Messages

1

Canon General / Re: the rebate program... what a sham!

« on: April 24, 2013, 03:26:07 PM »

I don't know about the US, but in Canada, there are pretty strict regulations on that, and the prices have to be raised in advance of the sale price or rebate.  Not sure how long it is anymore, but if I recall, it was more than just a few days.  Same thing if you go into a retailer and they have a sales tag with a regular price, and it's marked down.  The retailer can get into a lot of trouble if they have never offered the item at that regular price. 

2

6D Sample Images / Re: for those who snub the 6D AF...

« on: April 23, 2013, 12:50:49 PM »

Didn't read the whole thread, but I will say this:  I HAD a 7D, which I loved.  It was stolen and replaced it with a 6D with 24-105 lens at $2329.  So you can guys can figure out what that equates to price wise for the body.

Once you get used to the 7D for sports, birds, or whatever, you will be very frustrated with the 6D focusing ability on moving subjects.  Sigh.  The wifi is not a great solution for studio work like I thought it would be, and I never use GPS because it ALWAYS stays on even when the camera is turned off and it's easy to kill your battery accidentally.  I still shoot portraits tethered via USB, and the images straight of the camera are 5DIIish = pretty good and perhaps slightly nicer than the 7D, which would usually need a bit of PP to make them their best.

I planned to get a 7D II when it came out, but got tired of waiting.  What I probably should have done was get a 7D right away and sell it later when the 7D II came out.  The 6D is just...meh.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Will this allow F8 focusing on 5DMIII

« on: April 21, 2013, 01:47:31 PM »

The firmware that comes out in a few days will allow f8 focusing through the cross point sensors.

4

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Autofocus not impressive

« on: April 03, 2013, 01:29:12 PM »

My Girlfriend paid $2329 for her 6D with 24-105 kit lens.  So figuring about $900 sale price for lens, that's only $1429 for the Canon 6D.  The GPS stays on even if the camera is turned off, so it's a bit dangerous to use IMO unless you want your battery to be drained accidentally.

As for the focus, I tried to take some surfing photos of my son yesterday, and the AF using AI Servo and the center point was horrible.  It would not lock on and allow me to fully press the shutter all the way for multiple shots.  I would get one shot, it would lag, then another one or two, then lag, etc.  It was quite annoying.  I'm coming from a 7D, so it is quite terrible.  I'll have to play with settings, but this camera seems useless for any kind of action right out of the box.

Personally, I would rather do without the wifi and GPS and have at least a 7D equivalent AF system.  The camera is far more expensive than the 7D even at launch, and the 7D is four years old.  There is no reason to cripple the camera with poor AF.  I'll try to adjust some settings and see what happens.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Horizontal Lines On Photos Taken Using Liveview on Canon 6D

« on: March 29, 2013, 12:43:27 AM »

Yeah.  That was it.  What threw me was that in 16:9 aspect ratio the lines only appeared when shooting using liveview.  I tried the other two, didn't use 3:2, and the lines looked more like something was wrong.  When you compose in 16:9 before taking the shot, the lines are not there.  The view is just cropped.  After you take the shot, the full image appears with the grey lines.  That totally threw me.

6

EOS Bodies / Horizontal Lines On Photos Taken Using Liveview on Canon 6D

« on: March 28, 2013, 11:47:15 PM »

I feel like an idiot asking this.  It seems like I should be able to figure this out on my own, since I'm a long time Canon user, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why I am getting two horizontal lines, like video safe lines, embedded into the photo at the top and bottom. 

They are not there when I use the viewfinder, which is why I haven' noticed until now.  I never use liveview, but I turned it on to let my teenage son take a few snaps out the passenger window and when we played them back, the lines were there.  Several test shots later revealed the same result, and I cannot find a way to remove them.

While we're at it, can anyone tell me how to enable hi and lo mode?  I can't to ISO 50 for landscape shots.  Gonna dig into the CD-ROM manual shortly.

7

Software & Accessories / Re: Stolen Camera Finder?

« on: March 27, 2013, 02:24:34 PM »

I paid for it, but have heard nothing from them. I doubt very much that the person who stole my gear has not uploaded any photos to popular sharing sites.  Con job I think.

8

Reviews / Re: Canon 6D review and Canon 6D vs 5D mark III

« on: March 24, 2013, 04:26:27 PM »

My girlfriend and I just picked up a 6D, and so far, I'm not really enjoying it as much as my 7D.  I cannot get used to the button layout, and prefer the zoom function for image preview to be thumb access instead of scroll wheel.  The iso button is in an awkward place the the selector wheel on the back of the camera is extremely annoying to use.  My biggest pet peave is the display.  I find it near impossible to view in any kind of sun and the brightness display is strange as well.  If you increase the brightness to be able to see it, you cannot use it judge exposure at all.  I agree that you should set your exposure based on the internal exposure meter, but that does not seem super accurate either.  I use highlight alert, and that helps, but the display should more closely match the image shot.  It's like trying to use  non color corrected monitor to view your images.  It's useless. 

I'm sure much of this will come down to getting used to it, but that display issue is going to make me ditch this camera if I can't figure out a solution.

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Chasing Tack Sharp ... Just can't get there

« on: March 20, 2013, 04:51:42 PM »

Yeah.  As someone who has taken a ton of shots for catalog, pop it with some light (including some on the BG) and you won't need to mess with a lot of PP.  It will look good right out of the camera.  Some minor PP will be gravy.

Mmm...gravy.  Nom, nom.

10

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 07, 2013, 03:00:52 PM »

I know the IS will help with the Macro mode for hand held work, but I still think you are better to keep the long end with a 24-105L and buy something like a 50mm 2.5 compact macro for $250 to keep for macro.  This is what you get with the 50mm:



Okay to be fair, that shot is with the 50mm plus kenko extension tubes.

11

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 07, 2013, 02:33:01 PM »

I'd like to recommend that some people open up their minds a little as to what people will and will not add to their kits. I added the EF 24-70 f/4L IS to my kit to replace my EF 24-105mm f/4L. What? How can this be? Why would anyone...? A few reasons. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter. I shoot almost exclusively landscape, so I'm stopped down. As soon as I hit f/8 on my 24-70, it's sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS in my kit, so I have 70-105 covered by a lens that is also sharper than the 24-105 at every corresponding focal length. The 24-70mm gives me the ability to take macro shots while I'm carrying a two lens kit on backcountry trips. And yes, they are macro shots. Don't knock the feature until you take a look at some of the images. Is it as good as my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS? Heck no. Is it taking macro shots that are good enough to print/publish/sell? Heck yes. Unlike, the reviewer, I haven't noticed any focus shift with mine. Bottom line, if ounces count, which they typically do for landscape photographers, this lens is much more attractive that the 24-105mm. I chose the Canon system in 2005 almost exclusively because of the f/4L zoom line. This lens is a great addition to that line and an excellent alternative to the 24-105mm (which I've hung onto for single-lens trips).

Sorry if this has been addressed later in the thread as I haven't finished reading, but can you post some pics taken with the 24-70?  I'm very interested to see a few and would greatly appreciate this. 

12

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 07, 2013, 02:19:40 PM »

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Hahahaha!  Awesome.   

13

Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

« on: March 07, 2013, 02:23:36 AM »

I think you completely misunderstand how full frame works.

Hi Radiating.  I appreciate the very thorough explanation!

I do not "completely misunderstand how full frame works" in that I do understand the relationship of DOF when it comes to just DOF...what is in focus with the same lens, crop vs. FF. 

This is most apparent in video, and why FF and the 5D II changed the film world - the ability to blow out backgrounds and create that super thin DOF "look."  I have also experienced focus pullers on set having problems with DOF that was too thin, and resulting footage that looked properly focus on the lcd screen but turned out to be soft when viewed at 1080p. Disaster. This is why I would always use the 7D over the 5D.  It was more forgiving for focus if the puller was a bit out or the talent moved or swayed or slightly missed the mark, and at f2.8 still allowed shooting in fairly low light. 

OTOH, now I'm more experienced with pulling focus myself and in selecting DP's, and plan (hopefully tomorrow) to buy a FF body instead of another crop.  Having 2.8 and the option to go with shallow DOF compared to what is available at f4 would be nice.  Suffice it to say that I would still prefer a 2.8 IS in a comparable range if it was available. If I want to buy a crop body or dedicated video rig later (like a c100/c300, BMCC or Scarlet), having the 2.8 would also be desirable to get the DOF down and keep the light transmission up.  Naturally, IS for video is also a huge benefit in all ways.  But I digress.  This was a photography question, and I recognize that at some point, I may need to buy a 17-55 2.8 for the crop sensor dedicated rig I buy that will be s35.  That lens cannot be used on the 6D.

The rest of the info about light and angles and stuff is all new to me, and I thank you for that.  I'm going to read it one more time to let it sink in a bit better

14

Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

« on: March 07, 2013, 12:55:09 AM »

I think the point was to show how good an image can look at ISO 6400.  It's the difference in getting a shot and not, but IMO is more of a sports scenario or where the moment is what counts, rather than a nature photo, unless of course it's come rare specimen, rarely photographed.  In any case, it's not the type of photographic problem I'm trying to solve and for which I started this thread.  Still interesting, but not very relevant for me outside of comparing it to a ISO 6400 image from the 7D.

15

Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

« on: March 06, 2013, 11:31:06 PM »

I crank the ISO up and still can't get the keeper rate as high at 1/1600 and higher using f4 compared f2.8.  2.8 always wins when both have IS and the ISO is similar stops.  Maybe it's more a focusing issue.  I certainly came to know the intricacies of the 7D while I had it and used to kind of irritate the BIF guys with the bigger F4 lenses at times when shooting side by side, especially in the golden hour.

That's the point.  Sensor size does not affect exposure.  Shooting at 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on APS-C, if you switch to f/4 and keep 1/1600 s and ISO 3200, you'll have half as much light per unit area hitting the sensor.  Same would be true with the teeny sensor on my PowerShot S100. 

What sensor size does affect is the amount of noise at a given ISO.  So compared to 1/1600 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200 on the 7D, you could shoot the FF camera at 1/1600 s, f/4, ISO 6400 and have lower image noise (better IQ) or you could shoot at 1/3200 s, f/4, ISO 12800 and have similar IQ to the 7D shot at f/2.8, ISO 3200 - i.e., a faster shutter speed with the slower lens and equivalent IQ.

Here's a shot with one of one of those 'bigger f/4 lenses' at dusk on an overcast day, FF camera and ISO 6400.  Same shot on a 7D would be unusably noisy (and in this case, f/2.8 isn't an option...). 


EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM, 1/250 s, f/4, ISO 6400

Wow, great photo! It's amazing that is ISO 6400...that setting is completely unusable on the 7D, even in relatively good light. I was just replying to someone the other day who proclaimed that the notion that small pixels increase noise is a "myth"...I'd love them to see this photo. It kind of proves my point...higher noise with smaller pixels is most certainly not a myth....there just isn't enough light per pixel to compare to something like the 1D X (assuming similar framing, anyway...although even with a center crop on the 1D X and a full frame with the 7D, downsampling won't completely mitigate the higher noise of the 7D's smaller pixels.)

I would actually be curious to know if you pushed ISO even higher, 12800, whether that would saturate the sensor more, and with a little post-process pullback, might actually result in less visible noise...

It is a great photo, but (with all due respect to Jon) iris noisy, grainy, and soft. I'm not sure how you don't see that.

That's not my photo.  I think it's a 6400 ISO shot from neuroanatomist.

Here is one of mine of a Pelican. This is a very small, fairly low res jpeg uploaded to my blog which resizes and messes with the resolution of the photos.  The clean jpeg is MUCH sharper.  It was taken with a 7D and a 70-200 2.8 IS L II shot at 200/f2.8 @ 1/1600th I believe and maybe 640 ISO using a Better Beamer.