Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mark III or 7D and 5D mark II

« on: November 20, 2012, 12:38:30 PM »

Hi,
    I'm currently using a 400mm F5.6L and 60D for birds photography and I'm also consider changing to a FF (I'm thinking of 6D), so here is what I think at the moment.

     The advantage of FF is better image quality, better high ISO performance and better low light AF (both 5D3 and 6D had better low light AF than current crop sensor DSLR on paper), but the disadvantage is "lesser reach". Also, with a crop sensor, you are using the center "sweet spot" of the lens image circle, so your image is relatively sharper across the entire image compare using a FF.

    With a 1.4x TC on 5D3 or 6D (on paper, 6D had better low light AF at center AF point than 5D3, so hoping it'll get F8 AF), you get closer to the "reach" of a crop sensor, but with a 1.4x TC, your AF will be slower which is not good for birds photography... now, the question is how much slower?

    So I'm waiting for the 7DII specification to be out before I decide. Hopefully, the 7DII will have better low light AF and 1 to 2 stop better high ISO performance than current model... if not, I might change to a FF if F8 AF is not that slow.

    Just my $0.02.

    Have a nice day.

32

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d2 vs 6d

« on: November 19, 2012, 06:46:41 AM »

Question - if you're going to be shooting at -0.5EV or lower then wouldn't you be using a tripod and or flash? Those low levels of light require long shutter speeds unless you use very high ISO? Correct? Why not use MF with live view? Is AF really necessary? Are you trying to capture candid shots of people?

Sure it would be awesome to use AF in low light but photographers have been capturing images for years without that ability.

I'm just curious.

Hi,
    For example, you want to capture the children blowing the candles in a birthday party with only the light from the candle or may be event or performance at the night where flash are not allow and light is low. With low light AF capability, the success rate will be a lot higher.

    IMHO, if the low light AF work as advertise and high ISO as good as the 5DIII (which I expect it will as it's had a large pixel size), I think this camera will sell very well... IMHO, a lot of people don't need that many AF points, just one super AF center point will be enough for many.

    Have a nice day.

33

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Canon 9500 MkII Printer for $199.00?

« on: November 15, 2012, 11:15:19 PM »

Hi,

After all the rebates, it's 199 from B&H, I think I'd be insane to not get this as I cannot get calibrated to my only local lab as well as I'd like. I use Epson 3880's at school off and on with impeccable results but I don't always have access.

Hmmmmmmmm….

    Now most printer manufacturer don't sell printer, they sell ink... ha ha ha

    Have a nice day.

34

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Q: A dedicated Still Image DSLR without video? Thoughts?

« on: November 15, 2012, 11:12:22 PM »

Hi,
   IMHO, once you have life view, video is just a software feature that can be easily add in... the additional hardware cost for the video is actually minimum (only mic). By removing video, you only save firmware space, but lost a huge advantage in marketing... unless they can come out with a feature that is desire by still photographers to replace the video feature. Hmm... may be an advanced RAW image processing module (like an embedded DPP or Photoshop plugin) with the space left by the video module in the firmware memory... better if the camera can have two type of firmware, one is with video and the other with the DPP plugin... let user decide

    Anyway, once you included a feature, it's hard to remove without user complaints... look how many user complaint when Canon remove the micro adjustment feature from the xxD and I was one of them.

   Have a nice day.

35

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx ISO100 high DR shadows SNR improvement

« on: November 14, 2012, 11:31:34 PM »

Hi,
    This method is commonly use in Astrophotography to reduce noise (mainly to reduce random noise) and improve image quality.

    By the way, Panasonic had this feature built-in in some of their compact camera. 

   Have a nice day.

36

Technical Support / Re: EOS Utility/FoCal not recognizing 5D3 in Win8 64-bit

« on: November 11, 2012, 08:54:21 AM »

I can confirm I am having the same issue. 

I am using a HP Z800 workstation (Just in case it matters - Dual Xeon's - X5570, 12GB ECC RAM, Quadro 5000, Intel 320 series SSD, Intel USB2.0).  My Z800 was running Win 7 Pro 64-bit with no issues.  I deleted the partition on my C Drive on my Z800, then formatted it, then clean installed Win 8 Pro 64-Bit.

The 5D Mark III is detected fine in Windows, no errors and listed correctly. 

I have tried setting the program as 'run as an administrator'. I have also tried running in all the Compatibility modes.  I have 9 USB ports on the Z800, I have tried all of them.  I have also tried running off a powered USB Hub.  None of these things helped, the issue is still there.

I believe this is likely to be an issue with the Canon software and we will need to wait for an update or new version from Canon.

Happy to be proved wrong of course

Hi.
   Since it's work on Windows 7 64-bits, but doesn't in Windows 8 64-bits, I think it's a Windows 8 issue. If I were you, I won't be the first to use any new OS... most OS always have issue during initial released.

   By the way, I run the Windows 8 Upgrade Assistant on my Computer and I was surprise to see that it's mark "Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Professional " as not compatible. If "Microsoft Visual Studio 2010" is not compatible with Windows 8, I wonder how the software it's develop will be able to compatible with Windows 8??

   Have a nice day.

37

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 09, 2012, 09:22:04 AM »

Hi,
   For those who interested in Canon lenses, you can download the Canon lens book "EF LENS WORK III" from the below website:
http://www.canon-europe.com/Support/Documents/digital_slr_educational_tools/en/ef_lens_work_iii_en.asp

   This is the Sep 2006 edition, so no information on the latest Canon lens, but very interesting to read.

    Have a nice day.

38

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 08, 2012, 08:33:23 PM »

Hi,
    WOW! Still discussing on this... we must be very bore while waiting for new Rumors... ha ha ha    I'm also very bore while waiting for "news" on 70D or/and 7D2... 

    Anyway, the OP questions about IS consist of 2 parts:
1) Does the IS action affect IQ?
    I agree with what Mr Bean mention below.

My feeling is that IS would affect IQ as the lens or lenses in the IS unit are moved off center, to negate movement of the photographer. This process of moving the lenses off axis in the optical path would have been "allowed" in the design, but it'll be a case of "....the lesser of 2 evils".

 2) Does the extra elements in IS affect IQ?
     This questions also consist of 2 parts:
     a) Does IS increase the elements in a lens?
         This is a very difficult question to answer since I'm not an optics designer, but base on the trend in the lens specification:
        Lens with IS had more elements than similar lens without IS. For example:
       - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM has 23 elements, but EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM only had 18 elements.
       - EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM has 20 elements, but EF 70-200mm f/4L USM only had 16 elements.
       
     b) If IS does require more element, does the extra element affect IQ?
     From the other thread, "Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?", most of poster agree that a filter does decrease IQ to a certain degree, but the decrease in IQ is negligible if the filter is a very good one. So if adding a filter does decrease the IQ, so does every element in the lens since a filter is also consider an optical element (even air in lens is also consider as an optical element).

     By the way, IMHO, using modern coating and manufacturing technology, the decrease in IQ cause by a few extra elements is very minimum, but you gain 3 to 4 stop of advantage with IS, so it's great to have IS as long as it's does not increase the price tag by a lot... ha ha ha 

    Have a nice day.

PS: Where my 70D or/and 7D2 rumors!! 

39

Lenses / Re: do image stabilisers decrease image quality?

« on: November 07, 2012, 07:13:37 PM »

Hi,
    IMHO, every element added will decrease IQ by a bit, so a lens without IS will have slightly better IQ than lens with IS (when both lens are from the same generation and same grade) under perfect shooting condition. The decrease of IQ is minimum using modern coating and lens manufacturing technology, so the advantage of IS outweigh the decrease in IQ.

    So the question is: do you want some of your images to be very sharp (no IS) or most of your images to be sharp (with IS)? I think most of us would prefer the IS.

    Have a nice day.

40

Lenses / Re: Canon Makes the EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Official

« on: November 06, 2012, 01:08:38 AM »

Hi,
   Base on the MTF chart, the new EF 24-70mm F4L IS USM seem only improve a bit over the EF 24-105mm F4L IS USM, but a lot more expensive...  The improvement of the EF 35mm F2 IS over the old EF 35mm F2 is quite large, but the price for the new lens is more than double the old version... now just wonder how does it compare to the EF 35mm F1.4L at F2??
   
   Have a nice day.

41

Canon General / Re: EOS-M kicking butt in Japan

« on: November 04, 2012, 10:59:19 AM »

Hi,
    If you do the calculation, Canon G1X sensor has similar pixel size with 7D, 60D, 650D and EOS M... at around 4.3um.

    So, you want a camera with good IQ, you can have the following choice:
1) P&S: Canon G1X
2) Mirrorless: EOS M
3) General Purpose DSLR: 650D
4) Mid level DSLR: 60D
5) Sport/Wildlife DSLR: 7D

   WOW! Canon cover all the range with one sensor design.

   Have a nice day.

42

Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?

« on: November 01, 2012, 11:46:28 PM »

The only filter that makes sense would be a polarizer and that's due to it's special purpose.  Any additional glass in the path will affect IQ.  It becomes especially apparent using longer focal lengths and lenses that are already as sharp as the Hubble Space Telecope.  In addition, the flat surfaces also tend to cause more internal reflections and ghosting, even ones that are multicoated.  Many of Canons lenses use meniscus front lenses that are slightly curved to reduce this effect.  Adding a filter on the front just defeats the engineering.

Never use a filter unless you have a specific need for it and are willing to accept some loss of IQ.

+1

Always found strange that people invest 2000$ to get the best IQ from a lens and ruin it with a 25$ piece of cheap glass....

   +1. I also found that the case and they seem to forget that the IQ of the lens will only be as good as the quality of the worst element in the optical train and the filter is part of that when added.

  Anyway, the below is a link about Canon coating technology:
http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html

  Have a nice day.
   

43

Lenses / Re: "Affordable" telephoto lens for wildlife

« on: October 31, 2012, 09:17:49 PM »

Hi,
    I own an EF 400mm F5.6L lens and and highly recommend it. IMHO, this is the one of the best (if not the best) affordable birding/wildlife lens out there in the market... good image quality, fast AF and affordable.

   IMHO, AF of EF 70-200mm F2.8 II + 2x  is very, very slow... a lot of small birds move very fast and you'll miss a lot of opportunity .

    EF 300mm F4L IS is also excellent, but more expensive than EF 400mm F5.6L and you still need to add a 1.4x tele-extender which is not cheap and slow down the AF.

   The only "disadvantage" of EF 400mm F5.6L is no IS, but not really an issue to me because I always use a tripod as I've problem hand holding a >= 300mm super telephoto lens even with IS and my current DSLR (60D) doesn't really perform well at high ISO (I seldom use above 1600).

   Anyway, for your reference, the attached is an image of Collared Scops Owl I recently took with the 60D + EF 400mm F5.6L (Tv: 1/20s, Av: 6.3, IS 800) and a 100% crop over the focus area. Process with DPP using standard setting and brightness +0.33 and resize in PS. No additional sharpening had been done.

   Happy shopping and have a nice day.

44

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Patent: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3

« on: October 26, 2012, 01:12:30 AM »

Hi,

I predict the following

- Vignetting from hell 4 or fives stops in the corners
- Woefull Autofocus both in speed and accuracy
- build quality like it came from a happy meal
- edges and corners softer than a bag of marshmallow (assuming you can see them under all the vignetting)
- Lots of CA and flare
- less contrast than a polar bear in a snow storm

Yeah I'm not tamrons biggest fan

    I don't think will be that bad... ha ha ha   

    The current 200-500mm f/5-6.3 had very good review and if new one is the same standard and not very expensive, it's worth consideration.

   Have a nice day.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Patent: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3

« on: October 25, 2012, 11:36:09 PM »

Hi,
    I'm currently using EF 400mm F5.6L and looking for cheaper option for longer reach with AF. If the 600mm @f8 had around the same IQ as EF 400mm F5.6L + 1.4x (560mm @f8), I'll surely seriously consider changing.

    Have a nice day.