Messages

151

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?

« on: April 03, 2013, 03:16:51 AM »

All the discussion in this forum about the 5D3 in low light has me intrigued.  I'm particularly interested in a 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS as an upgrade path for a 7D w/17-55 f2.8 IS.  (For low light candids, I'm often shooting at 1/30 second and find IS to be a must.)

I know that the 5D3 offers greater color depth and that full frame is typically sharper than crop.  I also understand that the 5D3 offers about a 1.3 stop advantage in noise over the 7D.  But, I'm comparing a crop body with a 2.8 lens to the full frame with a 4.0 lens and this noise advantage drops to about 1/3 of a stop.

Now the question.  A 2.8 lens lets in more light than a 4.0, which is more light for the AF system to lock in.  So which system can lock in on focus at lower light -- the 5D3 w/24-105 f4L IS or the 7D w/17-55 f2.8L IS?

You might also consider a 6D, with a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.  Your cost would be similar, if not less, than a 5D3/24-105 kit (depending on which 24-70 you choose).

I feel the 6D is superior to the 5D3 for low light.  I'm not alone.  The 5D3 is best for slightly more than low light, and with very fast, erratic subjects.  You won't be achieving your goal with the 24-105 lens.  It's a great lens, but not in low light.  It also doesn't AF quickly even at noon on a sunny day, no matter what body it's on.  I personally would buy a 6D and the Tamron 24-70.

As for the crop factor...I also upgraded from a crop camera (50D).  I've only had my 6D a week, but have shot over 1000 pictures, still haven't tried all of my lenses.  All I can say is, what the full frame fanboys have been saying is true:  A cropped image done with either the 6D or 5D3, will be more detailed than you think it will.  It will not be as detailed as a crop body in good light, but it won't be 1.6x behind.  It will be about 1.25x to 1.35x behind in good light, and about 1.1x behind in light requiring up to ISO 2000 or so.  Above that, it will be ahead.  These differences have become negligible from a practical standpoint, in my opinion.  I no longer see a need for a crop camera (and I never thought I would not.  I will be very sad to see mine go).

This evening I shot an image at ISO 8000 with my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, in dim outdoor light, with all in-camera NR turned off.  I had it closed to about f/10.  The detail is beyond anything I have ever seen short of a D800 paired with whatever their choice of sharpest lens could be, but at ISO's below 1600 for the D800.  The luminance noise in the shot I'm describing, is as low as my 50D at perhaps ISO 800 or 640.  The chrominance noise is similar.  It's there, but with very slight NR in post, it's gone, and all the detail remains.  The color depth is surprisingly nice, though the lens makes a big difference.  You need a lens that is fantastic at color rendition, to make full use of the 6D.

I'm blown away by this.  Yes, the physical size of the 6D, makes it seem like a toy worthy of derision by the 5D3 or 1DX crowd.  It's not a toy.  What it is, is what 5D2 buyers five years ago, wish they could have bought instead...and for 40% less cost to boot!

152

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 02, 2013, 12:21:03 AM »

babiesphotos canada, why do you need shallow DOF when shooting lively toddlers from up close?  That's just impossible to nail sharp focus on the eyes very often.  I would close down to at least f/3.5 or something, when shooting near them.  Pull back to 7 feet or so and then maybe try wide open, then crop later?

siegsAR, I'm sure the 7D's AF is faster than the 6D's.  But again, I don't care.  What we seem to have here with the 6D, is a supremely good file generator.  Again, I am bumfuzzled that the luminance noise in the range between ISO 2000 and 10,000, seems to be far less than the 5D3's.  I like to shoot in low light.  In bright light, I certainly see no noise of any kind in the lower ISO range, but I guess technically there must be some.  My hand hurts, I have shot 1000 pictures in less than a week...getting to know the camera and have become addicted.

I also bought the Canon 40mm pancake lens, and I just cannot believe how sharp to the corners it is, wide open on the 6D.  The color is a bit subdued, not up to "L" standards...but certainly it seems to exceed all other "non L" Canon glass I have tried/owned.  The contrast is fantastic.  The AF is faster than I thought.  But, I must agree with those who have said it is a tight fit on the body...be careful when mounting.  The key is to slowly screw it on, don't force it quickly.  This aspect does make me wonder why it needs to be that way, but optics wise, for $150 it's a long term keeper.  I even like it far better than the "nifty fifty" f/1.8 I sold last year.  It seems to AF faster, and I prefer the field of view of 40mm, to 50...for general shooting on a full frame.  Barrel distortion also seems not too problematic.

Today I tried my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 on the 6D.  Its color, contrast, and sharpness, are truely world class.  It and the 135 f/2L, are my sharpest lenses.  I like its color better than the 135's, which can be on the cool-ish side.  The 135 is better in all other aspects, though, with smoother bokeh than every other lens on earth, it seems to me (the 200 f/2L might be smoother still, is obviously more extreme...but there's that problem with the double images within the background bokeh).  Being a fully manual Nikon-mount lens, the Voigtlander seems to light the AF points accurately, as it did on my 50D (via the adapter with "dragonfly" chip or whatever it is).  Alas, the Nokton does vignette on the full frame, where it did not on the 50D.  It goes away above f/2.5 or so, so nothing unusual.  It also has what looks to be some spherical aberration at the full-frame corners, but it's not bad.  I've seen far worse.  It certainly has none of that within the crop frame, where other 50 primes have.  I also managed to coax some rather unusual lens flare out of it, while pointed into the sun but at an angle.  It goes away when the angle decreases (when the sun is more directly shining into the lens).  Also problematic is getting remotely accurate metering once you start closing down the aperture...but then that's true of any manual-aperture lens.  No lens is perfect I guess.  If I had to rely on the 50mm range for busy event shooting, I would just decide between the Tamron and the Canon ii 24-70 zooms, and be done with it.

153

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 DG OS HSM Delayed

« on: April 01, 2013, 05:38:21 PM »

Some sources say the optical formula of the new Sigma includes two new fluorite elements, others claim the old version also had two fluorite elements.  I guess I have no idea now.  If the optical formula is the same, then I say buy the old lens instead.  I'm not sure the old 2011 lens is worth having, for me...but I am not ready to spend that much on a telephoto yet anyway.  For me, the choice is between buying something like this Sigma, or else a used 200 f/2 Canon (and use TC's).  I would really rather have the Canon, but I also like the convenience of zooms...a lot.  I certainly wouldn't buy the new 200-400 f/4 Canon, even if I could afford it.  I would feel like a fool for spending that much on a lens...even if I was making money with it.  How many of us are making $10,000 every 3 or 4 months, just from shooting through a supertelephoto?  If you are, I'm quite envious!

154

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will Sigma make a tele "S" lens as good as its "A" lens (35 1.4) is?

« on: April 01, 2013, 05:30:32 PM »

I am a Sigma fan.  But I have to admit, that their latest "delay" of the new version of the 120-300 f/2.8, looks very, very bad on their part.  I continue to believe, that it has the potential to be a great lens, especially regarding value for money.  But this delay at the last minute, is just very unprofessional.  It's also in keeping with all of the negative aspects accrued over the years, of their reputation as a company.  If a product is going to be delayed, at least have the honesty to say so the moment you know about it, rather than waiting til the last day of the month that the announcement was supposed to happen.

155

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor

« on: April 01, 2013, 05:24:52 PM »

Mr. Wickidwombat, thank you for appreciating my post.

As for the person who thought I was a complete idiot, well, I'm not.  Everything I said is valid, and everything you said is invalid.  So nah nah nah...

156

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice

« on: April 01, 2013, 05:14:39 PM »

I enjoy telephoto compression in landscape as well.  I would also like to try a T/S lens.  I didn't realize the 17-40 Canon needed to be closed to f/11 to be sharp in the corners.  That's too much like what I have had to do with crop lenses...so maybe I should forget about ever buying a 17-40.  The Tokina 16-28 seems like it will be great, but it only goes to 28...

157

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 01, 2013, 05:02:59 PM »

As for capturing butterflies in flight in servo mode…well that’s a fool’s errand with most any body, unless there is only sky or other featureless (or dark) background behind the butterfly as it flies along.  With a featureless background, I have no doubt I could get plenty of keepers with the 6D in servo mode with my 135 f/2.  Key is to select all AF points.  Unlike the 6D detractor snobs on here, I suggest that these narrowly spaced points hand off to each other just fine in servo mode.  However, if your background is difficult, use single shot mode and continuous-half press of the shutter, with center-point-only selected.  Or even try manual focus.  You can’t just expect the camera to do all the thinking for you.  Even a 1DX needs good technique to get 10 out of 10 keepers.  Just my two cents.

Certainly the AF servo speed and other adjustments of the 6D’s AF are welcome.  I have yet to fiddle with them much.  They seem similar to the 1D4’s adjustments.  Of course it had a lot of points to choose from, and faster processor control of its AF.  But like the 6D, there were plenty of detractors of the 1D4’s AF performance as well.  The interface was not user-friendly or intuitive enough, and ultimately it could not match that of the Nikon D3s.  I bet most of those people who derided the 1D4, didn’t buy a 1DX, nor did they even own a 1D4.  Most bought a 5D3, which is not a fast camera.  6 fps burst, is not fast.  10 is fast.  12 is faster.  It makes me wonder just how awesome the 1DX successor will be.  Of course it will have an initial street price in the $8499 range…so most will buy a future 5D4 for $4200, and claim it’s essentially as good for half the price.  It won’t be.  Snobs have to buy something, and have to have something to make fun of.

158

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 01, 2013, 04:57:22 PM »

As for the low light AF ability of the 6D, all I can say is the reviews that have claimed it didn’t work, were either lying or propaganda.  It does indeed work quite accurately, especially with center point only selected, as I am accustomed to doing on the 50D.  I even got tack sharp focusing on dark chair legs set against medium-dark carpet, in a very dark room (lit by equivalent of a couple of candles on the opposite side of the room)…at night, with my 135 attached.

I have yet to try the 6D in servo mode with my “slower” long zoom.  But with my 135 f/2, it’s as fast as the 1D Mark 4…obviously not as accurate (in good light, while far superior in low light)…but that’s really saying something.  I can see getting a consistent 7 out of 10 keepers with very fast moving objects, where the 1D4 would be 8 to 10, out of 10….and a 1DX would essentially always be 10 out of 10…at least in the situations I would put them through.  I can live with this. 

Yes, the frame rate is only 4.5.  It should have been 5.5 like the D600.  That, is really my main complaint about the 6D.  But I can certainly live with 4.5, as I am used to mostly using my 50D in the slow 3 fps burst, rather than 6.  Even 6, or 8…is quite slow compared to 10 or more.  If I need more speed, there’s always the future 7D2, or a 1DX, or whatever else comes down the pike…

Will I replace it with a 5D3?  I don’t foresee it.  Yes the 5D3 AF is nice, but it’s a compromise, and I especially would want more than 6 fps with such nice AF.  Is there that much difference between 6 fps and 4.5?  Not really.  Are all 6 going to be keepers via the 5D3?  Maybe so, maybe not.  Will 3 out of 4.5 be keepers via the 6D?  It sure seems so.  Would I prefer a 1 series body over the 5D3?  Most assuredly, despite the added cost.  I may wind up buying a 1DX before it gets replaced (after the price comes down a bit more), but at this time I just don’t need one.  I have a feeling I will be making at least a bit more money now that I have the 6D.

159

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 01, 2013, 04:49:37 PM »

X-vision, thanks for posting the excellent AF module picture comparison!

You can customize it in the menu, so that it jumps straight to 100% when you press magnify.

Thanks, I discovered that without much time.  Now my main ergonomic/control complaint, is that it doesn’t display file quality/resolution on the top screen (RAW or jpg), but I can live with that.  It has a lot of nice customizable functions to the buttons.  I was surprised at all the choices which can be assigned to the DOF preview button.  The multi-control dial, is far easier to use than I feared.  I don’t miss the thumb joystick too much at all.  Obviously a joystick better, but it’s just not as big of a deal as I thought.

So far I am the opposite of a 6D cynic/nitpicker.  I’m in love with the 6D, and can’t believe how well-designed and elegant the overall package is, and how light-weight the body is.  It feels lighter than my 50D, is the same size, yet feels slightly more compact.  The grip, the buttons, it all feels better than every other Canon body I’ve held in my hands (especially the 7D and the 5D3…their buttons are too mushy, their bodies too wide for their height…kind of like a kardashian).  I’ve held them all (save for bodies older than the 1Ds Mk3).  I foresee living with the 6D for 5 or 6 years, at least.  I had thought of just keeping the 50D, but am beginning to think I don’t even need it, or any crop camera as a backup, or for birding (at least for now).  I will take more time to consider, especially after getting the right TC to use on my long zoom lens…to compare to the crop body without the TC.  Of course, it would help if future firmware allows AF at f/8, like it will do for the 5D3.  Might not happen of course.

I also can’t believe the low noise of the 6D.  With all NR disabled, the RAW files look to be cleaner than I thought they would be.  ISO 20,000 is quite usable, 16,000 very usable, and 10,000 is as clean as my 50D at 1000 (all of these require a bit of NR in post, but less than I thought).  By comparison, the 1D4 I rented last fall, of course was like a Formula 1 camera in its responsiveness and speed.  But it is also obviously large and heavy (unlike an F1 car), and could not AF in low light.  Its files at ISO 8000, were about the same noise content as the 6D at 20,000, or 25,600 (depending on exposure compensation amount).  Really 10,000 on the 1D4, is about like 25,600 on the 6D.

As for how the noise directly compares to the 5D3, I haven’t done enough comparing, and don’t feel the need to.  The luminance noise does seem less than the 5D3 files I’ve edited, around ISO 4000, and that was really my main concern.  The AF and extra weather sealing are the reason to buy the 5D3, not the file quality, from where I sit.  Both of those aspects are obviously a big deal to many of you, of course.  I could just point out that you should sell your 5D3 and buy a 1DX, if those are your main concerns.

160

Abstract / Re: Transit of Mercury - Hydrogen Alpha

« on: March 29, 2013, 03:00:12 PM »

It's probably easier to produce compelling "astro" images from close up abstracts of something else like strawberry jam, than it is to do the real thing.  A LOT less costly, as well...Did anyone not try to save the image and see if any exif data showed?  Perhaps there was none.  But if there is, it should show a 100mm lens was used, in which case you would have to look closer to earth for an explanation of what the shot portrays.

Certainly art is in the eye of the beholder, but I wonder what would have happened if GuyF had tried to sell prints of the image (or even just digital copies) and pass it off as a real astro pic?  Assuming there would be buyers, of course...I presume it wouldn't have taken long for someone to debunk it.

It also seems he was trying to provoke Nikon lurkers just a wee bit...hahaha...I can imagine them immediately going out on a sunny day to try to capture a planetary transit with magical "universe shine" on the shaded side, which is somehow comparable to the sun's relative close-proximity light output...hahahahaha!!!  Fried eyeballs and big melted black lenses might result, but no "universe shine" :-D...

161

Lenses / Re: Landscape Lens advice

« on: March 29, 2013, 02:35:57 PM »

Joaop...If you aren't shooting buildings or other things with straight lines, then the Zeiss 21mm is supposed to be fantastic.  I have not tried it, but have tried other Zeiss lenses, such as the 35 and 100 f/2.  Be prepared to compensate with a tad of negative exposure comensation, unless you like blown out highlights (you could try HTP, but that's not always the best thing to use).  Zeiss glass has a very wide dynamic range.  And you probably already know, but the 21mm has "mustache" distortion that is hard or almost impossible to correct.  I assume you aren't interested in going wider than 16 or 17mm?

I personally doubt you will prefer the Zeiss 21mm Distagon, over your 17-40L, given the price difference, and the fixed focal length.  Sure it will be better, but the results you will get, won't be indicative of the price difference, in my opinion.  If the price difference was a bit less, then I would probably say go for it. 

If you plan on even doing part of your landscape work in a city, then I would say either the 17 or 24mm tilt-shift lenses would be essential.  Also, if you plan on shooting mountains, from a location well below them, in a valley or something...a tilt-shift would come in handy there as well.  The same goes for if you are in a high location looking down on something.

You might also consider trying the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, since the cost is so low.  I bought the 85mm 1.4, and it is extremely sharp.  Its color and contrast are not "L" quality, but the sharpness is.  My copy at least, also has essentially no CA.  Of course there is no AF or aperture control via the camera body.  I have no idea how the 14mm would compare; I doubt it is as good, and costs more than the 85, but it's a bit less than any other wide angle lens...and certainly a lot less than any f/2.8 wide angle.

Or, if you are open to other longer focal lengths, I can attest that the Zeiss 35mm f/2, is fantastic.  I don't know how it compares to the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (for the money and the ability to AF, I would certainly buy the Sigma without hesitation...just based on what I have read and seen...and based on my experience with Sigma).  But the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is supposed to be a tad sharper than the Zeiss f/2.  I frankly don't know how you could tell on a (current) Canon full frame body, although you could certainly tell a difference, if there is much of one, on a D800.

I personally plan on getting the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, because it is optically superior in some aspects, to the 16-35 Canon, yet costs around half the price.  I also need f/2.8 for night photography.  If I didn't need f/2.8, I would have just been happy with the 17-40L like you have.  It is one of the best lens values offered by Canon, or anyone.     

162

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: March 26, 2013, 12:00:03 AM »

To the original poster, did you really expect to be impressed by the 6D's autofocus?  I considered renting one as well, but instead I just bought one, it will be here this week.  But I'm not buying it because of its ability to AF at a world class level.  However, I feel I can definitely make do with it.  I tried a 6D in a store, and it had the 24-105 mounted to it.  By comparison, I had rented a 1D Mark 4 last fall, along with a 24-105 lens (I also used the 1D4 with several of my other lenses).  I found the focus speed to be slower than I thought it should be (but still faster than any rebel) with the 24-105, even on the 1D4.  It didn't seem that much slower in the store on the 6D, if any.  It even seemed at least adequate in servo mode, in the store.  I was kind of surprised at that.   

The 24-105 is just not the fastest AF lens, and the 50 f/1.8 is extremely slow at AF.  The 24-105's focal range is why you use that lens...not its autofocus speed.

If you wanted to test ultimate AF speed of the 6D, you should at least try a really fast AF lens.  MY 135 f/2 focuses about as fast as any lens I've ever tried or rented.  Yet even it only focused barely faster on the 1D4, than on my 50D...and actually could not AF at all in low light on the 1D4, where my 50D actually could (at least with center point-only selected).  I feel my 50D's ability to autofocus fast and accurate, just may be superior to all other Canon crop cameras and rebels, other than of course the 7D (and that especially includes the 60D).

I also agree with Nishi Drew above...but I'll take it one step farther.  If you need the fastest AF speed, don't even get a 5D3.  Pony up for the 1DX.  In the future I will either buy one, or else its replacement.  The 1DX is far superior in its ability to autofocus quickly and accurately, than every other camera on the planet, at least as of now.

The only thing I highly dislike about the 6D so far, just from trying it in the store, is the magnify button.  I want to immediately zoom into 100% of the image to see if I got sharp focus, and not have to spin the top wheel.  Hopefully there is a shortcut, or else someone will come up with one.

163

EOS Bodies / Re: Will you be disappointed if the 70d gets the same 18mp sensor?

« on: March 25, 2013, 11:37:44 PM »

The 70D will get a "new" 18mp 1.6x crop sensor, and it either will, or will not, get "digic 6" processing.  I'm disappointed enough, but I didn't need much more of an excuse to just go full frame...so I did.  I'm keeping my "old" 50D, though.  Unless the 70D inherits the "old" 7D's AF sensor, or something very very close to it, then it's not worth the upgrade to me.  If it does get it, and sells for around $1300, then it just might be a great value. 

164

Lenses / Re: Question for owners of Canon 200mm f2.0 and 70-200mm f 2.8 II lens

« on: March 23, 2013, 03:01:29 AM »

No one seems to have mentioned the unbelievable color palette the 200 f/2 produces (if you did, I missed it).  You will never see color better from any other lens on earth, than with that one.  Even the 85mm f/1.2 looks like watercolor, compared to the old master oil via the 200 f/2.  The Nikon 200 f/2 might be similar, but I don't care about it, haha.  I suppose there might be a Leica lens that could approach the Canon 200 f/2's color rendition, but I have no personal experience with them...and it certainly would be shorter than 100mm focal length.  So at 200mm, there just is nothing else.  You own a zoom, for the zoom...which certainly can be a vital usage.  If you need a lighter-weight lens, that's valid too. 

165

Lenses / Re: 400 mm f5.6 non-IS / 300 mm f4 IS with extender 1.4 III or waiting?

« on: March 23, 2013, 02:41:32 AM »

Phil, I like most of your bird pictures very much.  You've got some inspired work there!  However, if these are not 100% crops, then the differences you are talking about are pretty meaningless.  Anyone can make a 1280 pixel width image look sharp if it was originally much larger.  I can even make a jpeg shot with my little SX150IS look fantastic at web sizes.

I am happy with the third party zoom lens I bought.  It cost around half the price of the Canon equivalent.  So with the money I saved...I put towards a new full frame body.  This lens is 99% as sharp as the best copies of the Canon 100-400, it focuses decently fast, it has a richer color saturation (most evident in the wider half of the zoom range) than Canon's cooler colors via the 300, or especially the 400. 

But I do definitely agree, Canon need to update their lenses.  Or preferably, abandon them and make something much better, like a 450mm f/5 and a 350mm f/4, and a 70-450 zoom that beats the new Nikon one.  I doubt they will do any of these things, though.  They're more interested in making more Rebel and M bodies for the masses, and tiny lenses to put on them.

Even if they did do what I want, those lenses would cost $3500 to $4000, given Canon's tendency to raise prices a lot on new high quality lenses, over what they replaced.  Which is probably why they're reluctant to update them.  They don't want to price them out of existence for their target users.

It appears we will all get only one new telephoto lens this year, the 200-400 f/4.  Even though it was widely used by a lucky few at the Olympics last year, you or I still can't buy one until perhaps Christmas.  And at $10,000 or more, I will pass.  Maybe when they make a camera that is truly worthy of the resolution from these series 2 lenses...I will find a way to pay up.  That won't be until 2016 at the earliest (unless you get to be a lucky "tester").  Maybe by then, I can justify spending another $20,000 on camera and lenses...assuming there is anything left to take pictures of.