January 28, 2015, 01:27:06 PM

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 - ScottyP

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 41
Is it just me, or does the Canon not smoke the Panasonic on image quality in this review?  The reviewer is touting the constant f/2.8 aperture throughout it's 24x (600mm) range, and granted that does give nicer background blur/subject separation, and of course that can give higher shutter speed and all...BUT.  He never talks about the IQ differences in his own comparison shots.


It just seems like from his shots anyway that the Canon gives much sharper images.

PowerShot / Re: Boy Scout Photography Class - Thoughts?
« on: January 03, 2013, 04:41:19 PM »
I suppose a bikini glamour model would not work?  That would keep their attention.  :)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over
« on: January 03, 2013, 04:11:11 PM »
Maybe it actually is time to lock this thread.  The title is over the top negative, and that just brings out over-the-top responses from the True Believers in response.  And every time someone bumps it, it goes back to the front page/top posts all over again.


I wish that someone who has actual experience using multiple Canon cameras (including the 6D) would explain what ...

'The 6D is a repackaged 5D2, which is a repackaged 20D w/ a FF sensor.'

... even means.  It sounds like an assertion that Canon cameras haven't changed in 10+ years.  And many seem to agree.  What am I missing?  And if this is the case, why is Canon equipment still in their bag?

This is not a personal attack on Canon's overall quality...just calling it like it is... 6D is a safe move up introducing some new features... it is an incremental move...not a revolutionary move by any means...that's what the comment made by me and others means...

I also said in a different thread that once the 6D price settles down from the initial high, it would be a good value and a competent camera in its own right.

I may be a Canon user, but I don't believe in mindlessly defending Canon at every turn where every single thing they do is the second coming that needs to be venerated and praised to high heavens. Sometimes what they do is just plain ordinary or market driven and that's ok too.

I use Canon because I like the overall platform. I call the 6D an incremental move because it is.

Geez.  I'm all for not sparing Canon any well-deserved criticism, but "a repackaged 5D2 which is in turn a repackaged 20d, only with a FF"?  You gloss over the swap from crop to FF pretty dismissively, and then you gloss over the gain of a stop or 2 of low-light performance between 5D2 and 6D (and I guess 3 or 4 stops between 20D and 6D) as if they were nothing.  What, exactly would constutute a meaningful advance, assuming the end result will still look like a camera and do what a camera does?  I suppose all these cameras are still black, and still have a shutter button, so there is nothing groundbreaking like, what, mounting 3 lenses at the same time, and maybe a tractor beam, or the ability to resurect one's ancestors?  :)

Hmmm...  I see a lot of complaicency here. 

Would not want to see Canon sit back on its laurels from overconficence, nor steam full speed into the ice field (pick your own metaphor here). 

First of all, McDonalds (I think) sells more hamburgers than any other hamburger-selling outfit, yet the quality is not generally considered to be that great. 

Second, Canon's lead is narrowing and the others are gaining unless I am confused by some detail here, or by the definition of "camera" being used in this statistic or something.  I recall market share numbers in the high 40% range a couple of years ago, not the high 20% range.

Software & Accessories / Re: AFMA advice sought
« on: December 30, 2012, 11:03:09 PM »
Not to hijack the thread, but am I correct in understanding that FoCal does not yet support Canon 6D?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or wait for New 7D?
« on: December 26, 2012, 10:23:28 PM »
ScottyP is right on. My 2c: if you are not missing pictures, wait. If you are, then upgrade. If you wait, like robbymac said, you may even save a hundred...

If you are not taking action shots (fast moving objects like kids, sports, BIF, jumping mountain lions etc...) then you probably do not need a 7D or a 5D3 (or even a 1DX)...


Hopefully they are jumping across the shot, and not jumping at the photographer!

Santa brought me a 6D full frame camera with the 24-105 f/4 L lens and also an 85mm f/1.8 prime.

Unfortunately, I checked and he charged it all to MY Visa account!

LR4 is far better than LR3 for IQ retention. I could push my RAW files harder in LR4 than in LR3, and it also handles highlight recover much better.

If your willing to upgrade, it's well worth the $$$.

I bit the bullet and upgraded to LR4.  I hate to say it, but I really like it better than LR3.  The new controls are simpler and more intuitive ("whites"), and I think the NR works better too.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D or wait for New 7D?
« on: December 26, 2012, 07:58:39 PM »
Funny.  I made the exact same post a month ago, only I asked about 6D, 7D2, 5D3 too.

I just got my 6D a few days before Christmas.

I would have to say go for the 6D.  Having a FF camera is very useful.  Very, very interesting compared to just a newer crop. 

I avoided shooting ISO 400 on my T3i, and I would never shoot above 800 ISO.  I have seen people showing off select images from 7D that they have modified significantly in post that look good shot at 1600 or 3200, or even a few from 6400, BUT, a.)  not all of one's images would lend themselves to such treatment, and 2.)  who wants to do that degree of intensive PP NR on every image?

I have been shooting the 6D at 3200 and it looks fantastic.  It looks great at 5000, and even good at 6400 untouched in PP.  With some PP, I could make it look better, but I have not even been messing with it that much.  (LR3 needed upgrading to LR 4 for the new camera).  I got LR4 yesterday, and it really is better than LR3, contrary to my initial thinking.  That ISo ability is huge, it means so many indoor shooting situations where I can avoid flash altogether, or use it only for fill.  I LOVE it.

The inherently shallower DOF is great too.  Not so much because I want to use primes wide open for heavy effects, but because it makes F/4 look like f/2.5 did on a crop body.

I may someday pick up the 7D2 (whenever that might appear), but I can wait a year after its release after the prices go down.  My T3i still works great when I want "reach" from a crop body.

As for the 6D's AF, it may not be the 61-point system, but it also lacks some of the complications that go along with all that complexity.  I don't generally shoot super-fast things, or at least not in super-serious situations where one certain try would not be just as good as the next try. 

What I do love is the one big, bright center AF point in the 6D, which catches AF instantly in low light (-3 EV, whatever that means to you  ;)).  Supposedly the 5D3 may struggle with lags on dim light focus.  The 6D also has big obvious RED AF points you can see in the dark too. 

In any event, bodies are constantly depreciating, and new ones that are 2x better are always beig released every few years.  Lenses hold their value.  I can sit out a generation on bodies.  By saving $1,000 on 6D vs. 5D3, I was able to buy an extra prime lens, and still pocket some cash.

Good luck!

Your theory that others have not used different patterns is contradicted by the facts.  Do a little research before making such claims.
There are many Bayer type patterns patented by Kodak.  The alternate patterns have not worked out to be popular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
Fujifilm is the new kid on the block to try alternate color filters, others who tried them did not find success.
There was the CYGM pattern used by Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Kodak in the late 1990's.
The CYGM filter is far less common than the Bayer filter. CCDs that use it include the 3 megapixel Sony ICX252AK and ICS252AKF (which sampled in October 1999[1]).
Cameras that use it include several Canon models of the 1999-2000 period, such as the Canon PowerShot S10,[2] the original Canon Digital IXUS (June 2000),[3] though subsequent IXUS models used the Bayer filter, and the Canon G1; the Kodak DCS 620x and DCS 720x DSLRs, and several Nikon Coolpix models.[4]
Sony introduced the Cybershot DSC-F828  with a RGBE pattern in 2004.
Fuji has at least two alternate patterns that they have patented, but how much is sales hype and how much is performance related is yet to be seen.  There will be advantages and disadvantages.

Maybe I was too sweeping in my generality, but note I asked why only Fuji is currently pushing a non-bayer pattern as "the next great thing" and the camera magazines seem willing to trumpet it as a new thing also.

The history of pixel designs you describe is all factually correct, but you name old/discontinued/minor/failed cameras, and also patents that have been filed, but not new products with fresh R&D dollars and fresh advertizing dollars behind it.  Other than Fuji (and Foveon in a radically different sense) at this particular moment. What I thought would make for an interesting discussion is whether Canon could take the idea of a simple non-bayer pixel pattern and eliminating the AA filter for a major camera sensor line, (not just for a special limited edition version of an existing camera where they leave the AA filter off).

Is there enough potential to a more complex/more "random" pixel pattern for Canon to make something of it?

@Mt. Spokane:
Thanks.  I will look at both methods and see if I can work the extra steps for a couple of years without "cracking" and buying LR4 and maybe a new computer.

I have an old Core 2 Duo processor, and only 3 GB of RAM, but I upgraded both the video card and the OS within the last year.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0 ghz
3 GB Ram
NVidia GeForce GTX 550Ti
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit

I could buy LR4, and then buy some memory and up this to 4 GB or maybe more for $200 or so IF it would be enough to make a difference.  What do you think?

I'd spend $100 on memory.  Check your emory type, many core 2 duo systems use cheap DDR3 memory.
16GB of DDR3 memory costs less than $100.  If you happen to be stuck with DDR2, you can buy 8GB for about $100.
Memory is cheap.

I do have the DDR2, unfortunately.  I agree with your logic, and I just ordered the maximum (8 gigs).  That will be useful no matter what.
I think I will just suck it up and order the LR4 upgrade now.  If nothing else, my doing so is a surefire way to guarantee Adobe will release LR5 almost immediately!   ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D vs 5Diii vs 5Dii - Speedlite AF Focus Beam Assist Tests
« on: December 25, 2012, 12:36:32 AM »
Just an update on the tests. I've done tons more with different speed lites, targets, etc, most of this has been 6D vs D600 type stuff. Ive even recorded video of how I do the tests so you guys can see and I will post the video here when it is done.

I am not seeing any difference between the 600 or 580 Speedlites. I did look into the auto focus settings on the 5Diii, but as another forum reader pointed out, most of it has to do with AI Servo type shots (which doesnt require a focus lock) to take the shot.

I should probably add a note, as I did on the Canon Forum about why I am going back and forth between the 2 differnent targets at different distances; Target 1 serves mainly to defocus. If im just aiming at target 2 and focusing over and over, its not a good measurement of the cameras ability to get that initial focus.
Another point is that the average focus times for each shot work out to:
5Dii - 1.5s
6D - 1.7s
5Diii- 2.33s
But this is not what is happening. The focus lock on Target 1 (in good light) is always very quick, almost instantaneous.
Focusing on Target 2 is taking longer than these average times. In fact, most of the time is spent on Target 2.
It is hard to be precise, but I would say the times are closer to:
5Dii - 2.2s
6D- 2.5s
5Diii - 3 + s

I have a Sekonic 558 Light Meter that seems to be unable to measure the light Im shooting in which would be ideal to know, and am waiting on my new meter - that should help to know exactly at what point it starts to struggle.

Very interesting and very topical stuff Michael.  A lot of people are very interested to see what you are doing and really appreciate your efforts.

I think the "two targets" idea is very solid thinking.  My only "helpful suggestion" would be to not make one of your 2 focus points be in good light.  I think it basically gives the cameras a big boost to their average focus time in bad light.  I am sure the 5D3 is super fast in good light, but I think the question is how slow is it in bad light?  I would be interested to see the same tests done with two targets, but with both targets being in bad light (none in good light).  I think you would see a much more dramatic difference between the cameras if indeed 5d3 struggles in low light AF while 5d2 (or 6D) would not have.  THAT would make a real statement.

@Mt. Spokane:
Thanks.  I will look at both methods and see if I can work the extra steps for a couple of years without "cracking" and buying LR4 and maybe a new computer.

I have an old Core 2 Duo processor, and only 3 GB of RAM, but I upgraded both the video card and the OS within the last year.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.0 ghz
3 GB Ram
NVidia GeForce GTX 550Ti
Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit

I could buy LR4, and then buy some memory and up this to 4 GB or maybe more for $200 or so IF it would be enough to make a difference.  What do you think?

UPDATE:  I Googled this and read a few things, and I am not especially happy.  Is it correct that Lightroom 3 will NEVER be updated to handle RAW from my new 6D?? 

I don't WANT to update to LR4.  Not only is there the question of the money, but also there is the issue of LR4 being (supposedly) very slow to run on older computers.  Mine is 4 years old, and my plan was to go another 2 years without dropping bucks on a new one.

I also don't really like the sound of using DPP to convert it into some other format (or something) and then exporting it to Lightroom.  How does that work, and would it be lossy on the data?

Any suggestions?  Or any insight into whether LR4 is likely to bog down my computer?


Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 41