March 05, 2015, 11:18:36 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 - Marsu42

Pages: 1 ... 141 142 [143] 144 145 ... 396
All my lenses are f/2.8 or faster and my 6D auto focuses just fine!  I just shot a Boy Scout event last weekend, mostly with my 70-200 and 135mm, the majority at 2.8 or faster and only 3 out of focus shots out of 140+, nailed all the 135L shots at f/2 to 2.4.

It's great to hear that your 6d is working fine, but imho unless your 6d has another sensor array this simply means you're lucky (or didn't look @100% crops) - with wider apertures, the 6d af is f2.8 non-cross and falls back to f5.6.

This means if you focus on a high-contrast target, you'll be fine, but you'll get some micro-misses on low-contrast surfaces, it might not occur often mind you. That being said, I cannot exclude the possibility that the 135L for some reason or another works better as the 100L is known to hunt a bit anyway, at least in low light (but that wasn't the case here).

Maybe there is something wrong with your camera?

I doubt it, but of course cannot exclude the possibility of a lens/camera problem w/o proper testing w/ another set. However looking at the amount of problematic experiences with the 5d2/6d af, the lens is afma'd and given the high af hit rate I suppose correctly so.

Here are two samples, f2.8 @ 1/4000s - in one shot there is a tiny mis-focus, i.e. another part of the shot is in focus. This is a live object and handheld so I cannot exclude the possibility of me slightly moving, but my 60d seems to be more reliable with this setup - which is to be expected since the dof is deeper on crop, but I also suspect the 6d af as a source of the problem because the misses are more often on low contrast surfaces.

Alan, thanks for posting these results!
Btw (hint, hint :-) ... unless shooting jpeg only use full iso stops, iso 320 is really iso 400 underexposed, iso 640 is iso 800 underexposed, you gain nothing by this but only lose dynamic range.
Do you have data to support that assertion?  You didn't respond  previously …

Sorry, I am a CR regular, but I don't spot every post, so I missed that. My source are tests are the Magic Lantern devs:

SO 160, ISO 200 and ISO 250 are identical in RAW. Proof: try it yourself with dcraw. This means that all of them are obtained by different digital processing of the same RAW data. In all 3 cases, the analog circuitry is configured at the same parameters. Some (or all) of these ISOs are either pushed or pulled digitally.

However they also say that the *ML* version if iso160 multiples has better dr, but not the Canon one - however their wiki which afaik is based on the 5d2 might be outdated and Canon has improved their digital pull/push on newer cameras, if so that would be very valuable information and I'll have a look into the information you provided.

Are ISO 160 multiples the best to use?
NO. They have harsh highlight rolloff and intentionally clipped details in highlights. I have no idea why.

Are ISO 100 multiples the best to use?
NO. While they do have smooth highlight rolloff, they are digitally pushed by a small amount (the exact value depends on picture style and other settings). What does this mean: a small amount of raw data, which actually has the best SNR possible, is simply thrown away.

Then, what is the best ISO?
To the best of my knowledge, the best ISOs are the ones available in recent Magic Lantern versions (April 2012 or later), obtained from ISO 100 multiples adjusted with a small amount of negative digital gain:

ISO 85, 175, 350, 700, 1400, 2800 - best for Neutral -4 and other low-contrast styles.
ISO 80, 160, 320, 640, 1250, 2500 - good for a wide range of situations.
ISO 70, 140, 280, 560, 1100, 2200 - best for high-contrast styles.

One flaw I noticed with the 6D AF on fast lenses which was also present in the 5D2 is that if you have continuous shooting off and lock twice on the same target when taking multiple shots, often the second lock will put the lens slightly out of focus for some reason.  The first lock always seems most accurate.

Known issue, lensrentals found it: The af is more precise when focusing from completely elsewhere, it's the same with my 60d... you can test for this by re-focusing on the exact same spot, the camera often chooses a slightly different af. Since I know this I often first focus in the distant background and only then where I want.

But, lets face it alternatives are a much more expensive 5D3, or the slightly less expensive 70D that isn't even capable of such slim DOF due to its crop nature.  Unless you have the budget for the 5D3, neither is ideal.  The 6D isn't ideal either, but if you can't afford the 5D3 and arent doing sports it is a much better choice than the 70D IMO.

Absolutely, that's why I bought it, and I certainly don't regret it (though the 70d is a very, very nice camera, even though it doesn't run Magic Lantern). I still find nearly €3000 for a camera body outrageous in comparison to the subjective "value" of lenses for that price, I just want to relay my experiences with the 6d af @f2.8 so other people can make an educated decision.

IMO the 6D AF is just fine as long as: B) You do not use lens faster than f/1.8 frequently.

Make that f2.8 - I sometimes get micro-misses with my 100L that I can pin to the non-crosspoint af of the 6d with faster lenses, meaning it falls back to only f5.6 precision. I don't know this phenomenon from the 60d with a real crosspoint.

Just today I had a couple of these (maybe 5% of the shots) - it's not the lens, it's not me, it's the af system. The good news: it's only visible at 100% crop, but the bottom line is that I have to take two exposures of every important scene if I want to be sure the af has got it :-\

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600 ex rt GEL holder, seriously?
« on: January 07, 2014, 02:00:54 AM »
It has never fallen off for me

Sooner or later after some use it will - look at it, the large u-shaped construction that only slightly clips to the flash is bound to widen a bit, it's just plastic after all, and then welcome to the club :-) ... if at all, Canon should have added larger hooks or a locking mechanism at this price class.

I think Sony should not have released it in this rush, it is literally still in beta stage camera.

Thanks for the report, any Canon enthusiast will read it with great relief - though some of the problems seem to be a7r-specific and don't occur on the vanilla a7?

It seems Sony is doing the exact opposite of Canon, the latter endlessly recycling and "trickling down" technology. However if pressed to chose I'd take the safe bet, that's why I bought the 6d... my experience with Canon so far is that it's not very innovative & bordering on boring, but it does have a very high "it just works" experience.

Last not least, the more electronics is stuffed into an item, the more premature releases we'll see because supposedly flaws can be fixed later on once the customers discover them :-\

Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: January 06, 2014, 05:57:21 AM »
My mkI is a stellar copy and I have to say that I won't be buying a mkII. It's a good lens and a lot to rave about...but against a stellar mkI, there isn't any great benefit for the cost

Thanks for the clarification, and it squares with lensrentals' review of the mk2 in which they say that the *average* mk2 is better than mk1 but a above-average mk1 can be about the same as a mk2 from the bottom of the pile. The distinction they see is the better built quality of the mk2 which is said to be more resistant to decentering after a bump.

Sure, if there's a mirror that dust doesn't settle directly on the sensor.
Exactly. And that's a great protection to have that you just won't get with a mirror-less.

Why's that - what prevents a manufacturer to introduce a sensor protection that shields the sensor on demand when changing lenses? I'm sure they'll come up with something if it proves to be a problem in real life.

Imho this is hardy a reason for mirrored cameras in general, as an analogy: the first dslr models didn't have sensor auto-cleaning, that could have been used to dump digital altogether and stay with film...

Lenses / Re: 24L or 35L
« on: January 06, 2014, 03:52:34 AM »
(which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor).

As far as I remember the reviews the 24mm of the mk2 is *longer* than the mk1 - or what do you mean by "true 24mm"?

Canon General / Re: Canon 2014 Announcements (CR5+ at least)
« on: January 06, 2014, 02:56:21 AM »
CR5 - I like it!

There should be CR inflation just like with money... it's not the site owner's fault, but given Canon's secrecy and often counter-intuitive strategy a CR1 nowadays qualifies as a joke, CR2 as an idea anyone can have and CR3 is "it makes sense, but unless we have the press release already we don't know anything about it" :-p

I suggest inflating the CR rating 1 stop per year, this means dumping CR1 right now because it's not worth anything anymore and adding CR4 for rumors that actually have some basis to it... How about it :-> ?

Lenses / Re: IS Versions of the 50mm, 85mm & 135mm Coming? [CR1]
« on: January 06, 2014, 02:18:06 AM »
See, that statement makes no sense to me - how can a focal length be "boring"?

Personally, I do think it makes sense if you read it like "usual": The ~50mm is a "normal" lens which happens to replicate what you perceive with the human eye - so it's a bit harder to create an "unusual" shot based on the focal length *alone*, but of course using 85mm+ doesn't mean that all your shots will be instant classics :-)

Last not least, with the proliferation of digital camera gadgets wide angle looks much more "normal" to me by now than the actual normal lens :-)

But when you move the camera, or there are moving objects in front of the lens, it becomes apparent that the refresh rate for the EVF doesn't quite keep up. This is why for sports and wildlife especially, I believe the OVF is hard to beat.

They'll never "beat" it because from what I remember from my physics classes, it's hard to outrun photons at 300.000 km/s :-> ... I wonder what the current and "acceptable" lag for an evf is, I'm sure the manufacturers already have an idea how long they'll keep ovfs around for action shooting.

I insist that you try it :) I played with the a7 for a week and I swear, of all things, the lack of OVF didn't bother me at all. Now, the size of the VF did, but that's another story :)

I'm positive that using the thing for a week is way different than just for a couple of minutes in an expo - so I can only tell about my first impression with evfs... but dpreview had more time and still came to the same conclusion, that's why I quoted them. But alas, in a decade we're all in for it anyway ;-)

If any of the nay-sayers in this thread had actually tried the EVF in the a7 or OMD, probably they would have a different opinion.
I'm a yay-sayer when it comes to the potential of mirrorless, but I have to admit I am atm very attached to an old-school optical viewfinder that draws no power and shows me what I see with my bare eye without feeling like in a sci-fi movie.

Every time I pick up a new Sony gadget (there's ample opportunity in Berlin in the Sony Center) and look through the current evf generation I jump a little and think "Yuck! Gimme my ovf back"... so I agree with dpreview's assessment, see

For its part, the EVF is a means to an end - much as I prefer an optical viewfinder, knowing that the α7 is going to capture an impressive image in a smaller package than the average full frame digital SLR makes the EVF a necessary evil worth tolerating.

Mirrorless cameras DO NOT compromise quality for portability - mirrors don't improve IQ - period.

Well, mirrors definitely improve the iq of the optical viewfinder vs. a cheap evf :->

Pages: 1 ... 141 142 [143] 144 145 ... 396