April 16, 2014, 01:20:19 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 - CarlTN

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 142
16
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive
« on: April 11, 2014, 04:35:57 AM »
CarlTN
I never said the AF on the 6d is awful if you look I own one myself. Compared to the C300 or C500 the video IS awful compared to most other DSLRs its not.

The 6d has had a lot of very critical reviews most of them comparing it to the 5dMKIII why? The two are very different cameras and that was not a mistake of Canon it was addressing two different market segments and for its price the IQ of the Canon 6d is beyond reproach and comparable to the 5dMKIII in stills which is all Im interested in.

Fair enough, and I agree.  Why does it get compared to the 5D3?  Well, because it costs less, yet has less noise...and that drives some people nuts.  It's kind of like if a Jetta gets better gas mileage than a Lambo Countach with malfunctioning Webber carburetors.  The Lambo is still faster, has more flash and pizazz, costs a ton more...has more bragging rights.  But if you're suddenly in a group of "greenies", the Lambo owner isn't going to like their criticism about its poor gas mileage...as he simply must be adored by EVERYONE in order to feel adequate.  Similar to the "peacock" syndrome exhibited by country hicks who buy a new red pickup truck every six months, who enjoy tail-gaiting, but never quite having the cojones to attempt passing the traffic in front of them.  When that traffic taps their brakes to say "step off my butt, follow at a safe distance"...well then it's on!  I digress, but you get the point.

17
Lenses / Re: Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.
« on: April 11, 2014, 04:20:48 AM »
I'm finding that the ""EOS iTR AF" face detect mode (which is through the viewfinder, not LiveView) in the 1D X works exceptionally well on people and wildlife alike. I haven't had the camera for very long, but people, deer, and owls are all giving it a thumbs up :)

Back to the lens debate...the Sigma's looking better by the day (sharp [as in Otus sharp], no distortion, low CA, low LoCA, pretty good bokeh, color & contrast) and if it comes in around $1,000 it will be quite a lens.

It will still be a Sigma...and thus will have a stigma...

18


- 85/1.2LII: I acquired this lens more than half a year ago and so far I am very happy with the 6D operation with this lens. Overall I manage to get a lot of keepers in the batchs I shoot at evening parties (mostly close-up portraits) and I usually find only a few misfocused images. Getting properly focused images with this lens requires some AFMA and a lot of practice and exercise but when the proper way of working is found, the 6D and 85/1.2LII combination is then a real pleasure to use and delivers outstanding results.
Nevertheless, I do see some slight variations in the focusing precision from the 6D, but not to a point of being an issue with the 85/1.2LII as far as I am concerned.

I find this very interesting indeed.  If I had said it, I would have to defend it from hostile blowhard 6D bashers.  Lucky for me that I don't currently own the 85L, or I might be agreeing with you!  Can I see some of these shots? 

19
- The 6D's -3 EV lowlight sensitivity is currently unmatched by any DSLR on the market

If you shoot lowlight, sunsets, night photography or landscape photography the lowlight AF performance on the 6D wins.

As I pointed out a few pages ago in this thread:

How do you define 'low light'?  For example, the difference between shooting at -2 EV and-3 EV could mean 1/15 s, f/2.8, ISO 51200 vs. 102400.  Neither is very usable from an IQ standpoint.  What most people call 'low light' is generally substantially brighter than either spec.

Long exposure night photograpy might benefit from that extra stop of AF capability (but in that situation, you are on a triod and probably using Live View to focus anyway).  Sunsets, landscapes and general shooting have plenty of light relative to the AF sensitivity of even lower end dSLRs. 

I think the -3 EV spec of the 6D is Canon saying 'we did it because we can, and to throw a bone after otherwise limiting AF functionality of this body' - it looks good on paper, but is of little practical benefit in the vast majority of shooting situations.

As I've said many times, due to the low noise of the 6D, the low light sensitivity of the center AF point, can be very useful in the majority of situations where you are shooting wildlife (or people) around, before, or after sunset.  Or else if you are shooting landscape hand-held, with an IS lens, up to an hour after sunset...or during a full moon.  Or if you are shooting inside a club, or outside on a dimly lit city street at night, that -3EV capability is very useful.

ISO 6400 is extremely usable for professional prints via the 6D (with a bit of post processing), and ISO's a bit above that are still useful.

As for bashing the other AF points on the 6D, you need to bash the 5D2's as well, because they were no better.  It might not still be on sale, but plenty of forum readers still own and use the 5D2.

For anyone shooting with strobes, or shooting fast sports action in well lit areas, the 5D3 or 1DX is the camera you need (or perhaps a D800 at low ISO).

If you're shooting portraits with an f/1.4 lens, wide open at f/1.4, and require peripheral AF points to be used (for focusing on eyes, etc.), then yes the 6D will not give consistent results.  But then the 1DX and 5D3 don't fare much better in that situation, which is why serious portrait photogs who shoot this way, either manually focus, or use live view.  Of course most of them are closing that fast lens down quite a bit, in which case there is more wiggle room for AF inaccuracies.

And besides, in that peripheral area of these lenses (other than the Zeiss Otus)...those eyes that you claim are so razor sharp...actually are not, and are suffering from coma and astigmatism.  It's unavoidable...especially with such lenses as the 50L and 85L.

20
Quote
It's easy to run around in circles on this one.. but to simplify it:

- The 6D's simple AF system with few number of AF points may not cut it if you shoot fast action 80% of the time or more
- The 6D's -3 EV lowlight sensitivity is currently unmatched by any DSLR on the market

If you shoot lowlight, sunsets, night photography or landscape photography the lowlight AF performance on the 6D wins.

I'll second this... with one exception.  I haven't had really any issues with "fast action" other than when I was moving quickly (passenger in a vehicle) trying to take a picture of a deer running.  I got maybe 2 out 6 shots that were out of focus beyond usable.  Use your Av control or Tv controls to your advantage.  Make the camera do what YOU want it to do, not rely on it to be smarter than you, and you'll be happier. 

I'll also add this one note... I tested the "dot-tune" method for AF Micro Adjustment with my lenses, basically knowing that I could just undo it if I wanted to... it made a BIG difference on my long zooms for both AF accuracy and speed - especially when using only the center point, and a subtle difference on my 100mm macro (which was already pretty darn good).  Might be worth a try if you're having troubles.   I followed the generally recommended method of using 50x the focal length of the lens (for zooms, 50x each end of the zoom extremes).  Some lenses were pretty spot on (as I would hope) others were in the +4 or 5 range which made a huge difference.   

Not trying to spark a debate about AMFA.  Just posting on my experience with the 6D, autofocus accuracy/speed and what I've seen as ways to improve on what actually isn't nearly as bad as some might make it out to seem. 

I'd wager that many of the "6D is too slow" posts are by people who are only reading spec pages and not actually handling the camera body itself. 

Is it as accurate or fast or flexible as a 5DIII - probably not, but it's also half the price - and in my humble opinion, a better all-around value for the VAST MAJORITY of casual/hobby photog's.   Just my 2 cents.

I agree completely.  However, to a few on here, it just doesn't matter what you say.  The 6D is only a sensor, and not a camera, to them.

21
Lenses / Re: Help with choosing a wide angle lens
« on: April 11, 2014, 03:47:06 AM »
16-35 is a fantastic lens.  I have a Tokina 11-6mm f2.8 I shoot on my 1D Mark IV.  Crop lenses from 3rd partys generally work great on the Mark IV.  But my favorite lens for close up Sports on the Mark IV is the 8-15mm fisheye!



Nice shot, was this done at around 14mm on the 1D4?

22
Lenses / Re: Help with choosing a wide angle lens
« on: April 11, 2014, 03:44:06 AM »
Hi,
I just switched from Nikon, and I'm looking into rebuilding my lens collection. A 70-200 2.8 is coming in as we type, and a fifty of some sort is also taking place in the bag. That leaves me with the wide angle stuff. I'm now shooting on a 1D mark iv body, and I find it hard to find a decent wide angle lens given the 1.3 crop. I don't need to go wider than 24mm, but I would like to.

I shoot a lot of surfing, and I need to be able to attach a filter on the lens (excludes sigma 12-24mm, canon 14mm). I also need a lens that is good at handling CA and has quick focusing. Cost is not a big concern. I'm eyeing 17-40, 16-35 and the 24mm. What route to go?
Thanks

Even with full frame and no crop factor, 24mm is a good wide angle focal length, but it's not extremely wide (equal to 15mm on a 1.6x crop camera, and 19.5mm on your 1.3x crop).  I'm considering the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, as for the money (a good price is under $300) there just is nothing else.  Read the reviews of it, you'll be surprised.  Yes it's manual focus and aperture setting, but at this wide focal length, that is manageable much of the time.  A friend of mine has the Tokina 16-28, it appears to be very good for the price...but the reviews say it is notorious for having decentering issues...and also it has a bit of strange flare, which is very likely related to coma.  From the images I've seen online, the Rokinon has extremely low to almost non-existent coma, even wide open.  The Canon 17-40 is really the only other wide angle lens that appears to be a good value.  At 17mm the tests I've seen, are not great, but it's usable if closed down a lot.  The Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, is probably the next best value in wide angle lenses, especially if you can get one discounted or used, but still in good condtion.  But this will still cost around $900 to $1000, used.  It easily has the best color and contrast of all the others I mention above...but it's also not exactly sharp wide open...and is still manual focus.  But aperture is set in camera, a plus.  It's a shame Sigma hasn't made an "art" wide angle lens yet, will probably be a year or two, it seems...if at all.  I have my Sigma 24mm f/1.8 for sale now.  It's not perfect, but it's a very unique lens with very low barrel distortion, autofocuses well...and my asking price is not much higher than the Rokinon 14mm.  If 35mm is wide enough for you, then both Sigma and Canon have very good f/1.4 lenses at that length.

24
Lenses / Re: Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.
« on: April 09, 2014, 02:54:48 PM »
I ended up ordering a new 135L today. I'm quite excited. I imagine I will be getting the 50mm Art later this year.
Congratulations ... may it serve you well.

Agreed!

25
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: April 09, 2014, 04:31:41 AM »

26
Lenses / Re: Wait for Sigma 50mm Art or purchase Canon 135 f2L.
« on: April 09, 2014, 04:20:06 AM »
I'm in the market for a new lens to add to my collection and I've narrowed it down to the upcoming Sigma 50mm Art or the Canon 135 f2L. I realize these are for very different purposes.

I currently have a nice arsenal of lenses and mostly do portrait photography as a hobby (35 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4).

I really enjoy portrait photography. I'm torn between the versatility of an extremely sharp 50mm vs a magical 135mm f2L portrait lens.

Can anyone offer any advice to help me seal the deal ?

The two focal lengths are for different purposes.  Where do you do most of your portrait photography?  Is it mostly head and shoulders, or is it bust, or full body portraiture? 

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS sensors, and technology
« on: April 09, 2014, 04:15:46 AM »
I think once Canon introduces their high MP full frame camera, you will see most Canon fans line up behind it.  As for medium format, I definitely don't see it happening for Canon in the very near future.  In the other threads where this was discussed, I said it was my feeling that a (smallish) medium format, would likely take over the full frame 35mm format, in the relatively more distant future. 

So really, what we should all be wondering about, is just how good, and how much dynamic range, is this next full frame Canon camera going to have?  Is it possible it still won't compare to the D800's dynamic range?  And if so, will this not keep the hordes of Canon fans (myself included) from lining up behind it as the "best" Canon sensor?  I guess it depends on how close it gets to the Exmor, if not exceeding it in any way.

28
Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle.  The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.


thanks Mack.   subtle indeed!  i would guess that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't notice the difference and wouldn't have a preference between the photos.


A matter of opinion.  In the second and third comparison series of images, the difference really isn't all that subtle at all.  The 135 at f/2, is just quite noticeably smoother in its bokeh, and also throws that de-focussed background into relief where the highlight details appear 40 to 50% larger.  The difference, is going from f/2.0, to f/2.8...and the bokeh is slightly less smooth...that's all.

I'll grant you that the first set of comparison images, is more similar.  But with subject distance the difference is going to decrease, because the background becomes closer to being in focus anyway.  And again, the real reason most users think the 70-200 f/2.8 can have very good bokeh, is because they are using it at focal lengths longer than 135mm, at f/2.8...where the depth of field is that much more shallow...but also the angle of view is more narrow.

29
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:58:48 PM »
Sagittariansrock, the color does not jump off the screen at me...I don't know why you're not mentioning the bokeh!  The 135 has the smoothest background bokeh of any Canon lens I'm aware of.  Also has terrific contrast and sharpness.  The color the lens is capable of, is not mind blowing, but it's nice.  The whole point of this lens, is the bokeh...for those that say you can't tell the difference going from f/2 to f/2.8, it's usually because they're comparing the long end of the zoom, 200mm f/2.8, to 135mm f/2.  But at 200mm, you aren't taking in as wide of an angle of view...so the subjects are necessarily smaller or farther away...to see a similar degree of bokeh.  And that's just not the same experience, or effect.  Sure the 85L can also do a fantastic bokeh, but not as many mention using it instead, as much as they mention using the 70-200 instead.  It's really just personal preference, but this does not mean the 135L, is not "special".

Carl, the bokeh is awesome, of course. But that was something I expected.
The color, on the other hand, wasn't expected.
You have not seen most of the pictures that I shot indoors (of my nephew and niece, unfortunately there parents aren't to keen on posting pictures online), and the shots above were from a very grey Oregon afternoon. Usually it needs a boost in LR, but not these.

Not doubting the results you're getting.  I've had mine for 5 years now, and love it.  Shot over 10,000 images with it, so I'm aware of what it can do.  But it does not do color as well as a few other lenses (all of which cost anywhere from double its price, to many times its price)...where it does bokeh better than most lenses...that's all I was saying.  You get a lot of bang for the buck with it.   

30
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: April 08, 2014, 11:46:20 PM »
Nice work, I like the bear the best.  You managed to capture a peaceful and serene image of a bear, no small feat!

Thank you CarlTN.
But the situation was not "peaceful". This bear and the second one some meters away (i hope they were young brothers, not mother and her older child) were angry because 30 minutes ago we chased them away and now they suddenly appeared again very close to us while we were watching beavers. I fear, we have blocked their way to supper... Luckily, we didn't become their meal.  :o

Looks can be deceiving, compositionally it's quite peaceful.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 142