Messages

391

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

« on: August 22, 2012, 03:45:47 AM »

I'm glad Canon cut the ISO at 6400, and has a native ISO 50 with an expandable 25.  This is clearly a studio unit (perhaps some solid landscape applications as well) that will have some killer low ISO performance.

I just hope it's real!

I hope it's REAL too!
But Canon has to make some serious improvements in their hardware to reduce the (patterned) read noise that is the bane of their current technology.
Without a significant reduction in read-noise, the lower ISO settings will be useful for wider apertures, or slower shutter speeds, but without a commensurate improvement in DR or need for extra digitizing bits.

DR should increase by about the same amount as ISO decreases (stop-per-stop) but if you look at Canon's measured DR curves, they're pretty flat from ISO 800 down.  E.G. The 5D3's DR is only moving about 1 stop despite 4 stops worth of ISO change.

Recent SoNikon's DR curves behave as they should, DR increasing equivalent to the decrease in ISO.
If Canon can fix this, for a new high-MP body, they'll please a lot of their current customers who've been hoping for such an improvement for years!

And I also hope that, if they DO accomplish this, we aren't hosed 10x as much $ as such DR technology can be had from competitor's products for as little as $500 in a consumer crop body.

392

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

« on: August 22, 2012, 03:23:15 AM »

BUT, an additional two bits on DSLRs would lessen the need for exposure to the right.

not unless the noise levels went down by an equivalent 2 bits or more
unlikely

393

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

« on: August 22, 2012, 03:09:42 AM »

There is much debate about the "16-bit myth." From what I've read on the matter, I don't believe that a 16-bit camera would produce any tangible improvement over a 14-bit camera, because those extra bits are not actually doing anything useful, just quantizing noise.

Certainly the case on Canon's bodies to date.  Only about 12b of good data there.  Maybe 12.5 to 13 on the 1Dx

394

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: OUT: DSLR // IN: Micro 4/3

« on: August 22, 2012, 02:47:38 AM »

I'm a gear collector more than I like, and I tend to buy the next camera before parting with my previous, if at all.

I agree with what LostArk said; liquidate the 24-105 if you need to fund the 4/3 system, it'll almost pay for the OM D5. If you don't like the 4/3 after all, you may have a bit of a loss selling the thing but you can buy back another 24-105 for about you'd have sold yours for.

I agree with PixelReaper too, the OMD5 is getting really good reviews on its IQ and may be exceeding the performance of the 5D2 at lower ISO by a noticeable amount. (not all that hard to do, IMO)
I've read that it's raw IQ is comparable to, and may be even a little better for low ISO noise, than Nikon's D7000 which is pretty impressive and far ahead of Canon's anything.

I love the way the OMD5 fits in my hand w the optional grip and extra battery attached. I'd like to shoot with it, it just feels inspiring to me.
I'll wait until DxOmark's test results for it are published as I didn't get to record any files from the pre-production demo unit I played with back in spring.  That could be in September or October.  And that'll be after Photokina so I should have good info to work with regarding whether I'll step into the 4/3 system as well.  I could fund one by selling off some low end Canon gear I rarely use.

I think the OMD5 is the first 4/3 body to really fulfill most customers' expectations of what that system should be able to achieve. Any Oly' may bring out something even better soon so worth keeping an eye on them.

If some good T&S wide glass comes along for 4/3 then I'm sure you'll enjoy using it more than the beastly EOS gear.  You're not likely to miss the marginal difference in DoF for the majority of your shooting either.

395

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 17, 2012, 02:56:01 AM »

IMO the D800 feels cheap compared to the 5DIII, the flimsiness of the CF card door really turned me off.

I don't find it all that different than the 5D3, overall.  D800's plastic bits DO feel a little cheap but hey, it costs less and they put some effort into other stuff the 5D3 doesn't have.  Like the viewfinder shutter and extremely low sensor read noise.

They both fit my hand well too, just differently.  Still trying to get used to the D800's near instant "crunch!" sounding shutter compared to the sound and vibration of the mirror flop on my 5D2.  Sure like 5D3's quiet mode tho.

396

Lenses / Re: Choice for a landscape lens

« on: August 16, 2012, 03:25:18 AM »

Landscape can be shot with any focal length, some of the more interesting shots are actually had at 100mm or longer.  I like my 50mm f/1.4 for many shots too, at f/8 it's pretty good across the whole frame on a 5D2.  Combine that with the DLO feature in their DPP software and you can create some seriously sharp images with it.

But if you're looking for wide, and I know what you mean, sometimes a super-wide shot makes a very interesting composition, then the 17 & 24mm tilt-shift are fabulous options on a FF.  I'm still waiting for a Canon FF body truly worthy of those lenses for my kind of shooting tho so I don't own them, just want to.

The 17-40mm f/4 L is a nice range but the lens is terribly soft in the borders and corners on full frame even when stopped down. Need to use it at least f/8 to f/11 and it will still disappoint at 17mm in the corners.  I spent most of my shots with it in the 20-24mm range when craving wide landscape scenes, use 17mm when there's nothing with texture in the corners.
I haven't used the 16-35 L, it's a lot more $ and does chart a little better for optical performance in borders and corners if that's the range you're after.

I don't think any of Canon's current wide primes perform well in the corners either, even the L's aren't stellar.  The 16-35mm zoom would be preferable.

24mm f/1.4 L II is not bad but at that price consider the cheaper Voigtlander 20mm... or see paragraph below:
www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/514-canon24f14mk2ff?start=1

As long as you're spending, Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 on a D800e makes the ultimate super-wide-zoom combo.  That lens is a benchmark for sharpness in that range. Has its other foibles tho. 
I like the old Nikon/Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AI-S on my D800/e when I want wide performance.
And I can use it on my Canon bodies with a cheap adapter ring.  I like it on my IR-converted 50D.

Tokina also makes a 17-35mm but it's even worse than Canon's 17-40mm.

Samyang has a very crisp 14mm prime but it's got a fair bit of center distortion, workable for some scenes but nothing with straight lines in the borders.

I haven't explored Zeiss and other premium 3rd party options enough to comment.  Perhaps others here have.

397

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...

« on: August 14, 2012, 04:05:34 PM »

But to change the topic a BIT... Would you advise someone else to rather join the dark side looking at the entry level DSLR cameras and current availability?

I used to recommend Canon entry level DSLRs without hesitation for newbies.
Now I have to temper that with, "What kind of shooting will you be doing?" Because the D5100 and now the  D3200 can fit slightly more advanced novices who intend to do some post-processing and will have some appreciation for the cleaner raw files from the sonikon bodies.

Canon's Rebels are, of course, still a good choice too.  but anyone aspiring to grow beyond this as a first camera has a bit more to think about now.  it's good to have options, confusing tho it can be.

398

Lenses / Re: If you can have ONLY 3 lenses, what would they...???

« on: August 14, 2012, 03:30:45 PM »

compact and light

Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS (Have it)
Nikkor 105mm f/f.5 AIS (Have it)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 (have it)

with a couple $10 adapters, the first 2 work just fine all manual on all my Canon bodies too.
I'd have chosen the Nikkor 50/1.4 but the Canon's a little sharper on FF.

399

Technical Support / Re: Focusing mechanism fixed on 50mm f/1.4, now I have a different problem

« on: August 14, 2012, 02:23:29 AM »

I was recently quoted $100 by Canon to fix the common AF problem on that lens.  I opened mine up first too, what a mess, very fiddly stuff, and there was a broken gear so wasn't worth the hassle for me to fix it at that price. Had it back in a bit over a week, good as new.

I suppose if any part of the lens electronics is not talking to the camera, you'll get an error. That's gonna be focus position, aperture, MF switch?.. Not sure what else.   A little static damage could kill components in there quite easily too.
ONE reason I like 30 year old Nikkor lenses.

400

Lenses / Re: Travelling zoom

« on: August 14, 2012, 02:13:36 AM »

The very good 15-85mm + 70-200 f/4 L IS would be my light combo.
Good FL coverage and IQ for the $, small & light.  You'll likely find yourself using the 15-85 a lot.

My current 2-cam on-the-go solution is a D5100 with 18-105mm VR and a 7D with 100-400 L IS.  Missing a little on the wide end but fits in one Pelican case, with some accessories and can do a heck of a lot with those 2 systems.

401

Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas

« on: August 13, 2012, 03:41:00 PM »

Awinphoto makes many more good points.

Back when my first digicam was a Canon PowerShot A20 I managed a lovely, very colorful shot of a sports activity which ended up on the front cover of a small national magazine.  This would not have happened without the combined skills of 3 people. (I count myself as one of them)

I first had to uprez and sharpen the tiny 2MP shot to minimum screening rez as requested by the magazine's printer (180 lpi if I remember correctly).  Before submitting the image I conferred with a friend in the graphics industry with a lot of experience.  She had a quick look at the image and altho she liked what I'd done with it, took it and converted it to CMYK and did a little color adjustment to compensate for printing dot-gain, based on her experience and the kind of paper it was going to be printed on.  The colors now looked off to me but I submitted the image, the magazine printed it as supplied, and it looked great!

With all that in hindsight so long ago what comes to mind is that printing, in all its various forms, is as much an art form as photography, with a huge number of variables. Hence, until you're doing all this on your own, find and work with a printing service that's familiar with creating the kind of output you want from the kind of files you supply.

I learned a lot from the first shop I found that was an art-quality printer and did a fair bit of my work there.  It cost me a lot, but they worked with me and created beautiful prints from my sRGB files.  As I learned more about the process I was able to take advantage of lower cost shops for some kinds of work by knowing their equipment and their procedures and adjusting my output files accordingly.

If you want your first big canvas print to go well, I'd suggest finding an experienced art-print shop to help you thru it.  It may cost you more.

Then there's the whole to-varnish or not-to-varnish your canvas..  I get mine varnished by someone who's done a lot of work and research on this aspect.  Resulting finish is very tough and durable, colors are great, and I don't have a mess to clean up at my facility.

402

Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas

« on: August 13, 2012, 12:36:11 AM »

I'm in a similar boat as JointDoc.
Fortunately, I have 2 really good print shops locally available to do my large format printing and they both know their stuff very well.  And I'm thankful that the real perfectionist printing service is the lower cost one for me too.

But like TP sez, it doesn't cost that much to buy a large format printer, and while searching for a better price to get my canvases done I've run across a lot more print shops using the latest greatest prograf or other printers who don't have a clue when it comes to printing photos or fine art!  These guys are cranking out material for banners and trade shows and all manner of commercial printing but that's not the same as knowing how to get the best from a photographic image. 

Visit the shop, do they have a lot of really WOW stuff on display?  Or are they more about biz-cards and retail signage?  Talk to the people doing the printing and try gauge how well they know their stuff.  Can they explain why their requirements are what they are?.. and does it make sense?

I've done some printing, WAY in the past on smaller hardware.  Now considering setting up an Epson R3000 for use at home to try my hand at producing the smaller size, low volume stuff that my main service can't do as efficiently.  things have changed a bit but the basics are the same.  If you intend to do your own printing as part of the enjoyment of photography as a hobby, it's kind of like having your own darkroom back in the film days.  There's going to be a whole lot of things to learn, spend time and money on and take up space in your house.  Hopefully you learn the right stuff quickly and get to enjoy some good output without getting discouraged.

And, there is no one right way to do all printing. Various methods can work and sometimes different approaches can yield equivalent or similar results.  And some others can lead you down the path to making pure waste.  If you're prepared to spend the time and $, you can learn a lot about having someone do the printing for you until you nail a process that's consistent, or you can invest in your own equipment and procedures.

How much fun can you afford?

It's rewarding to have control over the whole process from image capture to final print, after all, that is the final link between your vision and the viewers' eyes.  My fine-art-printing friend is always chiding me for not doing my own printing.  I think I'm about to take his advice, I'm ready.

403

Software & Accessories / Re: Upsizing pictures for large canvas

« on: August 12, 2012, 03:03:50 PM »

If I leave everything to the Pros then why shoot.  This is my hobby and I want to learn.  If I left everthing to the Pros then why take pictures?  You can hire people for that.  Eventually I want to buy my own printer but I want to work on taking and processing pictures first.

+1 !!

404

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 12, 2012, 03:02:50 PM »

A lot of people say that better cameras dont mean better pictures. I can only say better cameras give better pictures when the conditions are harsh

+1.
It gives us a larger envelope of operating range to work with.

I'd thought about selling my 7D and 5D2 to fund a 5D3 or 1Dx but that's a losing proposition for the way I use my gear at this time.

I even thot about just selling them while their residual value was still good, in anticipation of whatever else new and exciting may be announced by either Canon or Nikon this fall, but I'm not that big a gambler.

I'll finish the summer with the gear I have, it works well enough and I aware of their limitations and how to work around them, but I would like something with better IQ to take the place of the 7D for what little wildlife/fast shooting I do. And I'd love a FF Canon with better low ISO performance.. Or better Tilt-shift glass from Nikon.

Well, gotta figure out how to get the canoe out to the lake this afternoon... Pelicans are waiting.

405

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 review: If you don't own Canon, buy the Nikon D800

« on: August 11, 2012, 03:26:53 PM »

I shoot low iso with a 1DS3 - no patterning in the darks
I shoot to the right
I shoot with a lot of good light

I dont get the problems you describe

by doing that, you're doing everything correctly to create the best possible file for PP and printing.
and 1DS3 is a pretty clean camera with a little something special about its images, I sometimes wish I'd have bought one instead of 5D2.

I can understand what you are talking about - taking snapshots with a 7D at iso 1600, shooting to the left, big crop and printing on a 16 x 12 will definitely give problems.

Actually, correcting slightly underexposed or excessively contrasty snaps with a 7D at LOW ISO is even worse, it's banding is horrendous and can really show up then. At least it does on mine.

You are suggesting that people should buy a camera that will cope with poor  technique,  rushed images and bad the scenario. What you are infact suggesting is a super duper P&S.

And what's wrong with that?   They can save learning proper lighting and exposure for later while still getting good images. 

Actually..
What I am trying to convey is that many commonly shot scenes, which do not have a lot of good light, will have enough DR that it's possible to show Canon's shadow noise when processing an image to print. And, if the print is large enough, it can show up in the shadows of that print. 

My 5D2 often annoys me with this, my Nikons do not because they don't have pattern noise, they provide a much more random, Gaussian distribution of their noise which is very natural looking and is perceptually a non-issue.  That means I can manipulate the shadows as much as I want, can underexpose by accident, and STILL have a workable file and create a better image than I can from any of my Canon bodies under the same conditions.

Bad news for you - the D800 cant cope with sports and wildlfe, so however good the image is then missing the shot wont compensate - better a poor IQ than missing the shot.

I still keep my 7D for fast-paced work and wildlife because I have the long glass for it it.  The glass itself, and the nature of the shots, generally means I don't have to cope with as much contrast and DR so if I ETTR a bit, I still get good images from it.  And I still have a few Canon bodies I regularly use vs 2 Nikons.

As you well know, and I think you've stated elsewhere, knowing your equipment, and its limitations, allows you to get the best results from it by using appropriate techniques.
I'm just trying to define those limits for people who don't seem to be aware of them. (BTW, you weren't on that list )

As for the D800 not being able to cope with fast work or wildlife, I haven't put it to the test yet.  Others have and the results are within what i'd expect of a camera like that.  I.E.  It can do the job but it's not the best at it.  But that's not whey I've added it to my kit.
I got Nikon gear to fill a niche in my shooting; they contend with scenes I know are extremely DR challenging where my Canons fail to meet my needs.  And it's usually a "slow" shooting scenario, everything manual where I can take the time to optimize the setup, if not the lighting.  The D800/e is my ultimate imaging machine for landscape and close-up or macro work because I really don't want to spend the giant wads of loot required to go medium format for landscapes.