time is pretty darned useless.

It's a very nice concept and one that someday may be refined enough to actually be built into firmware.  Right now it's even worse than FoCal.

I tried this today on the 5d3 with my 50L 1.2 and 16-35II's long end and it gave me very inconsistent results. I did this on a controlled light setup, marked my positions at max distance for both lenses, wide open aperture and aligned the target (from lens-align) parallel to the sensor. I tried this technique 3 times on the same positions with both lenses. I shut down the camera and restarted the test after each try. These are the results:
50mm 1.2
first try -5 to +12
second -9 to +9
third -8 to +16

16-35II on 35mm
first try -9 to 10
second -5 to +14
third -6 to +12

Did I do something wrong?

255

Lenses / Re: Advice for shooting pictures of eagles

« on: February 13, 2013, 03:20:09 PM »

Use case 1 or 2 for Eagles.  Case 6 is great for birds like kingfishers and gulls.  Eagles are slow and graceful.

Onto another thing you will figure out soon enough but hopefully will save you some time.  Unless you are shooting eagles up against a blue sky you should use single point or spot focus.  If you use any of the other modes up against trees or water, AF will pick up on the background.  An exception to that is if the eagle fills the frame pretty fully.  If the subject is too small, 61pt, zone or expanded will pick up the background.

So if using center or spot AF, the case mode wont matter.  You will find though that your best success will be with spot AF and trying to target and track the head.

I have finally gotten confirmation on the gear I going to use (picking it up tomorrow): a 1Dx and a 1D IV, plus a 500 F4.0 II, and a 70-200 II plus a 2xIII TC.

I have two questions if someone have time:

Am I right in assuming that the case six is right for shooting eagles, and if so, which sensitivity should it be set to?

I have not used a 1D IV before. Does anyone have a quick tip on how I can program it to have centerpoint with a few surrounding AF points?

And lastly a quick question on the 500. Is it correct when mounted on a ballhead to have it set for IS III?

Thank you in advance,

G.

PS. I bought a extra card today with 64GB, in addition to two 32GB CF, and an additional 32SD for the 1D IV. And I am also bringing a spare battery from the 1Ds III which I have been told will work on both the 1Dx and and the 1D IV. Overkill probably, but my thinking on this trip that I have anticipated for so long is to be prepared. I would rather be overprepared as far as gear is concerned, rather than being there and miss opportunities given the lack of... The scary thing now is that if the eagles show up (which I believe they will as this is close to their nesting area), and the gear is right, I have no other excuse than myself if the pictures turn out bad...