Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech

« on: Today at 02:11:54 PM »

Interesting, but calculations don't amount to much more than theory.  How it actually measures is another matter.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion

« on: Today at 02:07:39 PM »

It will be interesting to see if Canon can actually achieve parity with the current SOA sensor, regarding those attributes that people like to argue about.  What would be mind blowing, is if Canon actually exceeds those attributes...regardless of the pixel dimensions.  It seems to me that if the number is closer to 60MP rather than 45, the performance might be more compromised.  Certainly it will be difficult to make use of all that resolution outside the center 50% of the image on most, if not all Canon lenses...even the 24-70 ii.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: Today at 01:59:44 PM »

J.R., it could very well be that there is an AFMA or focus shift phenomenon going on with your 50mm on the 6D.  It just sounds to me like you're complaining about not getting sharp focus, rather than the side points not achieving focus lock.  I had thought you meant those points refused to ever focus at all in your low light situation.  And are these children on the sofa, part of a paying gig, or are they just casual shots of your own kids?  If they're just casual shots, then is it really such a big issue? 

I mean, let's face it, there are types of focus shift even when you focus a fast lens manually, let alone with autofocus. 

As for complaining that Canon "hobbled the 6D"...if they did, it was not for fear of impacting sales of the 5D3.  It was to ensure that the Nikon D600 could never be offered at a lower street price than the 6D (because Canon's frontend cost on the 6D is lower than the Nikon's for the D600).  I thought this was common knowledge?  The 6D's feature set has nothing at all to do with the 5D3...think about it.

It just seems like your point in this thread, is to complain about the 6D.  You admit you bought it as your backup camera.  Perhaps you should sell it, and let someone have it who likes it more...and just buy another used or new 5D3?  With the amount of time you've spent complaining about the 6D in this thread, you could have gotten some more photo jobs to pay for the extra 5D3, since you love it so much.  No offense of course, I'm here to help :-D ... 

It seems to me, that the value of used 5D3's has gone up, since ML have hacked it for RAW video.  So that's a good thing for 5D3 owners.

I frankly detest the 5D3, and I currently have no need to do serious video.  The next Canon body I buy, will likely be the replacement for the 1DX.  Because the 1DX is almost right... 

4

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: June 18, 2013, 11:24:47 PM »

Jack, those are very nice!

"Toodamnice", nice shots for sure...however...not trying to nitpick, but you simply must get rid of some of that aqua blue cast to the sky.  I've done many sky shots, and have found it's always better to correct that a bit.  What happens is that hue gets over saturated, the tones fall flat, and look less natural, especially if you add any saturation, or worse, vibrance.  Even if you haven't added any, it still needs correcting. 

This blue cast was especially bad with shots done with my Sigma DP2, because it had a bit of a color shift towards the corners anyway.  With any of my Canon cameras, they didn't have the color shift toward the corners, but the sky can still turn that shade of deep "blue jeans" blue-greenish color.

My two cents...   

5

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 18, 2013, 11:16:56 PM »

Shooting indoors without flash, child sitting on sofa, shooting wide open with the 50mm f/1.4 - no option but to focus and recompose.

I agree that the center point of the 6D is very good, but there are times when you need those outer focus points.

Interesting.  I've done this, but not with a 50 that autofocuses.  My Voigtlander is manual.  I will try it in low light on my nephews with the 40 f/2.8 pancake, and try the outer points, and see what happens.  Will try to do it Thursday or Friday.  The hardest part is making them do what I want to get a nice picture.  I'm not good at portraiture!  I can make wildlife do what I want via sheer mental telepathy from 50 yards away, easier than I can make a kid smile without smirking or sticking his tongue out!  It sounds ridiculous but I have no other explanation!  Haha...

6

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 18, 2013, 10:54:05 PM »

J.R., I'm not sure what lens and what shooting situation you would be in, where you would need to use the outer focus points in low light.  In any case, don't do that, because they aren't meant for low light.

Are you in shutter or aperture priority, or manual?  I assume you're at some event or wedding with a wider angle lens or something?

The biggest trouble I face is when I'm shooting at wide open apertures. In low light you need those wide open apertures and I find too many of my shots out of focus with using the center point focus and recompose - kills the fun of it.

As Chuck mentioned, one can always crop later to get the composition right but it lessens the fun a bit so I am predominantly use WA on the 6D and wide aperture lenses on the 5D3.

I guess the main griping about the 6D AF comes from the fact that Canon intentionally crippled the AF and left it only as good as the AF of the 5D2 when it could have been better.

I'm not convinced the 6D's AF is not improved over the 5D2.  I've not compared them side by side.  But Canon has said the center point has more sensitivity than all other AF systems they have produced, and I see no reason to doubt it.  Did the 5D2 allow so many different levels of customization via the menu, in servo mode, etc?  My cousin owned a 5D2 a while back, but I never played with the menus on it.  He even bought the original 5D when it first came out.

My 6D certainly can AF in very low light, even with a 70-200 f/4...in fact it seemed to AF in a very, very dark candle lit room with it...on something on the opposite side of the room, that even ISO 100k was too dim for, at like 1/2 second exposure at f/4.  It was kind of troubling that it would AF as good or better in this dark room with that lens, than with my favorite...the 135 f/2.  Kind of defies physics, but then sheer amount of light apparently is not the only factor in the equation, I guess.  There are electronics there in the lens too (obviously haha).

All I know is, I need more info to take me into the situation where you're having trouble with the 6D's autofocus in low light, and having to recompose.  What is the subject matter, what's the distance, what's the focal length of the lens?  Are you really close to the subject?  Are you saying it's a 50mm f/1.4 or something?  Seated head and shoulders portraiture?  (In that situation I don't really see a problem if you need to use the center point and then recompose, even at f/1.4.  If it's just the head and no neck, maybe I could see a problem.)  Or is it longer focal length than that, or is it shorter?  Is it available light, or is it with flashgun or strobes placed somewhere?  (Must not be, because they usually have a focus assist beam or "modeling light"...in which case there's ample light for focusing with any of the points).

Unless both you and the subject are extremely still, have you tried using servo mode, and perhaps setting it for a slow response?

7

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 18, 2013, 08:16:39 PM »

Quote from Neruo: "As for 'out of air accusations', how would you feel if, hypothetically, I called you, "Not the brightest bulb?" 

i would maybe say "get a life and don´t spend half your life on internet forums. you can´t be that bright either".

 

Lol @ 7/16 of your time...

I personally dont spend half of my life on forums. It is closer to 7/16 of my time.   Also, to each his own. If thats how you enjoy life, so what?  And Neuro is one of the brightest people on this forum. Sometimes i wonder if there is anything he DOESNT know. 

8

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 18, 2013, 08:01:56 PM »

Personally I outgrew video games by about age 15.  But these days, it seems there is a generation who is so narcissistic that they will never grow up.  And they expect you to be happy about that, and to bow to their whims and their willful ignorance of the people and world around them.  I guess that's why so many college grads these days aren't getting hired to do the type of work they expect.  They feel so entitled that they will never learn the meaning of respect, and are happy to tap away at their iPhones even during a job interview...Why?  Well, it's because they are the most important generation in the history of the world.  Haven't you heard?  That's how their parents and the current culture raised them.  It's time for change.

I'm 21. I'm most certainly part of this "narcissistic" generation that you're talking about. I don't know what generation you're from, how old you are, or what kind of esteem you hold yourself to. But I will say this: our generation is not responsible for this "behavior" that you speak of. People don't pull their phones out during interviews. Not the people I know. If you've personally experienced this, then I can only advise you to screen such applicants more stringently in the future. People who do that shouldn't be interviewing in the first place.

I still haven't outgrown video games. I never will. As a software developer and amateur photographer, I see video games as another medium of art. It's more than just first person shooters. There are stories being told, art being drawn, scenes being crafted. Your comments make it seem like in order to be respectful, selfless people in the world, we all have to grow up. You're wrong. It's about educating the younger generation. It's about setting examples. Kids can be respectful. Adults can be disrespectful.

What did you do to be banned? I don't want to know your answer. Unless you immediately assume that the moderator is a member of my generation or simply not a member of yours, please don't blame us for things like forum moderating, banning, or general "rudeness".

We don't expect anything from anyone. And it's not a result of us being in a "me" generation. It's a result of us being in a place and time where humans are so focused on digital and social networks. There's a disconnect between reality and interpersonal relationships. And it's not limited to my generation. I'd go on explaining that last, and most significant point, but I'd be thread-crapping and thread-jacking an already nutty thread.

You doth protest too much.  Being 21 does not make you special.  Don't be too sure about what you "never will" or will not do.  You have no idea what will happen in your future, or how long your life will be.  And it's not your duty to defend your generation, nor to speak for them.  So why are you trying to?  Nobody singled you out.

Frankly, the problem is not even limited to early 20-somethings anyway.  I would extend the age higher than that.  I suppose 27 sounds about right, since it's a scientific fact that the human brain doesn't finish developing until then.

The phones out during job interviews, was a widely circulated news story.  Google it.  Many of the job applicants who have done it, apparently had graduated from ivy league schools mostly in the northeast USA, and were applying for high paying entry level positions in corporate America.  The reporters who told the story, had experienced the phenomenon themselves, and commented on it also.  Some of them were in the business world as well, because some of the business news shows I watch, covered it.

I don't care if none of the people you know, do the above.  Obviously it's a widespread problem.  I know plenty of people your age.  They could not go 1 hour without texting someone, or browsing something on their phone, or else playing a game on it, or watching tv on it.  They have succumbed to a technology that is addictive, that's all.  They've let themselves believe that it validates their existence.  They lack the will power to go out into life and experience it, to live in the moment.  The technology has enslaved them.  They're happy to whip that 5 inch screen out bright as a search light during movies, too...and just dare anyone to go get the usher to throw them out.  Why?  Because they're more important than the rest of us.  Being young and stupid equals being important to them.

To deal with people face to face, to talk with them, is more important than texting them.  We are not made of software and living in cyberspace, without bodies.  We have bodies, and our lives have a purpose.  Human life is not cheap.   

I agree that there is art and creativity in the world of gaming.  It's a huge business which I would be happy to profit from.  But again, for me personally, I prefer to be entertained passively.  If I want to be an active participant in something, I prefer it not be a "sim" of some kind.  Why?  Well, because it feels meaningless...like I'm not doing anything special.  Like I'm following the herd, and doing something that is easier than the real activity it is mimicking.  Is there really anything special about a "hard core gamer"?

Another thing I don't like about the younger generation (speaking in angry old man voice now!)...is the need to achieve some kind of fame.  The need for public validation.  That need, implies you think you are superior in some way, because you think the world needs to see you.  Reality check needed there!  Stop posting lame videos of yourselves on youtube.  You just look stupid.  Stop following fads like "the harlem shake", etc...very lame.  You're annoying the rest of us.  Stop blasting booming car stereos...you have no musical taste, and have ruined your hearing.  I like loud music at times myself, but if it's all one note of booming bass, it sounds like dogcrap.  Learn how to listen to music properly...learn what "flat system response" is...and without making a peacock out of yourself at traffic lights.   

I try to do as many of those things that I can, which they make video games about.  I much prefer to do outdoor motorsports, for example, rather than play them on a video game.  I don't feel the need or desire to go around killing people (or imaginary "zombies" if that makes it easier to kill them) at random.  But I can see how it's helpful to train and brainwash young boys into the obsessive desire to do it (while their testosterone is raging anyway), so that when it comes time for them to pull the trigger on the enemy while they're at war, it makes the transition from game to real life, easier.  Having said that, I have a feeling it wouldn't take too much to get me to pull the trigger.  I've certainly shot some assault rifles in my time, and felt plenty of rage (not while shooting them though haha).  The difference with me though, is that I am aware of the world around me, I am very up on current events, and am aware of the world outside my own country.  I don't think the current "popular youth culture" has a clue about things like history...and how to avoid repeating it.

I never said the mods were of your generation, however I did imply the one who banned me, had his own reasons, which might or might not have been all that legitimate.  Certainly it seemed very immature to me, and like he was playing his own little shootem-up video game...and likely colluding with other participants. 

Frankly, if I were a moderator, I would probably succumb to the same thing though...haha.  But it would get old after a few days.

I can understand the desire to try to make a forum a pleasant experience for all.  It's not always possible to do that, though.  When someone has an argument or a complaint, they should be allowed to continue in some way.  If someone is singled out in a snide way, they should be allowed to tell the person off...the way they would face to face.  However, that kind of thing happens a lot less often face to face, than when it's just words on a screen.  Online, everyone is very powerful, very successful, very wise, and very intelligent.  In real life, they aren't...except for me of course! 

     

9

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 18, 2013, 07:10:21 PM »

But these days, it seems there is a generation who is so narcissistic that they will never grow up.  And they expect you to be happy about that, and to bow to their whims and their willful ignorance of the people and world around them.  I guess that's why so many college grads these days aren't getting hired to do the type of work they expect.  They feel so entitled that they will never learn the meaning of respect, and are happy to tap away at their iPhones even during a job interview...Why?  Well, it's because they are the most important generation in the history of the world.  Haven't you heard?  That's how their parents and the current culture raised them.  It's time for change.

I worked at a university for a few years, ran the video and camera hire facility, studios and media suites.
I had a few rules:

If folk didn't ask for help I wouldn't interfere (unless they were putting themselves, others or equipment in danger)

If they were modest enough to ask for help they got it, as far as as I was able, on the condition I got their attention and respect.  I knew how everthing worked, I wasn't explaining it for my benefit.  The phone is put off for five minutes thank you.  First time is friendly, second time is friendly and I'll go through it a bit more slowly, third time is 'did you miss a few classes?' Fourth time is 'did you attend ANY classes'

They would see me as the devil in first year, know how to approach me in the second year, seek me out in their third year and leave with emphatic thanks after their forth year.

There is a 'me' generation.  No doubt about it.  The funny bit is that I see some of the 'difficult to reach' students these days, usually in costa coffee or mcdonalds, I see them trying to work out how they know my face, I've moved onto to full time camerawork, they've taken their own trajectory, their 'me' ego intact and getting them far in life.

Interesting anecdotes there.  I'm not even in full time camera work myself, so congrats to you!

10

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 18, 2013, 07:04:49 PM »

I received a ban a couple of months ago.  In my opinion, it is really up to the mood of the moderator.  If they want to ban you...they will warn you of course...but then if you post anything at all after that, it gets hyperfocused on by them...because well...they are in the mood to ban you.

Sorry Carl but I distinctly remember there was some name calling going on ... the posts were deleted by the mods - I remember in a few posts you were complaining about warnings that you got from the mods.

You must not remember too well, because one warning is all I got...and I don't recall complaining about getting it.  I may have mentioned I got it, so what?  As for the name calling, I don't recall using any foul language in the open forum, it was just in a couple of emails to an individual.  If you have a copy of where I used foul language in the open forum, please email it to me.  Because I'm pretty sure I did not.  And I certainly have exercised restraint regarding that email exchange, compared to what needed to be said to him.  He wasn't even the one I had a public issue with at the time, either.   

11

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 18, 2013, 06:39:17 PM »

Actually Neuro, that last image that shows the autofocus spread that looks so small and narrow, is the one I was referring to as being incorrect.  Frankly both of those are incorrect.  Just pick up a 6D and do a side by side comparison.  True the viewfinder is not 100%, but in reality it is very close to 100%.  The spread of the AF array is nowhere near as small as that second image.

The one thing I've learnt with photography is that close is never close enough. The spread of the array is not that small but not particularly larger either.

Carl ... how are you getting on with the outer focus points in low light. Mine just seem to go bonkers so I'm left to focus recompose using the center focus point.

I never use the outer points in low light.  I thought according to Canon, it was the center point that was meant for low light.  So that's what I use.  It seems to do at least as well as my cousin's 1DX, in low dusk light outdoors on relatively still subjects...center point only selected. 

The only problem I have with the 6D's autofocus, is that it will choose the brighter, more contrasty subject matter (usually behind a bird on a limb or something)...rather than the darker less contrasty subject.  I am of course using only center point in this situation too...because I want the bird's eye to be in sharpest focus, etc.  It's possible the 5D3 and 1DX would have a slight issue in such a situation also, but no doubt they would be better.

J.R., I'm not sure what lens and what shooting situation you would be in, where you would need to use the outer focus points in low light.  In any case, don't do that, because they aren't meant for low light.

Are you in shutter or aperture priority, or manual?  I assume you're at some event or wedding with a wider angle lens or something?

To all those who are happy to bash the 6D, you are ignorant, that's all.  To say that the D7100 "kills the 6D", that's wrong.  The D7100 is killed by the 6D starting around ISO 1250.  The D7100 is only a crop camera, and thus has extremely limited light falling on its sensor to begin with. 

If you don't like the 6D, don't buy it.  It's not meant for you.  It's meant for people who know how to make use of a camera's strengths and compensate for its limitations, like me.  It's not meant for people who like to pick a certain weakness and harp on it, or who expect the camera to do the thinking for them.

I will state again, the 6D has superior image quality to all other Canons and Nikons currently in production...within a narrow ISO range from the mid 1000's up to 8 to 10,000...which is where I often like to use it.  This range is where all low light, sports and wildlife "available light" photography lives.  Above that, the D4 and 1DX are superior, but not the 5D3...it's still inferior.  The only thing better about the 5D3 is the autofocus and the fps.  Both the D800 and D600 have worse noise above ISO 2000 than even the 5D3, let alone the 6D.  They still deliver more resolution up to a point, of course.

As for landscape-only (low ISO, under 1000) photography (perhaps on a tripod...or else studio photography with flashgun or strobes)...yes the D800E is your best choice for a few more months or so, and certainly the best choice under $4000.  I suspect Canon's big MP body will be priced well above $4000.

For available light photography between ISO 1600 and 8000, the 6D produces the best image with the most detail, the least noise, and similar if not superior dynamic range (in RAW anyway, but the jpegs are decent too).  Perhaps it's not pulling ahead in resolution of the D800 series until ISO 6400 or so, and the D600 at ISO 4000 or so....but the 6D is way ahead regarding both luminance and chrominance noise at the native pixel level, as in viewed at 100%...and not tipping the scales by downsampling all comparisons to 8MP, or whatever bullcrap DXOmark does.  I could downsample smartphone pictures by that much of a percentage from their native, and get decent noise performance too, but so what?

I am astonished that my shots done from ISO 1000 to 1600, need no noise reduction in post of any kind.  I'm also astonished that the 1DX's files have a similar large grain luminance noise structure like the 5D3's.  I can understand why some I have read on here, don't want to shoot the 5D3 above ISO 1000.

The 6D has autofocus that is plenty responsive, depending on just how good and fast the lens's autofocus system and motors are.  Most of the reviews I've read of the D600 say it's autofocus is not noticeably superior to the 6D's.  So I don't see it as "the better camera" at all.  But if you have a lot of Nikon glass, then by all means, buy a Nikon.  You'll help them stay independent a while longer...delaying the inevitable.   

12

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 DG OS (new) impressions

« on: June 18, 2013, 01:23:57 PM »

It's classified as a "sports" lens, so it would be silly to consider it for dedicated portraiture.  With my monopod I'm sure I could use it for some type of portraiture at the wider end of the zoom range if I had to.  But that's what smaller lenses are for.  As for 300mm not being long enough for serious outdoor professional use, not sure I agree with that.  It depends on how small the subject is, and how distant it is.  Also depends on if you need the f/2.8 for low light.  I would love that.

Again, the main advantage of this lens is its zoom capability and the f/2.8 capability through that range up to 300mm.  No one else offers such a lens, it's unique. 

When I am out wandering around doing shots of insects, wildflowers, birds, turkeys, deer, and whatever else is out there...it is nice to be able to zoom back and get wider shots.  Sometimes you want to include the clouds in the sky above the wildlife, or the trees, water, or other landscape elements around the wildlife.  With a zoom, you can both zoom in on the subject, and then get wider shots too...almost simultaneously.  I certainly enjoy this feature with my 120-400.

In my opinion you could easily use the 120-300 f/2.8 lens for more distant wildlife work, provided it took the Sigma 1.4x TC well enough.  Perhaps it's time for Sigma to offer a series 2 TC line.  Best of all would be an excellent 2x or even 1.7x teleconverter.

It's really time for Sigma and Canon to embrace the idea of a 1.7x teleconverter, it seems to me.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: June 18, 2013, 01:01:21 PM »

Actually Neuro, that last image that shows the autofocus spread that looks so small and narrow, is the one I was referring to as being incorrect.  Frankly both of those are incorrect.  Just pick up a 6D and do a side by side comparison.  True the viewfinder is not 100%, but in reality it is very close to 100%.  The spread of the AF array is nowhere near as small as that second image.

14

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors

« on: June 18, 2013, 12:56:25 PM »

I received a ban a couple of months ago.  In my opinion, it is really up to the mood of the moderator.  If they want to ban you...they will warn you of course...but then if you post anything at all after that, it gets hyperfocused on by them...because well...they are in the mood to ban you.

This forum seems pretty much like all human-moderated forums.  The playing field is not level, and certain members receive more perks and lattitude.  That's true of all such forums of course.  These members will make snide remarks, and if you respond in kind...you will get banned...if the mod wants to ban you.  It's all very juvenile and click-ish like junior high school (or perhaps prison), but that's a forum for ya.

The internet is almost identical to a video game.  Sometimes you just want to shoot what you see on the screen.  The more you shoot, the more points you get.  Personally I outgrew video games by about age 15.  But these days, it seems there is a generation who is so narcissistic that they will never grow up.  And they expect you to be happy about that, and to bow to their whims and their willful ignorance of the people and world around them.  I guess that's why so many college grads these days aren't getting hired to do the type of work they expect.  They feel so entitled that they will never learn the meaning of respect, and are happy to tap away at their iPhones even during a job interview...Why?  Well, it's because they are the most important generation in the history of the world.  Haven't you heard?  That's how their parents and the current culture raised them.  It's time for change.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: June 14, 2013, 08:53:30 PM »

This is the thing. There is nothing really to clear up.

What are you going to do with the information once you have it... become engineers?

The 5D3 and 1DX have different sensors. That's why the Raw files have different qualities. It stands to reason that the more expensive flagship model gets the best stuff and quite rightly has the best IQ.

That's all that we need to know. Different sensors, different results. It's common sense and you don't have to have any tech knowledge to work that out.

If you really must know go on the DWF forum and ask Chuck Westfall why there's a difference.

Copper / Gold was figuratively speaking. But to compare.... the Generation 4 ipod had something called a Wolfson DAC inside it. This was and still is considered the best DAC and therefore led to the best sound quality on the ipod. Ever. It's why I have an old one in my car, when using FLAC files the clarity is amazing. Apple use a different one now and it's not the same.

Canon are not only using different sensors, but different components. Higher quality components to get a cleaner image.

It's amusing that you would put forth the DAC in an iPod as an example of sound quality.  I'm sure it sounds better to you than whatever else you compared it to.  But I have to ask, have you ever listened to highend headphones, or a sound system for that matter?  You do realize that the quality of FLAC files depend on the resolution of the format of the original file they were created and converted from, correct?  If that original file was merely "red book" CD quality...so what?  There are other formats and mediums which far exceed that of red book.  Earbuds are fine for casual listening, but for high quality, you need highend, around-the-ear, open-backed headphones (along with a dedicated headphone amp and/or DAC...or an analog source).  And if the recording is not "binaural", then the stereo imaging will still take place inside your head.  It won't sound as natural as if it takes place outside the head, such as with a stereo system and speakers...or else a binaural recording.  Of course, it also depends on what music you are listening to.  If it is "modern" "pop"...then it's a lot less critical what you listen to it on...because it is overly compressed, processed, and usually sounds like crap anyway.