Messages

6151

Software & Accessories / Re: Tripod case for airplane carry-on

« on: January 10, 2012, 07:33:18 AM »

Heres a question though... Can Tripods be carry on luggage? Wouldn't it be considered a dangerous object... what with it being quite close to a stick...

TSA doesn't have a specific rule on tripods.  Personally, I've carried on a tripod or a monopod on several flights in the US with no issues, always with camera gear in the case as well.

6152

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 09, 2012, 10:52:56 PM »

Why did Canon build it this way?
"Better performance at all ISO's than 7d"

Just to clarify, that applies to JPG images and is because of Digic5.  No info on RAW performance, yet. 

Other notables pulled from the Q&A with Chuck Westfall:

• No manual control for video shooting - autoexposure only
• Contrast detect AF is 'a little faster'
• Lens performance on par with EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

Regarding the lens performance comment, I'd call the performance of the 18-135mm almost decent when stopped down to f/8 or so, but not very good wide open.  Here's a comparison of the 18-135 to the much better 15-85mm at 24mm f/4; if you set the dropdown for the 18-135mm to f/8, you'll see that at that point, it's getting closer to the 15-85mm wide open, but still noticeably worse away from the center.   Keep in mind that the G1X sensor is close to APS-C and the pixel pitch is the same as current 18 MP sensor - that's enough to expose flaws in a lens, and IMO, if this lens is similar to or even a little better than the 18-135mm, there are plenty of flaws to expose (in particular, not very sharp in the center, mushy corners, lots of vignetting, and a fair bit of CA.

6153

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Handstrap

« on: January 09, 2012, 09:59:32 PM »

Last shots -- really good fake or just a crappy run?

I notice a few differences between the two.  First, the cut is different (the one actually on the camera has an inward curve at the lower left, the free strap is straight).  Second, the stitching is different - the one on the camera is 'coarser' and closer to the center of the folded-over portion, while the free one has finer stitching that's closer to the free edge.  Finally, the leather of the one on the camera has more obvious texture.

I got two of them from B&H about several months apart, and both are identical and match the one attached to the camera.

Unfortunately, I think it's probably a fake.  If you didn't have two of them, you'd probably never notice...  I suppose it's also possible that Canon changed the style of the strap slightly. 

6154

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 09, 2012, 04:48:11 PM »

In use, true. But body only (no battery/card), the G1X is actually 3 g heavier than the T3. 

6155

Lenses / Re: Wide Angle Lens - 16-28 F2.8 Tokina vs Canon 17-40 F4

« on: January 09, 2012, 04:33:58 PM »

Haven't used the Tokina, but photozone.de has reviewed it.  Better than the Canon 16-35 II for distortion and vignetting, slightly better center resolution but the Canon is much better in the corners until both are stopped down to f/5.6, and the Canon is much better on CA.

Canon is also weather sealed and takes filters.  I use a B+W XS-Pro UV to complete the weather sealing, a B+W Käsemann CPL sometimes (at wider focal lengths, the sky is unevenly polarized), and a Schneider Optics (B+W's parent company) 10-stop ND for long exposures, especially helpful to eliminate people from shots. 82mm filters are expensive, but at least I can share the CPL and ND with my TS-E 24mm II.

I definitely agree with the utility of f/2.8 for evening/night handheld shooting, especially with the high ISO capability of FF.  Here's an example:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM @ 27mm, 1/25 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200

6156

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Handstrap

« on: January 09, 2012, 04:17:17 PM »

I bought the E2 from B&H (linked above) a few months ago and love it.

Agreed. I use E1 straps on both my gripped bodies.

6157

Software & Accessories / Re: Canon Handstrap

« on: January 09, 2012, 03:28:44 PM »

The link is for the E1 strap, which requires a battery grip for attachment. There's also an E2 strap, which has its own tripod mount connector for a non-gripped/pro body.

E1 at B&H

E2 at B&H

6158

Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

« on: January 09, 2012, 03:22:10 PM »

for a zoom lens ie 24-105 L IS,   it gives you 3 values at 3 different focal lengths, does the camera store all of them or do you have to choose one of them?

You have to choose one. I'd bias the choice toward the long end of the zoom, since that's where DoF will be thinnest and thus AF errors more obvious.

FWIW, the 1D X will store two AFMA values for a zoom lens.  I don't know what it will do with them, i.e. change from one to the other halfway through the zoom range, or progressively change from one to the other over the range.

6159

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 09, 2012, 02:52:53 PM »

Next question is how much bigger is it to the G12.

0.2" taller, 0.2" wider, 0.6" thicker.

If it grows by those dimensions again, it'll be the size of a Rebel. Heck, as it is the G1X weighs the same as the T3.

6160

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?

« on: January 09, 2012, 02:29:54 PM »

I certainly hope that Canon will fix the "Achilles heel" for what otherwise appears to be a stellar camera. Autofocusing at f:8, even if only in the center spot, has been a given for 1D series users for a decade now.  Taking it back seems such a step in the wrong direction and gives us one less reason why these bodies are our first choice.

Well, overall I think it is a stellar camera. I agree with the previous comment that the lack of f/8 AF is a real issue for only a very small percentage users.  (Dare I say it, perhaps more people are complaining about this issue online than there are current 1-series users who would be directly impacted?) 

As discussed, they may not be able to 'fix it' for technical reasons.  Consider - previous 1-series have a center point that's an f/4 line crossed with an f/8 line. The 1D X will have a dual f/2.8 and f/5.6 cross.  It may be that Canon's lines differ from Nikon's - I know Canon uses 48-bit lines of all the same length, but different separation relative to the baseline (wider spacing for f/2.8 than f/5.6).  The exception to that is the previous 1-series, where the lines for the center AF point are closer together (f/4 and f/8 spacing), but the lines are shorter so the higher pixel density regains the accuracy lost to the shorter baseline. That may not have been possible in the new sensor with its higher level of complexity.  I don't know what the sensor lines for Nikon are like, but it may be that they have been using higher density AF Lines all along. Thus, Nikon's f/5.6 points might be more accurate than Canon's f/5.6 points, and that greater accuracy might allow them to work better at apertures narrower than f/5.6. 

It may also depend on exactly why Canon chose to eliminate the f/8 capability.  If it was for marketing rather than technical reasons, they may be setting the stage for a future pro-level crop body, such as a 14-16 MP APS-C, with substantial IQ improvements, where they'll bring back an f/8 capability, expanded to multiple points.

6161

Software & Accessories / Re: Automatic Microfocus adjustment software

« on: January 09, 2012, 12:09:34 PM »

The larger adjustment range is a promised feature at some time in the future.

"And the following tests coming shortly after release:  

Out of range testing - take the AF Micro adjustment value outside of the normal +/-20 range for problematic lenses.

Yes, I read that, too - that was the point of my question. When I read that, it suggests to me that the testing will be capable of going beyond the normal range, but it does not indicate that it will be possible to actually set an in-camera AFMA outside the normal range.  Do you think the latter would be possible without altering the firmware? 

Looking at the plots you posted, I'd bet the shape of the curves would be pretty similar for a given lens, or perhaps class of lenses. So, given sufficient data on those lenses, if a curve is 'trending up but starting to approach a peak' between, say, +14 and +20, but hasn't peaked yet, the software will extrapolate the curve and report that you'd need a +23 adjustment, even though it didn't test +23. Alternatively, since the software can measure the time between initiating focus and focus lock each time, and also the direction, it could apply a 'manual focus' adjustment equal to one AFMA unit for values beyond 20, and measure the sharpness at those expanded settings, providing real data for the plots.

But, I think the only way an out-of-range adjustment could actually be applied and used when the camera isn't connected to FoCal would be a ML-type firmware hack.  I'd be very interested to hear other opinions, or examples of other custom functions having their available parameters changed externally.

6162

Lenses / Re: A tale of 3 Lenses 70-200 F4 IS vs 70-200 F2.8 vs 70-300 F4.5 IS

« on: January 09, 2012, 11:52:45 AM »

.... If I understood neuro's tech posts correctly, the DOF will be more shallow on FF for the same subject distance and framing.
..

I thought for the same subject distance, the Crop has more OOF blur, but for the same framing the FF has more OOF blur...

Yes but what if you have both the same subject distance and the same framing, i.e. only a different focal length?

I will defer that one to Neuro 

If you have the same distance and same framing, but different focal length, the FF will have shallower DoF for the same aperture, because it will need a longer focal length. Example - 85mm f/2 on APS-C at the same distance will frame like 135mm f/2 on FF.

K-amps, you're correct that if you keep everything the same but the sensor - same aperture, same distance, same focal length, the crop sensor will actually have shallower DoF.  But we don't usually care much about that because it's a different picture. So, if you're taking a head shot on FF, you could get more OOF blur (shallower DoF) by switching to a crop body and shooting with the same lens at the same distance - but then you'd have a shot of just the subject's eyes and nose (so, you'd move back to frame the head, and then your DoF would be deeper than with FF).

6163

Lenses / Re: 24mm 1.4L ii vs 35mm 1.4L vs 50mm 1.2L

« on: January 09, 2012, 11:41:09 AM »

I guess I should clarify a bit more Neuro.  I would have expected your explaination if all the test shots at f/1.8 were a little OOF than the f/1.2 shots.  In all but this one instance, the f/1.2 shot was sharper than the f/1.8 shot.  I also have to confess, I was looking at these images at 200% and I'm probably a closet pixel peeper.

Apologies, but I don't understand your clarification. Are you saying that in general, f/1.2 was sharper than f/1.8, or in one specific shot, f/1.2 was sharper, but the rest of the time, f/1.8 was sharper? 

What I'm saying is that with correct focus, f/1.8 will always be sharper than f/1.2, that's just basic optics - you stop down from wide open and the lens gets sharper.  MTF tests and/or ISO 12233 test shots, which when properly done are perfectly focused (either with 10x Live View, or better yet by focus bracketing and picking the best shot post hoc).  But, what I'm also saying is that if you are using AF for your shots, f/1.2 will usually be sharper than f/1.8, because the f/1.2 shots will be correctly focused, while f/1.8 will be back focused because of the focus shift (focus shift does not apply wide open).  However, that also assumes the lens is properly calibrated on your body - for example, if it actually front-focuses at f/1.2, then the focus shift at f/1.8 may result in correct focus (two wrongs making a right, so to speak).

6164

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon PowerShot G1 X Announced

« on: January 09, 2012, 11:17:51 AM »

Extensive accessories

But apparently no wide or tele adapters.  One 'accessory' they provide for free is the 'cap keeper'.  The G1X has an actual lens cap - no auto-retracting cover. Canon helpfully includes an attachment string, so the cap can dangle around while you shoot (hmmm, what's that loud click-click-click on that video I just shot?).

Despite having a physical cap, there are no filter threads on the lens. You can buy an optional adapter to hold a filter (58mm), or a lens hood.  Note - that's OR - you can't use both a filter and a hood together.

6165

PowerShot Cameras / Re: *UPDATE 3* Canon PowerShot G1X Revealed

« on: January 09, 2012, 11:09:01 AM »

Considering how much bigger the sensor is I think we'll be ok. The pic from dpreview gives you a better idea of how giant that thing is. And considering about the amazing amount of detail everyone goes in about how important pixel / sensor size is whenever that subject comes up I think we have a lot to be happy about with Canon in their general direction.

Well, yes, sensor size is important. But even more than hammering on 'bigger sensors are better', we hammer on 'glass before body'. A good lens on a smaller sensor (e.g. a 70-200 L-series on APS-C) will far outperform a poor lens on a larger sensor (e.g. the cheap 75-300mm III on a 5DII).  With a sensor nearly the size of APS-C, but a lens smaller than the 18-55mm kit lens, I do have some concerns about IQ. Not that the 18-55mm is horrible, but compared to lenses like the 17-55mm or 15-85mm, it's not in the same class, and a bigger sensor exposes more flaws in a lens.

When out and about with a P&S for emergency photographic opportunities we may not have a lot of time to set up and compose a shot.  The large DoF of the P&S means we can be quicker and still be sure the subject will be in focus.

Yep. Oh, and with the G1X, you'll have to factor in time to remove the lens cap - no auto-retracting cover. Canon helpfully includes an attachment string, so the cap can dangle around while you shoot (hmmm, what's that loud click-click-click on that video I just shot?).