Messages

1051

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 09, 2012, 02:50:42 PM »

Auto ISO with exposure compensationThe combination of the two is useful.

Can you give us an example?

Thanks!

1. Manual Mode, 1/1000th shutter, f/7.1:
2. Auto ISO selects ISO 800

With evaluative metering, the scene is a bit too dark. You need the DOF of f/7.1, and you can't go below 1/1000th because your already as low as you can go to freeze all but the birds wing tips. You don't have the option of using flash.

3. Use EC to bump ISO up to by 2/3rds of a stop

Correct exposure now, but its still not manual ISO, so when that cloud passes in front of the sun a moment before you take the shot, evaluative metering compensates and it still exposes correctly. Oh, happy day, happy day.

(All I would need then is a real-time histogram in the transmissive LCD of the viewfinder so I can identify the exposure discrepancy without having to take my eye away from the viewfinder at all to make the necessary exposure adjustments....oh, I would be in BIF HEAVEN!)

1052

EOS Bodies / Re: Long exposure dark current noise - 5D III

« on: May 09, 2012, 02:43:38 PM »

No visible banding in that shot after pushing the shadows! lol. Nice work with the trees and the glow toward the horizon. Cheers

You are pushing the shadows of a baked jpeg, though, not a RAW. You are more likely to encounter jpeg compression artifacts than banding in a shot thats already been processed with high contrast (which would crush noise into the deepest shadows). I wouldn't judge banding based on any jpeg samples here. You really need a RAW file to truly tell how much better the 5D III's shadow pushing is going to be over your 5D II.

1053

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 09, 2012, 02:39:11 PM »

Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.

Ah, yes. The Auto ISO/EC is really a nice feature. Its too bad Canon won't put that in their other pro-grade bodies. I can understand not putting it in a Rebel...but damn, make it a standard pro feature.

Auto ISO?? what's the advantage of that?

Auto ISO with exposure compensation in Manual mode. The combination of the two is useful. I think only 1-series Canon DSLR's get that feature. I certainly don't have EC in M with Auto ISO on my 7D anyway.

1054

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 09, 2012, 02:28:27 PM »

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.

Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.

Ah, yes. The Auto ISO/EC is really a nice feature. Its too bad Canon won't put that in their other pro-grade bodies. I can understand not putting it in a Rebel...but damn, make it a standard pro feature.

1055

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 09, 2012, 01:58:19 PM »

so how good is the AF on the 1D mk. IV at f/8, for example with a 500mm and a 2.0 tc?

i'll probably buy a 500mm in the next couple of days and was researching for a successor for my 7D. either the 1D mk. IV or the 5D mk. III. as i figured, i can crop an image from the 5D3 to 16MP (it would have a cropfactor of 1.375) and would have about the same reach as the 1D4 (not including f/8 AF support).

i have not used the 1D4, neither the 5D3, but almost everywhere i read the IQ of the 5D3 beats that of the 1D4. so would a cropped 5D3 image be better (or equal) of that of a 1D4 image? i guess i should rent both camera's when i have the 500, to figure it all out

Technically speaking, you would have to crop out the center 13.3mp area (4464x2976 pixels) to have the same effective spatial area as the 1D IV. But your still going to be at a spatial resolution disadvantage...80lp/mm for the cropped 5D III area vs. 88lp/mm for the 1D IV's full sensor. To exactly match the 1D IV with a full-frame sensor when cropping, you would need a 26.6mp FF sensor, which would have the same 88lp/mm spatial resolution.

Keep in mind, raw IQ is not the only factor in "getting a good shot". Camera A may have stellar IQ, but only a 4fps frame rate and only 10 continuous frames, with limited reach (1.0x crop). That could significantly limit your ability to get a keeper in the first place. In that case, Camera B, which great IQ (but maybe not quite "stellar"), a 10fps frame rate and 30 continuous frames as well as extra reach (1.3x crop), is the much better camera. You have a higher chance of capturing that perfect moment that just "makes" the photograph. I'd sacrifice a little bit of IQ any day for Camera B, as its a better tool for the kind of photography I'm doing.

I personally use the 7D, more because it was within budget than anything (and left me with enough extra money to buy accessories, extra batteries, bunches of CF cards, flash, etc. I would LOVE a 1D IV though...) I find it to be an awesome camera, despite the fact that it definitely does not have the best IQ. In high SNR areas (i.e. a bird itself), its IQ is great, but it has the tendency to speckle noise around in bokeh areas and it just looks terrible. I've learned, however, that that is a moot point. Noise can be cleaned up, by a variety of means (standard noise removal and a bit of quick masking and Gaussian blur in photoshop completely eliminate all noise from even an ISO 3200 7D shot.) Don't let potential IQ bottlenecks hold you back from getting the right tool for the job.

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.

1056

EOS Bodies / Re: Is this heresy?

« on: May 08, 2012, 10:12:21 PM »

I have a friend who has been trying out an X Pro-1 rental. He has mentioned quite a few quirks with it, not the least of which is lackluster RAW support from most tools. He has really only been able to use Fuji's software, which is far from great, to edit the RAW images (which are not quite "normal" in that the X Pro-1's sensor has a rather unique layout, and interpolation is not quite standard.)

He has also noted some funky issues using the OVF (optical viewfinder), which is not the same as a normal DSLR in that it has a parallax error. There are some odd problems around how the AF points when using the OVF don't really match up well with the actual contrast AF points of the sensor. He has mentioned on a few occasions how the EVF is not particularly great, and he has opted for the OVF more often...despite its parallax and AF issues.

He loves the IQ (its apparently excellent), but there is definitely a learning curve associated with the X-Pro 1, as well as some funky quirks and issues that seem to take some time to get used to or work around.

So...just beware...

1057

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 08:03:01 PM »

I do not disagree.  I am saying take a picture using a 500mm and 5dIII and another with the 7D at a reasonable distance.  You will keep the one with the 5dIII.  The 5D looks better at 100% than the 7D looks at 50% crop, thus coming close on size. Even at iso 400 i would take the 5D.

"at a reasonable distance"

Thats what I'm talking about, though. To get the "same shot" with both cameras, you would need to be 50-60% closer with the 5D III than with the 7D. That is a BIG difference, and when it comes to birds on the water, you often don't have the option to get within a "reasonable distance". In such cases, it ultimately boils down to getting a decently framed shot you can use...even if it might be a bit noisy (7D), vs. getting a shot where the bird is only a small fraction in the center of the frame, thus resulting in an image that is smaller in area with less detail...even if that detail is less noisy (5D III). In that case, I'd take the 7D any day over the 5D III.

A 50% difference in distance can also mean that your songbird or raptor flies away because your too close...you've punctured their comfort zone. Again, you could get the shot with the 7D, but you would likely miss it entirely with the 5D III. Reach is one of the most valuable thing in bird photography. The 7D has it in spades, and even if the IQ isn't as good as the 5D III, it can mean the difference between getting the shot and not. Missing a shot is the worst outcome possible.

1058

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 05:42:20 PM »

Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D?  I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.

The 7D hasn't got f/8 AF so it is down realistically between the 1D4 and the 1DX/5DIII

The 7D is a compromise for birding

Somewhat. You still get the extra crop factor, and a bit of extra reach, so its a compromise, but not really a bad one. I would prefer a 1.3x CF with f/8 AF though (or, if it was possible...not sure it is...f/8 AF and a 1.6x CF).

The 1D4 wins out on the low light stakes - doing iso 6400 without breaking a sweat

Hmm, good point. Thats one of the things that is a bummer with the 7D...it only Auto ISO's up to 3200, and 3200 is pretty rough to boot.

1059

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 05:35:07 PM »

Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D?  I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.

The 7D hasn't got f/8 AF so it is down realistically between the 1D4 and the 1DX/5DIII

The 7D is a compromise for birding

Somewhat. You still get the extra crop factor, and a bit of extra reach, so its a compromise, but not really a bad one. I would prefer a 1.3x CF with f/8 AF though (or, if it was possible...not sure it is...f/8 AF and a 1.6x CF).

1060

EOS Bodies / Re: How are dynamic range and sensor size related?

« on: May 08, 2012, 03:25:43 PM »

Because of the plateau at low ISO, I think the problem with the DR on the 5D3 comes because of the ADC

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/
"The dynamic range is often limited by the A/D converter and other electronics in the system, illustrated by the measured data falling below the model at lower ISOs."

He explicitly called out "other electronics" as well. The A/D converter is not always an integrated part of the sensor, however the sensor contains a significant amount of complex electronic elements that can create noise on a variety of levels. An off-die ADC must usually process more pixels than say an on-die CP-ADC, so it requires a higher clock, which has a greater potential to introduce its own electronic noise into output units. Once the ADC has actually converted an electron charge into an ADU, you lose the ability to eliminate those forms of nose...they are now essentially "baked into" the output units. Sony Exmor sensors eliminate several forms of ELECTRONIC noise in the sensor before they send the charge that represents any given pixel to the ADC (which, in the case of Exmor, is also on the sensor die). Sony has two advantages...they eliminate as much electronic noise as possible before ADC, and they have one ACD per pixel column, which gives then the added advantage of eliminating vertical FPN (which is actually apparent...the D800 only seems to exhibit horizontal FPN unless it is pushed by 10 stops or more, at which point it might finally start exhibiting full cross-hatch FPN).

1061

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 03:09:34 PM »

Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D?  I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.

Well, the "complete" negation argument is just plain false. From a spatial resolution standpoint, you would have to have a 47.6mp FF sensor to be able to crop out the center 18mp to match a 7D (both of which would have a 116lp/mm native spatial resolution (a bit less if you factor in the low pass filter)). Assuming you had a 47.6mp FF sensor, using the same lens on both cameras, if you fill the frame on the 7D with say a 600/4, then you could use the same lens on the FF and crop out the center 18mp and end up with an identical photo. Only then could you actually claim "complete negation" of the 7D's resolution advantage. The 5D III is actually at a disadvantage spatially (80lp/mm), which is the very reason why you need a longer lens (960mm) to get the same "framing" as you might with the 7D and a shorter lens (600mm).

If you are lucky enough to own an 800mm lens, the 5D III will probably serve you well...but you would be stuck with 800mm. You couldn't slap on a teleconverter and get more (since you would then be at f/8, and could no longer AF). You could use a 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC and get 840mm, but your still short of that 960mm you would need to actually fully negate the 7D's resolution advantage. And thats nothing to speak of the additional advantage of the 7D with the same 600/4 + 1.4x TC, which gives you an effective 1344mm. One way or another, the 7D has a reach advantage you just can't match with the 5D III, or for that matter even the 36.3mp D800.

1062

EOS Bodies / Re: Up the game

« on: May 08, 2012, 01:52:29 PM »

Nevertheless, I can't wait to see (and get some of my own) all the beautiful images that WILL come out of this crappy sensor. 

I'm not sure anyone (who isn't just being spiteful) would actually call the sensor "crappy". Its certainly not a crappy sensor...however it is LACKING for some types of photography. I don't think there is any question that Canon sensors, for quite some time now, have offered lackluster dynamic range relative to the competition. Nikon was even getting over 12 stops of DR with their own sensors before they moved to Sony's game-changing Exmor. I believe millions of photographers will produce great photos with the 5D III, but that doesn't change the fact that Canon's sensor technology IS rather lackluster relative to the competition.

A better tool in skilled hands will always create a better result.

1063

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 01:42:54 PM »

600mm X 1.4= 840mm (1D X with a  1.4x TC – f/5.6)
600mm X 1.3= 780mm (1D MKIV – f/4) – No tele-converter attached.
600mm X 1.3 X 1.4= 1092mm (1D MKIV with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
600mm X 1.3 X 2= 1560mm (1D MKIV with a 2x TC – f/8) with a not so great AF. Single point.

600mm X 1.5 X 2= 1800mm (D800 with a 2x TC – f/8) with multiple cross-type AF points after cropping to the same 16 MP as the 1D MKIV.

Just sayin'.

And only 4fps...I'll pass. ;P I'd LOVE a D800E for landscapes, given its DR...but even the 8fps of the 7D is sometimes a bit slow. I don't think I'd be able to stand 4fps. I think even the 6fps of the 5D III is probably at the edge of the lower limit on FPS for birding. Its amazing how much a fine, nuanced movement of a birds head or posture can make or break a photo.

(And thats nothing to say of the space requirements of using the D800. If I spend a day out photographing birds around a Colorado lake or reservoir, I can fill 4 16Gb CF cards, and as much as 6 cards if there is a lot of BIF. The 7D gets about 610 RAW shots per CF card, so thats about 2500-3600 photos. That would be 175Gb to 252Gb of photos a day, or 10-16 16Gb CF cards, if I was using the D800! Every five shoots would fill up a 1Tb drive...)

1064

EOS Bodies / Re: Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?

« on: May 08, 2012, 12:49:25 PM »

I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm.

I can understand that. Do you think you'd get a 7d (or an upgraded 7d) if a 1.3x crop doesn't happen again?

Just wondering what bird photographers will buy next..

If Canon drops the 7D line, and does not bring back a 1.3x crop camera, and really does indeed intend to drop f/8 AF in their Pro bodies, I think bird photographers on Canon gear are just SOL. I have a 7D now, and I would stick with that until the day it dies. I'd pick up a 1D IV if I could (they are getting rather hard to find...seems a lot of people still want the 1-series performance with a crop factor). In the absence of f/8 AF on any body and the loss of pro-grade crop bodies, I might move to Nikon. I really don't like that thought (I like Canon gear and ergonomics), but if Canon decides to ditch the bird photographers, I think bird photographers will have to ditch Canon. Reach is probably the most important factor for a birder, and being able to AF at maximum reach (which is often 600mm + 2x TC + CF... 1920mm on 1.6x or 1560mm on 1.3x) is critical. Nikon seems quite happy and capable of providing multiple f/8 sensitive AF points in their 51pt AF system, which is used on quite a few bodies.

Hang in there... I'm sure something is coming. Maybe not until late 2013 but They are well aware of our frustration. Trust me!

Well thats VERY good to hear. Thanks for the update, btw. The lack of f/8 aside, how did you like the 1D X in general? If Canon made an APS-H version of the 1D X, would it fill the role as a birders body?

1065

EOS Bodies / Re: How are dynamic range and sensor size related?

« on: May 08, 2012, 12:47:17 PM »

i wrote it in another thread.

photographic dynamic range = full well capacity / read noise.

that´s it in short.
i also wrote that canon imo has to work on it´s analog digital conversion to get better DR.
the cleaner D800 signal and the higher DR seem to affirm that.

increasing the full well capacity while having smaller pixel is a hard task so i guess sony has managed to reduce the read noise siginficantly and increased the quantum efficiency.

i have not read the whole amout of writing above so i guess it was said already.


so... that said i read from various sources that most of the noise today (in low iso images) from digital SLR cameras is not read noise but photon statistic noise. you can influence photon statistic noise only one way... collecting more photons.
and that would mean higher full well capacity and better quantum efficiency.

but im not sure if its correct that read noise can´t be much improved these days.

Sony definitely has better ADC. The difference between Sony ADC and Canon ADC is that Sony's is on the sensor die in Exmor sensors, using CP-ADC or column-parallel ADC. This gives them a lot of power to control the read noise on a per-column basis, helping eliminate forms of fixed pattern noise. Canon's ADC is off-die in the image processor (Digic). It is also parallelized, I believe there are 8 read channels per DIGIC in the 1D X and 5D III, and 1 ADC per channel. Canon's ADC's have to work at a higher frequency since each one is processing more pixels than Sony's on-die CP-ADC, which introduces more noise. They also don't have the ability to filter out column-level noise like Sony does, so their ADC's convert FPN into each ADU as well.