August 02, 2014, 01:33:09 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 - jrista

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 251
Software & Accessories / The Bane of Adobe Creative Cloud
« on: December 10, 2013, 05:17:49 AM »
I've been largely unhappy about Adobe Creative Cloud. Personally, I don't think it is fair to the huge numbers of freelance photographers, graphic designers, web designers, etc. who have effectively built their entire livelihoods on Adobe software. I think that Adobe, with a $50/mo fee for the full CC Master suite and $20/mo per-app fee, is greatly taking advantage of freelancers unmitigated and everlasting dependence.

That said, I decided to give the PS CC + LR5 $10/mo deal a try. It was the first deal that Adobe offered that seemed reasonable (we'll see if it stays that way in a year), and I wanted LR5. I still own PS CS6, and I prefer to use it as my primary editor...with SELECTIVE use of PS CC. Well, I've learned a few things, and I thought I'd warn people.

First off...Adobe CC is infectious. By that, I mean, once it is installed, the CC versions of it's products take over any automatic integrations and file associations. If you double-click a .psd, it opens in CC, rather than CS6. Worse, if you use LR, whenever you open images in Photoshop, it always opens in CC. The worst part is...there seems to be NO WAY to configure LR (either v4.x or v5.x) or other Adobe apps to use the Photoshop version of your choice...your STUCK with CC, unless you uninstall it...and then, you have the hassle of getting CS6 working again. Frustrating, and annoying...Adobe should allow their users to choose which version of Adobe products are used, rather than automatically forcing you to CC.

There is a deeper, more malicious demon lurking within Adobe Creative Cloud, however. I stopped using the .psd format a while ago. I never seemed to need the extra information that .psd stored over and above .tiff, so I switched to .tiff. As such, I NEVER expected that saving .tiff files created with Photoshop CC would not function properly in Photoshop CS6. I thought that since I was using a universal format, they would be compatible with anything that could load .tiff files.

Well, this plain and simply isn't true. An example is using smart objects. I use smart objects with stacked images, along with tweaking the stacking mode (usually mean & median), to do some pretty amazing noise reduction with still frames (macro, landscape) and astrophotography frames. Thanks to the issue described above, some of my recent astro stacks were done in PS CC, rather than PS CS6. I tried to open these .tiff files in PS CS6, and while they opened, they did not render 100% correctly. The issue? The "renderer" for the smart object stacks could not be found. PS CS6 supports exactly the same stacking modes, but Adobe cleverly changed how they store that information in .tiff it is no longer backwards compatible.

So the warning here is, BEWARE! While Adobe says you can open files saved with Creative Cloud apps, they have apparently "tweaked" a few things here and there to make life difficult for those who try to get around their insane monthly fees and use their "bought and paid for" previous versions. Even if you save in universally supported file formats such as TIFF, your file compatibility is NOT guaranteed. You can work around some of these issues, but just beware...there may be some "tweaks" to how CC apps save data that might permanently bind a perfectly normal TIFF file to that CC app, preventing its use in a prior version.

This is the kind of maliciousness that I was afraid Adobe would employ. To my great dismay, it seems my suspicions were correct. The truly frustrating thing is, I cannot afford the extremely hefty upgrade prices for some of the apps I need to upgrade, such as Illustrator and Premier. Even worse, in many cases, my versions for some apps like Premier are too old to upgrade (CS3 era), and I'm required to pay full price. So, my options are to either subscribe to CC, and get locked in forever...or shell out an unholy amount of cash for a product I already own, but for which I simply need an upgrade. Despicable. Adobe is rapidly becoming my most loathed company.


Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 10, 2013, 01:56:08 AM »
The FD version was 150-600/5.6.  So should this be.  300/420 at the WIDE end isn't wide enough.  Sigma and Tamron both have super tele's with wider zoom ranges than 2x.

You have to figure there would have to be IQ compromises to support 150-600 though. In the film era, the difference would probably not have been noticeable. With constantly increasing sensor resolution these days, I'd rather have a 300-600 f/5.6 if it means the lens is sharper with better contrast.

The 70-200/2.8L IS II shows the folly of that thinking.  Building an f/5.6 lens to be optically excellent is much easier than building an f/2.8 lens.

I would also bet that no FD lens that Canon ever designed came even remotely close to producing the kind of IQ that a modern Mark  II supertele produces. An f/5.6 aperture at 600mm is also quite a bit larger than f/2.8 at 200mm (102mm vs. 71mm), so from the get go we are talking about a particularly non-trivial front element.

Zooms require compromise, and the greater the zoom ratio, the greater the compromise (especially when the wide end varies so much, in terms of AoV, from the long end.) The 70-200 has a 2.77x AoV factor (34.4°/12.4°), where as a 150-600 would have a 4.32x AoV factor (17.8°/4.13°). They aren't similar enough to be compared, and even though the patent is for an f/5.6, I would be willing to bet hard money that a 300-600mm focal range (which has a mere 2x AoV factor (8.25°/4.13°) is more amicable to modern Mark II IQ than a 150-600mm focal range.

Lenses / Re: New Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ultrawide! Looks impressive...
« on: December 09, 2013, 07:53:24 PM »
I bought the 14mm after reading the hype and it was awful.  Users also said it was EF, but it came with a note in the instructions stating that it was optimized for crop cameras and FF users should expect poorer quality.  That was a understatement.

Hmm, that's strange. All the things I've read, as well as reports from a couple friends who recently bought the 14mm for FF cameras, have all said the IQ is excellent, particularly in the corners. From what I've seen, corner performance on the Samyang 14mm is vastly superior to any WA/UWA Canon Zoom, and still better than canon UWA primes. The only major issue I've heard of for the Samyang 14mm is the barrel distortion, which is apparently pretty bad. Not sure that is an issue most of the time for landscapes and astrophotography, though (which, aside from architecture, would be the lenses primary use cases.)

EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: December 09, 2013, 04:58:53 AM »
So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.

Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Oh, its definitely there...I see it clearly. Same crap I have in my 7D, too.

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

I'd say "Than Canon could have delivered"...past tense, the 5D III is only a couple months away from it's second birthday. I also believe that Canon would be incapable of producing any higher resolution sensors on their current fabrication process, and I believe in two years time, they could have improved.

What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture :-p...

Aye, which is in significant part due to the considerable improvement in banding. Horizontal banding was pretty much eliminated, and vertical banding occurs in these "soft" vertical stripes, rather than the harsh kind that occurred in sensors prior to the 5D III and 1D X. The more random, "natural" appearance of the noise, rather than a patterned, unnatural appearance, greatly helps in it's elimination.

As for DXO, while I admit I may be doing something wrong, I have found their software to be the worst of all the available options for editing RAW files. DXO seems to produce the noisiest results, PARTICULARLY for Canon files (they do much better with Nikon files). Compared to LR, DXO tools result in what I would call about two thirds of a stop WORSE noise performance strait out of camera. Compared to DPP, it is more like a stop worse (I do have to say, as much as I hate DPP's UI, it produces the cleanest noise output for Canon RAW files of ANYTHING, free or for's really too bad Adobe has't looked into Canon's own RAW demosaicing algorithms.)

I don't know if it is an intentional bias, or just a fundamental lack of interest in properly supporting Canon. I have given DXO's tools several dedicated tries, but in general they are lacking, they seems to be far slower than Lightroom or DPP, and specifically in Canon's case, the output is just terrible. All things being equal, that isn't surprising. Canon is not a DXO supporter, DXO has never given Canon much time or interest (it is often months or even years before DXO will test certain Canon cameras, whereas they will test Sony and Nikon cameras right out the gate, as soon as they can get their hands on a few copies.)

If you want the cleanest RAW conversions, DPP can't be beat. It's standard deviation of noise is about two thirds to half that of LR, and a full order of magnitude better than anything I've tried from DXO. (The only thing I DON'T like about it is it doesn't deal with aliasing as well as LR...edges come out of LR with this clean, crisp look, whereas you can clearly see stairstepping and in some cases moire a lot more often with DPP.)

Lenses / Re: New Samyang 10mm f/2.8 ultrawide! Looks impressive...
« on: December 09, 2013, 04:47:37 AM »
it seems to be aps-c only unfortunately

Are you sure? It is listed as Canon EF on the dpreview page, not EF-S.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: December 08, 2013, 10:43:51 PM »
Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR, while the fierce D800 vs 5D3 discussions and the numerous DxO mark discussions always claim Canon has much worse DR compared to competition. I may not be too bad after all  ;)

Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...

If we look at just the RAW sensor IQ, the 5D III is most definitely an improvement over the 5D II. I created this GIF out of Roger Clark's (of 5D II and 5D III noise tests:

(See full size here:

There are several improvements in IQ with the 5D III over the 5D II:

  • Far less vertical and horizontal banding (horizontal effectively eliminated)
  • More natural random grain look thanks to less hatching
  • Less "popcorn noise", as there are fewer hot pixels, especially at higher ISO
  • ISO 6400 on the 5D II is no better than ISO 1600, there is CLEARLY an improvement on the 5D III
  • Total noise from ISO 400 onward has dropped relative to the 5D II

You can also see, from the comparison in this link, that the 5D III exhibits practically ZERO color noise at higher ISO, where as the 5D II was riddled with it:

So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement. Combine the improved IQ with the vastly improved AF system and faster frame rate, and the 5D III is a very worthwhile upgrade.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: December 08, 2013, 10:15:32 PM »
The ONLY thing I'd really want is a faster SD card slot.

I'd personally prefer the SD card slot be dumped for a second CF card slot. Mixing and matching card types has always seemed like a bad idea to me. Either go with both SD, and the fastest and latest version at that...or go with both CF (and preferably the latest and fastest version of that, like CFast 2.0).

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 08, 2013, 07:26:17 PM »
For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)

Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks :)

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.

Birds take patience, and maybe some camo clothing (but NOT a hide, unless you have somewhere to hide the hide...if it stands out in the open, birds will take notice and stay clear.) My closest shots always come about an hour after I head out. I tend to stay low, usually laying in the sand, with my tripod set up such that the legs are collapsed and angled flat, so I get the lowest clearance from the ground possible. I wear a camo jacket and this cheap camo net overlay to pull over my pants. Then I just wait. Shorebirds, for example, move up and down and back up the shore. If you set yourself up with the sun behind you, it is really just a matter of time before the birds come wading right up to you, then past you, then back again. In between encounters, you can shift your position, or creep in closer by a few feet at a time. Eventually you can get so close that you'll take the TC off! :)

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 07, 2013, 05:59:49 AM »
Why would anyone be enthusiastic about an f/5.6 zoom lens with a built in TC, especially one that is still large but limited to 300mm at the wide end?  F/5.6 is dark f/8 lens is limited in its usefulness, even if by some miracle future pro AF sensors will work with all their points at f/8.  It's still a very dark lens...perhaps useful on ski slopes during bright sunlight.

What should get built instead (or at least...first), is a smaller and more affordable, light weight prime lens, but with the TC built in.  How about say, a 330mm f/3.5 DO (with some major technological breakthroughs in resolution), that weighs 3 pounds or less, and has an option to switch out two different TC's that then mount internally?  Maybe a 1.4x and a 1.7x?  Canon could still charge $3500 to $5000 for it, and lots more people could justify buying it.  It would be highly portable, hand-holdable, and usable for long hikes, or a long day shooting at an event, etc.  I say it would be more useful to more people, than a $10,000+ 300-600mm f/5.6 zoom (which is basically a very similar sized lens to the 200-400 f/4...which itself also seems more useful than a 300-600 f/5.6).

Most importantly, it would be a light bucket by comparison, at f/3.5 and 330mm...yet weigh half as much, and cost half as much!  Then of course its AF speed and accuracy, could easily exceed that of all but perhaps the 300mm f/2.8 ii...I suppose if it did all this Canon would charge closer to $6000, but it might be worth it!  It could be nicknamed the "mini mighty whitey"!!  Hahaha...

I just have to think the AF speed freaks, would look down their noses at a 300-600 f/5.6 zoom. 

What's next, a 10mm to 100mm fisheye zoom??   ::)

I think a 300-600/5.6 TC would primarily be a pro sports/olympics lens. In that case, it would probably almost always be used with a 1D X, where usable ISO tops 12800, and for newspaper and magazine print, is quite viable up to 25600. I'd also point out that the 1D X is faster than any other camera at f/8 AF. It certainly isn't f/4 fast, but it isn't all that much slower than f/5.6 AF on a 5D III or any lesser model.

Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: December 07, 2013, 01:59:43 AM »
@49616E: Any chance you could outline your specific LDA method? I converted a copy of my original working file (just the aligned raw images, no other adjustments) to 32 bit, and set all 30 frames to Linear Dodge Add. The results were far noisier than the mean/median approach, and I seem to be having problems tuning the exposure/levels.


Here are my results, using the various methods I know.

1. The original method I used to use was something I found years ago on a basic astro photography stating tutorial. I used this to a degree in my original post, I call it the gradient ramp method, where you successively increase opacity of each layer from the top to the bottom of the layers list. It is simple, moderately effective, but breaks down when you start to tweak the results with adjustment layers and whatnot.

2. The 32-bit float (HDR) LDA (Linear Dodge Add). First time I've tried this with 32-bit. With 16-bit, you can't stack too many frames before the whole image just becomes white. As such, you can't really remove a lot of noise. Seems moving to 32-bit improves your options...but I may be doing something wrong, as the results (without any other tweaks) seem to be the worst of the three.

3. The median method, where you stack into a smart object then set the stacking mode to Median or Mean. PHENOMENAL noise reduction, especially when you stack a lot of frames. It can almost entirely eliminate noise. Your editing latitude goes through the roof. If you stack too many frames into a smart object, you'll start to lose color fidelity (in the example below, all 30 frames were stacked in one smart object, vs. my original post, where I created batches that were stacked then gradient ramped.)

Original Light Frame (1 frame to show noise):

Gradient Ramp Method (30 frames):

Linear Dodge Add Method (30 frames):

Median/Mean Method (30 frames):

I tweaked the above 30-frame stacks using the LDA and Mean methods. Assuming I did the LDA method correctly, once I started dropping on adjustment layers, there was a marked difference in editing latitude between LDA and Mean. Mean had far more before noise started to exhibit. It was more forgiving and flexible, allowing fine tuning to tighter ranges of tones, without resulting in harsh gradients or transitions. I was able to maintain the black point better with Median than LDA (which ended up a little more red, but pushing it too far resulted in more noise.) Median preserved more subtle and dimmer tones in the outer regions of the nebula, where as LDA clipped more of the outer regions to the noise floor.

 (Again, this is assuming I used the LDA method correctly):

Fine Tuned LDA:

Fine Tuned Median:

Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: December 07, 2013, 01:38:02 AM »
Yeah the EdgeHD 11" would be very nice to have. Nice deal on the Astrotracker, I know a few people that have imaged with it, definitely very capable for that price. Any tracking at all is a huge improvement over a regular tripod. Should be able to play around with that long enough and get used to it till you get the EdgeHD. Maybe even learn some handy things along the way. :)

Aye. Hands on experience is a necessity at some point. I had hoped to start getting hands on tracking experience months ago, but alas, things changed. And as you say, any tracking is a huge plus. I am also curious if I'll be able to figure out a way to mount my 600mm lens and camera directly to the equatorial mount. I am not sure if it will take the weight, which would be around 12 pounds I guess. With a 2x TC, I have a 1200mm "telescope", and with both TCs it is 1680mm. That is pretty decent for planetary photography!

So although it is not a perfect experiment, I took some shots before it was perfectly dark. I tried the linear dodge add method and the mean method as you have outlined. I think they pretty much end up doing the same thing although you have different results to do your final adjustments with. I tried to do minor post production and have them appear as similar as possible although I did not do that great of a job and did not really focus on making them pretty or anything, but I think it gives the general idea. With enough tweaking I think they would be pretty much identical. I will say that I find the linear dodge work flow a little easier than all the switching around with smart layers and stacks. after alignment you just select all the layers and change it to linear dodge add and then convert to to 16bit. But that may just be my personal preference. I am glad I tried the mean method though, it is always neat to see the different ways of doing something

The first one is linear dodge and the second is the mean.

Camera: 50D Full Spectrum modified
Exposure: 2sec
ISO: 3200
Focal Length: 400mm
Stack of 20

Thanks for the test. Very interesting results. From a noise standpoint, they do indeed look identical. From a color standpoint, colors are a touch richer with the Median method, and stars are just a little softer, too.

The Linear Dodge Add method definitely sounds simpler. I'm going to give that a try now, with the previous photo I posted above, and see how things look. I think I may also try photographing the nebula with my 600mm lens for 1-2 seconds and stack em, see how things turn out. I figure downsampling for web should take care of a lot of the trailing.

EOS Bodies / Re: 3.5\
« on: December 07, 2013, 12:42:50 AM »
If Canon had a 5" monitor I could plug into a body and use to navigate menus with a touchscreen, I'd be interested.  A slightly bigger touchscreen on the back, right next to the buttons anyway?  Meh.


Personally, I'd like to see streaming tethering. Right now, I can tether my Surface Pro, with its full 1080p HD screen, to my 7D. Problem is, I have to take a shot first to see the result. I'd love it if I could stream live view through the USB cable to the Surface Pro, and control the camera from there. Would be like having a classic large format view camera, only better (i.e. no upside down composing or dealing with ground glass.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: December 07, 2013, 12:35:34 AM »
A different but similarly interesting data point is the "top camera" search results on on their front page.

It used to be that Canon cameras were 6 out of 10 for a long while. Now Canon is 3 out of 10 and none in the top 5.

Sorry, dilbert not interesting nor even useful data.  As unfocused stated, it's meaningless.

Use the Amazon best sellers list. As of tonight, Canon has 13 of the top 20 best sellers. Nikon has 7.

What continues to amaze me is that the 5DIII consistently holds a slot in the top 10 against cameras that cost a fraction of what it costs. In fact the body only comes in at #9 and the body with lens is at #18. (The 6D kit is at #10 and the 6D body #13) There are not any full-frame Nikon bodies in the top 20.

If you want another interesting 'top 100' list, look at what Amazon buyers think of the products they've purchased.  Check their Top 100 Rated dSLRs list.  The top 14 are all Canon, only 3 Nikon in the top 20 (and all three are D3100/kits).  Dilbert, care to count the number of coworkers and friends to whom you 'can't recommend Canon', and compare that to the number of positive recommendations that Canon buyers took the time to post, that result in Canon dominating that list?

The awesome low ISO IQ, high resolution, astounding DR, and higher-than-any-other-dSLR DxOMark Sensor Score of the Nikon D800E have earned it the impressive rank of #76 on that list (only 14 spots behind the poor DR, horrible banding in the shadows 5DII).  The D800 and D600/D610?  Nowhere to be found (although the D700 is on there...barely, at #98).

Ah, stupid me. You're confining the Amazon results to DSLRs whereas I'm referring to digital cameras.

It is not possible to compare the information available from Amazon with that from dpreview because Amazon does not offer a combined "digital camera top 10" - it separates out DSLRs vs everything else.

So the whole discussion about dpreview statistics vs Amazon is an apples and oranges problem.

"Digital cameras" is an extremely broad and diverse pool. Makes it difficult to determine what's occurring, and more specifically, WHY it is occurring. Global statistics have their use, but they don't make for good comparisons. It would be like putting out two baskets full of random fruit, sourced from a variety of locations, but each one sourced from different locations. Trying to determine why people are eating from one basket or the other is largely have no detail, only a single overarching result: Basket B was eaten from more than Basket A. That doesn't tell anyone anything, and isn't any better than comparing apples to oranges.

Lenses / Re: Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC
« on: December 07, 2013, 12:24:36 AM »
If it was more expensive than the 600mm f/4 (forgive me, all your talk of dollars confuses me), I would rather save up for that. I don't find I miss a zoom; losing a stop of aperture would really hurt though.

Personally, I totally agree. But I think it depends on what you shoot. As a bird and wildlife photographer, I am pretty happy with a fixed focal length, or at least one that can be changed with a TC if needed, especially when I am mobile.

However, if I was a sports photographer, sitting in a fixed location, I could see the value of having not only a supertele zoom lens, but one with a built in TC to instantly change that zoom range when I felt I needed it. Sometimes you might want to get right in on a pitcher's face at 840mm, where as at other times you might want the relatively "wide" field of 300mm when tracing a runner to a base while the ball is being thrown in (just to throw out an entirely random, fabricated example. ;P)

It seems the 200-400/4+TC has taken pretty well to wildlifers, but I think the focal range fits there. I think a 300-600/5.6+TC could fit in very well with sports photographers, especially those with a 1D X.

You're right of course, I was speaking from a bird perspective. Although I have to imagine the 200-400 is more for big animals (lions and owls and suchlike) than little songbirds. Maybe it speaks to my field craft, but I find 1000mm (500+2x) is rarely enough without cropping.

For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D
« on: December 06, 2013, 11:39:04 PM »
I think you may have missed my point.  I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from.  I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly.  I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII.  I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

We are in agreement. The thing that set me off was the ego thing, which I don't think is very often the case when people get into buying the more costly gear. It really is a LOT of money, a scary lot of money sometimes, and you have to really weigh the options, the longevity, how that all fits in with your goals, etc. I spent a very long time, well over a year, debating whether to buy the 300/2.8 II or the 600/4 II. I rented both, and other lenses like the 500/4 II, 300/4, 400/5.6, etc., gave all a very thorough try, evaluated the options, my primary goals vs. my secondary goals. Then I waited. I couldn't really justify $13,000, but when I saw it for $10,860 on a Canon store...I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to buy the 600/4, which was really, truly, what I had decided I NEEDED to help move my photography in the direction I wanted...long term. (Very long term...25-30 years long term, really. ;))

I also did not mean to imply you personally stated the 6D was better. Simply that it has been stated that the 6D is better, even matter-of-factly, simply because its sensor produces less color noise and slightly less luma noise at high ISO. I think it is those kinds of statements that turn a healthy debate into one of reality vs. dreamworld, and things get more heated.
hello both (and to the rest of the community).
I would like to take advantage of your experience regarding a 6D related decision I have to make (in order to avoid opening a new thread)
UP to now I have 5D2 and 5D3. I may have the opportunity to get a cheap 6D (I will have it on my hands in a few months actually but the decision has to be mad this ... cyber week!)
I plan to put 5D2 on sale. Being an amateur I can afford to have one body (my 5D3) for a few months.

Now I am a little sentimental in letting my 5D2 go and at the same time I am a little put off but the different (and worse in my opinion) 6D layout.

But a second 5D3 would cost 1000 euros more!

I use my 5D2 mostly for landscape work and my 5D3 mostly for portraits (where the AF points of 5D3 come very handy) and astrophotography. But when I need all of the above (like 2 weeks ago) it's 5D3 of course.

To sum up I consider 3 options:
1. Keep them as is (5D3,5D2) (Simplest I do nothing, this is also the sentimental choice)
2. Get 6D and sell 5D2.
3. Get a second 5D3.

I believe the best solution (if price stays the same for tomorrow) is number 2 but I am a little sentimental regarding my 5D2 so solution 1 seems second best.

Thanks for your time and I hope this post is not considered off topic.

Given that you have some trepidation about spending that extra 1000 euro, and the fact that you do astrophotography, I'd get the 6D. For both landscapes and astro, the 6D is the better performer. It has lower read noise at ISO 100 ('scapes), and cleaner and slightly lower noise overall at high ISO (astro). The 6D is probably the best camera for astrophotography until you jump into dedicated (and even actively cooled) monochrome CCD cameras, per-frame color/Halpha filtration, etc.

So, I'd concurr...#2.

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 251