April 23, 2014, 10:36:13 AM

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 - East Wind Photography

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 42
436
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
« on: February 23, 2013, 04:21:17 PM »
LOL!  The one I had ended in serial 508.

Just got my CPS 1Dx yesterday! GF hid it from me and it was on the table this AM with breakfast with a full charge and my 200 f/2 attached!

Can't wait to compare the two now!

437
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
« on: February 23, 2013, 12:16:00 PM »
Yes I agree.  These are not the best exposed images.  As I said the lighting was awful and the shot with the 5DIII it had just started sleeting.  It was overexposed by about 2 stops already.  The 1DX was exposed about 1 stop over.  I tried to find a couple of shots that were challenging in comparison. 

Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX.  Both shot at ISO 1000.  Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender.  Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting.  No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files.  5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.

BE8 is the 1DX
NL7 is the 5DIII

Note that the 5DIII has smaller grain pattern than the 1DX due to pixel density.  Chroma noise is about the same, I think maybe less with the 5dIII but I could be persuaded that it's the same.  For those that say the 1DX has no chroma noise you are wrong.  It may have less at ISO 25000 but you cant say it has none.  Post with CS5 we can process out chroma noise pretty much at all ISO levels with both cameras.

Crops are 100% at 300dpi

(FYI, dpi only matters for print. On screen, you only have image dimensions in pixels and the PPI of the screen. It really wouldn't matter what dpi setting you used, on my screen it will always display at 103ppi. The average desktop screen these days has around 96ppi, most phone screens are 250-330ppi, and most tablets are 140-250ppi. People will see the image at the resolution of their device, regardless of what setting you choose when exporting. If you want everyone to see it at certain dimensions, there really isn't any way via the web, although I would imagine that if we actually could see those crops at 300ppi (my Lumia has a 336ppi resolution), they would look far less noisy than they do.)

Any chance you could post screenshots of the original histograms for each of those photos (without any post-process edits)? Given how much noise you have in those shots, and given the overall tone, I'd wager that a higher ISO setting with a greater amount of ETTR would produce better results from both cameras. I recently read some interesting info on exposure from one of my favorite bird photographers...Art Morris, who is a staunch advocate of ALWAYS exposing such that the rightmost ends of the histogram end up half way into the rightmost vertical box on the histogram display. Since I started doing that, my photos have been less noisy after post-process exposure correction (which, actually, tends to be minimal most of the time). Given what I've learned the last several months with my 7D, I would be willing to bet both the 5D III and 1D X could produce less noisy exposures for the same images you posted if you used both a higher ISO setting, and dropped the right-hand end of the histogram half way into the rightmost box.

It may not seem like "getting the exposure right in-camera", and if one was using film it would indeed be an entirely incorrect way to expose. But to maximize the potential of digital equipment, we have to think about it and use it differently than we think about and use film. I'm a staunch believer of ETTR, or expose to the right, when using modern digital cameras, and in my experience it does result in better dynamic range and noise performance out of any digital camera.

438
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Problems with Canon mk3 locking up
« on: February 23, 2013, 10:15:16 AM »
So you said you used both CF and SD cards.  Were they both in the camera at the same time or in one at a time during the test?

I've had the issue and decided to record it.  Over a 2 hour period yesterday I was able to get it to come up a total of 10 times ranging in times from 18 seconds to 4 minutes even.  I'm not so sure it's a card issue.  I'm using CF 90mbps and SD at 45mbps.  Maybe I could see issues with the 45mbps cards but 90mbps.?  Once you see my video, it's 18 seconds into recording so I'm just not 100% sure it's a card issue but to be fair I don't think we should rule out the card issue completely.  More testing has to be done for sure.  Either way loosing footage because of a camera freezing during video recording is hazardous in our business.  Canon must be made aware of the issue and get it fixed for everyone involved.

Check out the video, I've sent it to Canon as proof and will be sending in my MK3 Monday.

5D MK3 Freeze Frame during video

Please forgive me for it being out of focus but capturing this one freezing 18 seconds into recording I couldn't pass up the chance to show it.

439
Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?
« on: February 22, 2013, 05:08:44 PM »
FoCal is the next best thing to doing it manually with something like a Lensalign or LensCal.  Focal is not perfect though and in my opinion was better around version 1.4.  I still need to use a 3D target to tune in the settings.

440
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
« on: February 22, 2013, 02:55:49 PM »
Two shots using the 5DIII and 1DX.  Both shot at ISO 1000.  Both using a 600mm F4 IS with 1.4xIII extender.  Both days were taken with complete overcast against a less than pleasing sky...Normally I would pass on any attempts in this condition but it makes for good comparisons in bad lighting.  No post filters except 25 sharpness on both from the RAW files.  5DIII was at f/8 and 1DX was at F/10.

BE8 is the 1DX
NL7 is the 5DIII

Note that the 5DIII has smaller grain pattern than the 1DX due to pixel density.  Chroma noise is about the same, I think maybe less with the 5dIII but I could be persuaded that it's the same.  For those that say the 1DX has no chroma noise you are wrong.  It may have less at ISO 25000 but you cant say it has none.  Post with CS5 we can process out chroma noise pretty much at all ISO levels with both cameras.

Crops are 100% at 300dpi



441
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Problems with Canon mk3 locking up
« on: February 22, 2013, 12:12:29 PM »
I shoot video on the 5DIII frequently.  I used Sandisk Extreme Pro 32GB 90MB/sec.  But I only use one of the cards at a time.  Either CF or SD but never both for video.  I usually just use the CF card.

I didn't pick up on it in the threads but maybe it's related to having both cards in the camera at the same time regardless of whether you are using the 2nd.  I've found the best performance is with JUST the CF card installed.

442
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method
« on: February 22, 2013, 10:49:16 AM »
Other methods such as FoCal actually analyze the image using a special target to determine sharpness or resolvability at various AFMA settings.  It actually takes pictures of the target to do it's analysis.  It does not use AF detect at all.

They do have a beta version out which appears to do something similar as Dot Tune but I have not tried it yet.

I also have found that FoCal does not work very well with some camera lens combinations.  I've used it and then done checks using a lensalign 3D target and found it to be quite off in its AFMA selection with some lenses.  One of the things that it is biased towards is AF repeatability and consistency.  Not necessarily the highest sharpness or resolvability.  I agree that consistency is important but the goal is to provide the highest resolvability by calibrating for an in focus image.  So even with FoCal you STILL have to do manual checks and compare shots to make sure it's recommended AFMA is sane.  So I just do it manually now since the manual verification has to be done anyway. Manual meaning the sloped ruler and high contrast target process.

No because Dot Tune uses AF detect, others do not.

Repeat these steps after restarting your camera. It will give you different values.

This should apply to all MFA methods then.

So then what difference would it make using AF detect compared to other methods. Does the power only shut of to AF detect and not to other parts of my camera?

443
Lenses / Re: Why aren't zoom lenses faster than 2.8?
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:42:02 PM »
It would make them too heavy to be practical.  The 70-200L 2.8 is already two bricks.

444
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:35:40 PM »
No because Dot Tune uses AF detect, others do not.

Repeat these steps after restarting your camera. It will give you different values.

This should apply to all MFA methods then.

445
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
« on: February 21, 2013, 09:34:25 PM »
There is no point speculating in this thread about a product that still is only a rumor.  Therefore it has no basis for comparison.  The topic was a 1DX vs 5diii comparison.  Plenty of other threads discussing vaporware.

Though I will say if or when the 7DII is released I will be one of the first in line for a CPS eval.  :)

I've used a Ds3 for years and I wonder...were you to throw the, hopefully coming, new 7D into the equation...how would you feel then?

446
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method
« on: February 21, 2013, 03:08:36 PM »
Generally speaking the best AFMA is the one that on average gives you the best image across the entire range subject distance range....unless the lens is really out of kilter.

That has been a long standing issue with zooms.  You not only have the subject distance issue to worry about but different AFMA settings across the entire zoom range.  Canon at least now with the later bodies allows for a separate AFMA for each end of the zoom range but the middle range cannot always be extrapolated linearly between the two settings.

Anyway some of the error can be made up by stopping down the lens.  The best thing to do is to send the lens back to canon and have it adjusted so that the focal plain relative to AFMA is consistent from minimum to infinity focus distance when AF is activated.


Some lenses just dont focus well on a linear scale.  Some need different AFMA settings focused far than focused close.  To me that's a manufacturing flaw or the lens is just out of spec and needs adjusting.  In those cases you either need to set the AFMA for the distance you use it the most, or split the difference in the near and far AFMA tests and use aperture to increase the DOF and mask the error.



Yup, that has been my feeling too and I am glad I can finally find someone to agree with me  :)

For all the lenses I have, I have never been able to AFMA it such that it works for any subject distance.
The ones that worked for any subject distance had AFMA turned off LOL!

Yet I do recall someone on this forum had great success with it... It is puzzling.
Perhaps some particular lens flaw happens to be compensated by AFMA perfectly.

447
Lenses / Re: What are Canon's sharpest lenses?
« on: February 21, 2013, 01:41:11 PM »
Generally speaking any of the prime L series lenses will be sharper than any of the zooms.  One exception may be the new 24-70 mkii.

The 100 2.8L Macro IS is a fantastic lens.  I've used it for landscape work but it really shines as a macro lens.  The IS is not very good at really close macro distances so it may be just as good to turn it off and use high shutter or tripod in macro mode.  The sharpness is astounding.  You will have a lot of fun with it.

448
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
« on: February 21, 2013, 11:39:39 AM »
There is no verification anymore of pro status.  You just answer a few questions.  The rest is based on a point system and depends on how much Canon stuff you own.  If you have enough for Gold status you can borrow equipment.  Gold is 100.00 a year and Platinum is 500.00 a year.  There are other perks the biggest is a couple of free cleanings per year and SUBSTANTIAL discounts for repairs and associated parts.  I had IS replaced on my 300 2.8 due to spill I took and that one repair paid for the CPS fee for the next two years. So I am taking advantage of the evaluations.

So back to the noise and the example you showed.  To me that noise would not be acceptable in a 20x30 enlargement.  Downscaled for the web, offset printed in a book or a calendar yes it would be acceptable as the noise would be lost in the printing or downscaling process.

I did note also that it seemed the noise patterns on the 5DIII were smaller than the 1DX I assume it's due to the 5DIII being 22MP instead of 18.  I could in fact with post processing reduce most of the noise to equal that as shown on the example.  As noted the 5Diii is no slouch and definitely would expect that the 1DX would have less noise and better contrast at even higher ISOs.  But is that much noise really acceptable?  It depends on what you want to do with the image and what you as a photographer are willing to accept in your work.


Why would I try a 1DX in the first place?  Because CPS lets me borrow equipment for free.  Why wouldn't I want to try it out?  CPS is an awesome service and if you qualify I encourage you to sign up.


Personally, I'd LOVE to use CPS, but I don't make enough money off of my photography to do so. The requirements seem pretty stringent...you basically have to be a full-time pro photographer to qualify (at least, in the US.)

Are your attempting to compare 1DX ISO 12800 to the 5D3 ISO 1000?  If that's the case there is no comparison the 5D3 at ISO 1000 won out in my tests.  12800 has it's purpose but for feather splitting clarity and no noise it did not meet my standards of IQ.  But I am pretty tight on my standards and others might accept less for their particular purpose.  I agree that in some cases the 1DX would have improved noise, but for most wildlife purposes it's probably not noticeable in the end, especially after post processing each.  If you are talking about shooting in the dark in bad lighting then that's another story.


I would guess you did not spend much time actually shooting at ISO settings above 6400. Based on what I've seen and read in reviews, the 1D X is really mind blowing at high ISO. The 5D III may start belching out blotchy chroma noise around ISO 6400, but the 1D X still pumps out clean noise and a ton of detail through ISO 16,000 or more.

Here is a shot from Any Rouse's blog, where he reviews the 1D X. Given how my 7D performs, I'd have called this ISO 1600. It is actually ISO 16,000...yes, sixteen thousand. Despite that, the feather detail is amazing, and the quality of the noise is superb:



Read the review to learn more about the difficult scenarios Andy photographed in. It might change your mind a bit on the 1D X, and it's unique world-class high ISO performance. Now, I do believe Andy used the best of the best lenses, so he was really packing on the pixels...but that is kind of the price you pay if you want the best of the best.

I feel a lot of people here are trying to justify their 6K purchase.  If the 1DX were not available, everyone would be praising the 5DIII as the best camera over the rest of the Canon line.  However, I am not saying that the 5DIII is better than the 1DX.  I am saying that it was designed for other purposes and for most wildlife purposes the 5DIII would be more than acceptable if you could live without 12fps and I can, especially if I have to sacrifice noise levels at 12fps.  If you are on an African safari riding on top of an off road vehicle then maybe you can live with the RAT TAT TAT rapid fire noise.  with the 1DX I might as well have not even been in a blind  as everything around me new I was there just by the noise.

Also I'll note that I am not a big fan of shooting in bad light.  The 1DX may be very good at shooting in bad light but bad light is bad light and chances of getting a keeper is far less than with good light.  I consider sunrise and sunset lighting good light provided there is some direct sun on the subject.  In those instances I've never had an issue getting the 5D3 to perform even BIF.


Yes, the 1D X was designed to excel in "bad" light. It was also designed to excel in pretty much every other kind of light as well. Given the quality of Andy Rouse's shots, I'd say the 1D X is just as good for wildlife and birds as it is for sports. I'd also offer the fact that Art Morris uses the 1D X almost exclusively for his bird photography, which is some of the best in the world, and the quality of his work is second to none....high detail, even at obscenely high ISO settings.

You are right, however, that the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. If you are interested in saving money, and interested in something quieter, I totally agree that the 5D III is an ideal alternative, if not the better option in a considerable number of cases. Personally, I think I'll be getting a 5D III instead of a 1D X, at least for the foreseeable future (I'd like to pick up a 1D X when they are a bit cheaper.) I can also rent a 1D X if I think I need the features it offers, and bring along my 5D III as a backup.

449
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: New MFA method
« on: February 21, 2013, 11:19:34 AM »
So you say it works consistently but you also put in caveats that it doesnt work if the lighting or distance to subject changes? 

So it seems to me that it's not consistent in your case and the results are questionable.  Did you verify that the selected AFMA was indeed correct using a 3D type of focus tester?  You can set up one easy enough using a yard or meter stick slanted at a sharp angle and fixing a flat high contrast target next to it to focus on.

I've been seriously trying to explain that unless you have a way of verifying the AFMA setting is correct most people should just disable it.  As you noticed that it can get you into some trouble.

Some lenses just dont focus well on a linear scale.  Some need different AFMA settings focused far than focused close.  To me that's a manufacturing flaw or the lens is just out of spec and needs adjusting.  In those cases you either need to set the AFMA for the distance you use it the most, or split the difference in the near and far AFMA tests and use aperture to increase the DOF and mask the error.

Either way you need an accurate method of verifying the settings as AF detect is not very accurate in most of the current models.

Just successfully tuned my 50/1.8 & 85/1.8 with this dot-tune method with my 5d2.
There is no question in my mind that horshack's new MFA method works and works consistently.
Thanks for sharing this brilliant idea horshack!

To get a consistent result in my 50/1.8, I had to gaffer tape the focus ring of the 50/1.8  ;)
so it doesn't move right after manual focusing (x10) in LV.

Getting the AFMA value for 85/1.8 was easy as it was in range: -18 to -1, meaning a AFMA value of -10.

However, it was a bit more tricky for the 50/1.8 as the dot remains red at -20 and the upper range was -4.
-4 should be credible but -20 is questionable and it could be -21, -22, -23 etc but the scale doesn't show it.

So I was guessing horshack's "detuning method" and detuned the focus a bit.
I did so by first setting AFMA to +5 (guessing) and turn the focus ring manual until I get a beep (red dot).
So now I know +5 is within range.  Based on this detuned focus, using the dot-tune method gives me a range
of -9 to +9.   So I know the half range is 9.     Based on the credible upper value of -4 and subtracting
9 (half range) from it gave me a final value of -13.

Using the obtained AFMA values gave me much sharper images at f1.8 at the distance I performed the calibration. (distance suitable for a full-length shot)

So in my mind, the dot-tune method is solid. What is questionable to me is the
implementation of AFMA, as it seems subject distance dependent.

For example, my 85/1.8 with AFMA of -10 works great with full length portraits but I will get soft images at a distance of 10 feet and closer.  The 50/1.8 seemed to work well with AFMA of -13 at all distance with the calibration target and lighting. However, it doesn't work very well with somce other subjects and lighting. So I just have to turn off AFMA in case of doubt.

I feel this kind of AFMA is a bandage solution anyway and I am hoping Canon will incorporate their factory lens
calibration routine into EOS Utility and I will be laughing!  No more "bad copies"  of lens... sigh...
Note the competition already has "USB lens dock" for factory strength lens calibration LOL!

450
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX vs 5DIII Wildlife Comparison
« on: February 21, 2013, 11:08:14 AM »
I didn't notice any slowdown either, I simply decided to recharge at 50% as I didn't want to risk running out in the field considering I only got two days worth of shooting in prior to that.  I honestly could have just taken the 2nd battery with me.

Originally my point was that I got two days with the 1DX battery and get 2 weeks with the 5DIII and two batteries in the battery grip.  Why the big difference?  I dont know.  There are lots of possibilities but 2 days vs two weeks is a BIG difference regardless.  all of my shooting was with a 600 f4 with and without the 1.4iii extender.

I too have noticed no slowdown at 1DX battery percentages down to 20%.  At a recent surfing event I shot 1200 frames in the day and the battery was fine.

There is also something I ca't quite put my finger on about using the 1DX ...

Well yes I can, actually. I'm with bdunbar on this ... the camera is simply astonishing.  It should be illegal. It can recover images that really shouldn't be allowed, if you're as crap as me. 12fps can get you the money shot which you could just miss at 6fps. And it feels pornographic in your hand.

The only downside to me is that shutter noise. It really does clatter. Using the 5D3 (or 5D2 or 50D) feels like you're using a wonderful and quiet toy in comparison.  Aside from the noise (which has scared birds) it is truly insane. And it will pick up that just-scared bird and catch in in flight like no other camera you've ever used

And I'm sorry if this sounds over-protective too!  But it is that good

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 42