April 19, 2014, 03:31:01 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 - Robert Welch

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - issues in low light at reception
« on: August 13, 2012, 05:38:10 PM »
I have been using a 580exII with AF assist beam on, and encountered some AF difficulty in low light. I've also tried turning the beam of, which didn't seem to help. I mostly use expanded-spot focusing in single shot mode, I will do more controlled testing in different modes to see if I can get better results in some other configuration. I am normally using the 24-105L on this camera, which isn't the best lens for low light AF. My work around is similar, I switch to a 7D for reception photos typically (would use the 1D3, but it hurts my hand to carry it around all night, which is why I was so happy when the 5D3 was released).

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX - issues in low light at reception
« on: August 13, 2012, 04:36:53 PM »
I have the 5DmkIII, which has similar AF system to the 1Dx as I understand, and have had some issues acquiring good focus in very low light (the emphasis on 'very low'), along the lines of what you have reported. Others I've seen have reported this issue with the 5DmkIII as well, some have remarked that the 5DmkII had much better low light focus when using just the center focus point on that camera.

I also have the 1DmkIII and agree it does an excellent job with low light focus acquisition, better than the 5DmkIII. One thing I notice with the 5DmkIII is it seems to hesitate to engage the AF in low light situation, when you press the button nothing happens for awhile, as if it is processing the information before it starts activating the focus mechanism.

Don't know the 1Dx focus issue you are reporting is related to the similar 5DmkIII issue I've seen, but hopefully performance of both cameras will be improved, ideally with a frimware update.

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 20, 2012, 02:34:23 PM »
I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.

EOS Bodies / Re: Why are you buying the 1D X?
« on: July 12, 2012, 06:14:34 PM »
I have the 5D3 and an older 1D3, the 5D3 replaced the 5D classic I sold and the 1D3 for the most part (1D3 is now my backup camera). The 1D series body is more bullet proof for sure, but the 5D3 is no slouch either. The biggest issue I have with the 5D3 is in very low light, the AF seems to struggle to attain lock. Once it does, it's golden. I would suspect the 1Dx will do better in attaining AF lock quicker in lower light, since it has more processing power, and maybe because the higher voltage battery will activate the lens motor quicker, particularly for bigger glass lenses (i.e. 50/85 f/1.2 and the long lenses).

As for image quality, what I've seen samples of with the 1Dx does show outstanding IQ at higher ISOs, probably better than 5D3 from what I can tell. Of course, it will shoot faster too, so for speed of handling, durability and perhaps better high ISO images, it's obviously the better camera. Whether the difference is worth the extra $3k+ is up to you.

As for low ISO image quality, I suspect Canon is going to release something along the lines of a D800 type camera soon (next year or 2 anyway), which will fit the need for that kind of photography. Generally, the need for super high IQ, high MP, low ISO images doesn't require a 1D series tank for the body, with the corresponding price tag. I think the 1Dx is perfectly spec'd for the market it is targeting. They realized that when the 5D2 killed the 1Ds3 sales, so why build a camera that most people aren't interested in?

EOS Bodies / Re: Is the 5DIII the New 50D?
« on: June 14, 2012, 01:31:00 PM »
The point made about the 50D not having video was the big reason I think it was not a major hit on the market, and because the AF was not upgraded. To say the 5DmkIII will have similar market irrelevancy is a hard comparison to make, the only thing I can see holding the 5DmkIII back from record breaking sales figures would be the price. That is the one thing Canon can address, if they feel the need to. I'm sure the price will come down some eventually, the question is how much? The answer will be how many does Canon want to sell?

I think the other aspect is what does Canon have up their sleeve? A ~$2k full frame camera may be on the horizon, and that camera would probably be a huge seller. I think Canon hurt some of their potential 1Dx sales by making the 5DmkIII so good (and by getting it to market so quickly), so they may decide to keep the price up on the 5DmkIII to offset some of the lost sales on the 1Dx. The new, lower cost full-frame will probably be the one they look to become the mass seller, pricing it more competitively to get record breaking sales figures. Does that mean the 5DmkIII will be irrelevant? I doubt it because it has all the top features, the less expensive model is sure to lack some of those, making it cheaper to produce and less desirable to those who require all the features. I would suspect the cheaper camera to not have the best weather sealing, a single card, maybe the AF won't be quite as good...sounds a lot like the 5DmkII, don't you think? Maybe it will have lower MP than the 5DmkIII, but the same AF. Whatever it is, I think you can count on the 5DmkIII still having better specs and still having a good place in the lineup, Canon has had a long time to bring that camera to market, and I'm sure they thought about what they would do to make sure it had adequate shelf live on the market.

EOS Bodies / Re: Possible issues with Sandisk Extreme Pro 32g CF
« on: May 24, 2012, 12:03:56 PM »

Are there images on the card when you put it in? The camera reads the file structure when you put the card in, so if there are images on there it is looking at the FAT information and may take a bit to register the images, especially for a large 32gb card. Saying the card is bad is uninformed and probably wrong advice, if the card is working fine and you can copy/read files on it, then nothing to worry about.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Officially Discontinued?
« on: May 15, 2012, 12:48:02 PM »
Well, at least with this announcement, maybe I can get more for my 24-70 if I decide to sell it and buy the vII, but still not sure if I will. Mine is at least as good IQ as my 24-105, which IMO is acceptable, and I've probably got other things I need more than to replace a lens that doesn't really need replacing. Just good to know I might be able to get a little more for it than I could have just a few months ago, probably. I was thinking about it when they announced vII, and looked at what the used prices were on mine, looked like it was one of the most depreciated lenses in the Canon lineup, at least for an L lens.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!
« on: April 25, 2012, 12:27:24 PM »
At least Canon does offer to do something if it is a problem for those few photographers who insist on shooting in very dark situations with the LCD light lit and find it affects their photos.

I know a lot of Nikon D700 users who just have to bite the bullet on annual $300+ hotshoe repairs because Nikon insists it's not a defect and refuses to fix what is obviously a design flaw in that camera unless the owner pays the repair fees. Not to bash Nikon here, they generally have an excellent product as does Canon, but the point is just that a company can handle a situation in different ways, and I think in comparing these Canon has done a better job of addressing the problem with the 5DmkIII, even if you want to find fault in the problem existing to begin with. Canon has had their fiasco too, mainly with the 1DmkIII autofocus, but they did at least try to fix that, even if it was with mixed success. Nikon won't even admit there is a problem with the D700 hotshoe.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!
« on: April 24, 2012, 03:55:17 PM »
Personally, I don't see the issue effecting my photos nor do I expect it will, so what do I care if it exists. I can see that some people will be worried it might effect the resale value of their camera if they have one with the designated serial number. I haven't even checked to see if I do, yet, though I did verify the effect is there with my body so I'm sure I do, but when testing I realized the effect wouldn't be noticeable in any photos so I just shrug my shoulders and shake my head at anyone who is upset about it. Frankly, I'm glad there isn't a problem with it that would effect my photos. The one problem I did have has already been addressed with the firmware update (was having the time sync issues with my files). As for this non-issue effecting my cameras' resale value, we'll I fully intend on wearing this camera out, so resale value will be effected far more by the fact that by the time I'm done with it, it will probably just be a paper weight anyway. I WILL BE LOVING THIS CAMERA TO DEATH!

Technical Support / Re: Canon 24-70 f/2.8L error 01 FRUSTRATIONS!!!
« on: April 20, 2012, 06:12:46 PM »
I've used my 24-70L on my 5DmkIII without a problem, sounds like it is an issue just with your particular lens. Hopefully they will find what's wrong with it.

EOS Bodies / Re: File time errors on 5DmkIII body
« on: April 08, 2012, 09:49:47 PM »
I just did a test, taking photos of the clock on my computer. This seems to be a burst issue from what I'm seeing. If I take photos in a series of shots, within a second or two each, then I see the effect where it will record the "Shooting time" as being prior to the time on the clock in the photo itself. If I wait 30-60 seconds or more, and just take one shot with a gap of 30-60 seconds before another shot, then the "shooting time" (as shown in the info for the photo in DPP) is accurate to the time displayed on the clock in the photo. An interesting observation is that when I do a burst, the "shooting time" associated with the file meta data seems to be about 3-5 seconds after the previous files' shooting time, no matter what the gap happened to be, which can be 30 seconds or over a minute in my tests. I've tried this with 2 cards in the camera, Lexar 400x CF card & Sandisk 45/MBs SDHC card, or just one card in the camera, and I've tried both RAW & JPG files, seems to act similiar no matter what, although it may be worse when writing to both cards simultaneously (the time needed to 'recover' the proper time before taking another shot may be longer in this configuration, though I've not done enough testing to be sure).

Anyway, this is what I'm seeing so far, wonder if this is just some number of cameras rather than a problem for all of the 5DmkIII cameras, as a few have reported it happening but not all.

EOS Bodies / File time errors on 5DmkIII body
« on: April 08, 2012, 05:39:03 PM »
I have a new 5DmkIII body and simultaneously used it with a 7D body for 3 weddings to date, shooting some photos with one camera then switching to take some shots with the other and back again, some shots being taken within seconds of each other on the two different cameras. There seems to be an issue with the 5DmkIII recording the accurate capture/creation times on the files. So far, all 3 weddings have shown the same problem, the 5DmkIII files are showing earlier creation times compared to the 7D files. I've never had any problems with the 7D syncing up with other cameras (I have a 1DmkIII and a 40D that I previously used at weddings together with the 7D, all 3 of those cameras sync up just fine). The time difference seems to vary, I've seen shot times vary between the two cameras from just over a minute to 4-5 minutes difference, when they should be no more than seconds apart, with the 5DmkIII files showing earlier creation times than the 7D. I have more files to examine in terms of the differences, but so far I'm not seeing a consistency with the differences, and the internal camera clocks have been and remain in sync with the clock I set them by (my computer which I check against Time.gov online). I've checked the cameras before and after each wedding, and they have yet to be more than 1 second out of sync with each other. I've also checked the CR2 files on the CF card, and the JPGs on the SDHC card, and they both match times, so it's not a file type issue with the 5DmkIII.

I'm thinking there is some kind of error within the camera when checking the clock to write the creation times on the file. I've seen other owners have mentioned this problem on some other forums, so I'm not alone it seems. I haven't seen anyone mention the problem on this forum yet, so thought I'd mention it here.

EOS Bodies / Re: Have soft images? This helped me a ton!
« on: March 28, 2012, 08:37:17 PM »
I've been doing some testing with my 5DmkIII, primarily testing various lenses and comparing files vs. a 1DmkIII (that has been pretty reliable with AF) and the same lenses. I can say the 5DmkIII is proving to be the most reliable Canon body I've owned for AF (at least since my EOS 3 camera, but that was film so it was harder to evaluate for critical focus). Anyway, after about 200 shots, I've found 2 photos that were clearly out of focus, just missed it. The rest are either right on, or within a reasonable range that the photo would be entirely usable for most purposes. As compared to my 1DmkIII, which the best I've ever acheived was about 90% accurate, and as bad as about 75% accurate. My 5D original was worse, and my 7D is probably worse, though I've never really tested it since I never use it for really critical photos.

One other thing, the image quality of the 5DmkIII in mRAW mode compares favorably to the 1DmkIII at ISO 200-400 (obviously, the 5DmkIII will be much better at much higher ISOs, so I haven't tested these two at higher ISOs yet). This impresses me, because I've always felt the 1DmkIII has extremely good IQ at those lower ISOs, on a pixel per pixel basis, probably one of the best, maybe?! (I believe Rob Gailbraith has stated as much.) This is very encouraging to me, as I'm going to part with my trusty old 5D, and am now feeling like I'll probably replace my 1DmkIII with a 2nd 5DmkIII body one day (or maybe another body not announced yet?), once I've absorbed the cost of the first one anyway.

BTW, the main lenses I've focused on testing were the 24-70 (first version, of course...a rather good copy, knock on wood) and my trusty 24-105, both were tested wide open. The 24-105 barely beats out the 24-70, but not by a very appreciable difference, and that was on either camera, the 5DmkIII or the 1DmkIII. I was encouraged by this as I can freely use either lens on either camera without worry.

EOS Bodies / Re: Delivered 5Dmk3 Units Awesome vs Has problems
« on: March 27, 2012, 10:47:59 PM »
Had mine a few days now, shot some at a wedding, some outdoor portraits and did some test shots today comparing to my 5D original and 1DmkIII, so far no problems with the 5DmkIII and overall seems much better IQ than the other 2 cameras I compared to.

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1.2 II or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II
« on: February 17, 2012, 10:29:00 AM »
I have the first version of the 70-200/2.8IS and the 85/1.8. I would love to get the 85/1.2, but unless you use it at 1.2-1.4, you might as well save the money and get the 1.8 from what I can tell. I've seen some wonderful images from the 1.2, it's got a quality at that aperture that is unmatched by any other lens. As has been mentioned before, It's not just the amount of bokeh, but the quality is ethereal, almost dreamlike. I've heard the closest any other short tele lens comes to it might be the Leica 1.4, but even then the Canon is preferred by some. So if it's for portraits with a unique look you desire, that is the lens to get. If you require versatility, the 70-200 is the obvious choice, though I've heard the 2nd version has a harsher bokeh quality than the first version has, trading that for superior sharpness, IS effectiveness and maybe focus speed. I prefer the more creamy bokeh of the first version, and find it plenty sharp for my portrait work. If it's more for sports or other work, the 2nd version would probably be the better choice.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6