Messages

46

Software & Accessories / Re: LR3 and RAW from Canon 6D; when will Adobe support 6D RAW?

« on: December 25, 2012, 10:36:01 AM »

@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.

@halfrack:
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!   

47

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.
 
M

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.

48

Software & Accessories / Re: LR3 and RAW from Canon 6D; when will Adobe support 6D RAW?

« on: December 24, 2012, 09:54:51 PM »

@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.

@halfrack:
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?

49

Software & Accessories / Re: LR3 and RAW from Canon 6D; when will Adobe support 6D RAW?

« on: December 24, 2012, 06:59:21 PM »

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?

Thanks!

50

Software & Accessories / LR3 and RAW from Canon 6D; when will Adobe support 6D RAW?

« on: December 24, 2012, 06:38:27 PM »

Does anyone know when Adobe will begin offering RAW support for 6D on Lightroom 3?  Mine is definitely not working now, and when I go to "look for updates" it says there are none.  This is as of Christmas Eve.

Thanks.

51

Third Party Manufacturers / 6D and Yongnuo: Anyone used YN-568EX and/or YN 622c triggers on a 6D yet?

« on: December 22, 2012, 10:29:50 PM »

Curious.  Was thinking of getting one, and maybe the YN 622C.  Specific comments on the exact matchup, or even comments on any of the specific pieces.  Thanks!

52

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Non-Bayer arrays; how is Fuji the only one to have thought of this?

« on: December 22, 2012, 09:56:04 PM »

Is it me?  How is it that most manufacturers are using the simple Bayer pattern on most of their sensors, and everyone has the same image issues as a result, and everyone band-aids it with the clarity-robbing AA filter. 

There is something almost funny that Fuji is able to "stun the world" by going with a slightly more complex pattern.  It just seems amazing that the others have not jumped on that a long time ago.  It's not like Fuji, or anyone, could patent the whole idea of doing something, anything, other than Bayer.

Sony is mucking around with a 4th color in the RGB, I read.  They and others will be innovating on all elements of the sensor and smaller manufacturing processes.  Could something as simple as "non-Bayer" give Canon an easy lower-tech leg up against competition?   Is that some low-hanging fruit Canon could pick?

Wow... you should start your own company! I'll buy your first two cameras

@Chilly:  Glad you were able to avoid the knee-jerk reaction on that one.  After all, I did ask a question that could, with some effort, be viewed as obliquely questioning Canon, and I was therefore asking for it.

53

EOS Bodies / Re: Possible positive 6D surprise? Should I wait?

« on: December 21, 2012, 02:35:26 AM »

Well, the OP here (me) has ordered a 6D.  It arrives tomorrow.  I had no real need for 61 AF points and multiple movement-type AF settings.  My kids couldn't possibly move that fast or erratically, and I don't care enough about birds and stuff to spend $1,000 bucks on them.  (what have they ever done for me?)
I might still have bought the 5D3 anyway but for the fact it is also perhaps worse at the one thing I know I DO care about, which would be AF and noise in dim light on the center AF point.  I shoot indoors in a lattitude where the winter is fairly long.  See all the posts about "5D3 + AF assist = even slower AF", etc....

54

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: December 21, 2012, 02:28:27 AM »

OK.  Breathe.

Yes, that OP was a little over the top, and yes, new cars and new computers (especially) and new clothes depreciate pretty rapidly, especially in 2nd-hand sale.  That is very relevant as a comparison.

But, on the other hand, releasing a model of something at an absurdly high retail price, then almost immediately cutting its retail price dramatically may be an innocent adjustment to your gross miscalculation of market demand (acceptable though dumb) or it could be a kind of "customer un-appreciation" if too extreme, and too pre-planned.  There IS an element of trust involved in a loyal customer buying a new product early from a company, and intentionally hosing that loyal customer would be overly sharp dealing, yes?

55

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Non-Bayer arrays; how is Fuji the only one to have thought of this?

« on: December 20, 2012, 08:17:05 PM »

Not exactly true - Sigma has the Foveon. The SD9, not only had no bayer filter, but no AA filter or MICROLENSES! In theory, this is better, in reality, not so much.

Very true.  I meant to reference Foveon, and then distinguish it by saying it is a lot more complicated an affair than just "randomizing" color receptors.

As I look at the title of my post, I realize I was overbroad and I overgeneralized.  My point was just that the shuffling colors thing seems so easy.  And it probably isn't, and if not, I was wondering if anyone knows why I am looking at this wrong.

56

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 20, 2012, 08:13:33 PM »

All has yet to be revealed.  Perhaps the last shoe to drop will be the release of a super-premium Canon "L"-branded tripod for $2,500.00. 

People without IS will feel they need one, and many of them would be physically and emotionally unable to resist anything, no matter how pedestrian, that has a prominent red ring on it somewhere.

57

Third Party Manufacturers / Non-Bayer arrays; how is Fuji the only one to have thought of this?

« on: December 20, 2012, 07:47:46 PM »

Is it me?  How is it that most manufacturers are using the simple Bayer pattern on most of their sensors, and everyone has the same image issues as a result, and everyone band-aids it with the clarity-robbing AA filter. 

There is something almost funny that Fuji is able to "stun the world" by going with a slightly more complex pattern.  It just seems amazing that the others have not jumped on that a long time ago.  It's not like Fuji, or anyone, could patent the whole idea of doing something, anything, other than Bayer.

Sony is mucking around with a 4th color in the RGB, I read.  They and others will be innovating on all elements of the sensor and smaller manufacturing processes.  Could something as simple as "non-Bayer" give Canon an easy lower-tech leg up against competition?   Is that some low-hanging fruit Canon could pick?

58

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The seemingly amazing Sigma 35

« on: December 20, 2012, 07:29:16 PM »

Canon is making it easy for Sigma.  It goes forever between refreshes on some lenses, and when they do refresh one they peg a price that leaves 99% of its potential customers out of the market (and probably 75% of even the enthusiasts too if we are going to see things like a 24-70 IS for $3,000.00.)

Sigma has already gotten to the point where they probably have 85% of the IQ of a Canon or a Nikon, and sometimes maybe 100% or even a bit more.  The one thing they need to get past is their public perception (deserved or not) of poor QC and poor reliability.  It does sound like they are serious about that, and are now saying publicly that this is their goal.

But with the high prices attached to all the new Canon lens releases, it is an incredible opportunity for Sigma if they can get their act together.  If Sigma can't come up with some good and reliable offerings and steal sticker-shocked customers out of Canon's pockets, then the fault is all theirs.  It will be interesting to watch.

59

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right now i am not happy to be a canon user

« on: December 20, 2012, 02:12:08 PM »

Sigh.  You really reap the whirlwind when you dare express UNhappiness about Mother Canon on this site. 

Always the same gems too:  "Expressing unhappiness does no good, blah, blah.  You are getting me and other Canon users stirred up blah, blah.  The equipment is irrelevant because a great photog like me can get awesome shots on a $2 camera blah, blah.  So just bite me, and sell all your gear at a loss and then buy it all back in Nikon/Sony, blah blah.  Ansel Adams blah, blah."

I wonder why no one complains about the futility of expressing HAPPINESS with a Canon product, which surely must be of equally low practical effect?
No one ever prefaces a gushing rave about their beloved new camera or lens with wisdom like: "Though the equipment is meaningless, here is a shot I just took with my new blah, blah."

Negative posts do not bother me.  I kind of like them, or at least the idea that they are possible and acceptable.  What would bother me is if this site (or any site) is expected to be a propaganda organ like a North Korean newspaper, where no praise is too effusive, and no criticism will be tolerated. 

Everyone needs to lighten up.  No one is slamming anyone's mother or sniggering at anyone's manhood by saying they are ticked off by something Canon did.  But I guess it is 2 sides of the same coin, isn't it?  People on both sides who have invested heavily in a camera system naturally react emotionally one direction or the other.  If you are heavily invested and start thinking Canon is trailing the competition and/or raising prices, you are ticked and want to say so.  Conversely, if you are heavily invested and some ticked-off guy starts saying so, you are unhappy to have to think about how he could have a point about the quality of your equipment and the wisdom of your investment.

60

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:15:26 PM »

I see this being $2899 at introduction in around 2014. This was planned all along. They release the non IS 24-70 first and tempt all the early adopters in to dropping $2300 bucks. Then, 2 years later, they make a new latest and greatest 24-70 IS, and get all those early adopters to fork over top dollar for another version.
They could have made this lens last year, but then they wouldn't have sold so many non IS versions to people who will eventually upgrade to the IS(like so many on here.)
There are only a few zoom lenses that can create this much anticipation and excitement, and Canon plans on maximizing that excitement in to as much sales as possible.

The price would have to be about what you say, or else who would ever keep buying the Non-IS version? 
Only Zeiss could keep a straight face charging that price on a normal zoom.  Of course to compete with Zeiss, they would also have to deliberately disable IS AND AF at the same time they jacked up the price?