Messages

61

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 1D X Raw Files -- Amazing

« on: August 21, 2012, 10:32:54 PM »

I can do that with my K5...........

I'm sure you can. It's awesome, too.

Update: actually, I think that the K5 could do that, but I think the 1D X could  go even further on the underexposed example. Lightroom just won't let me do it. The 1D X could go at least one more stop.

62

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Canon 1D X Raw Files -- Amazing

« on: August 21, 2012, 10:09:45 PM »

This image was an experiment I did back in July to see just how far the 1D X files could be pushed.

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=335e18a4c22a5621&id=335E18A4C22A5621%21166

The photo was underexposed by at least 5 stops on a cloudy day and then pushed to the absolute maximum (+10.0 exposure) by Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1. A little bit of noise adjustment was then made. But no curves, or any other fancy manipulation was done.

Enjoy the killer... the 1D X!!


Update: Same scenario, overexposed by 3 stops. Pulled to match the previous image.

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=335e18a4c22a5621&id=335E18A4C22A5621%21167

The underexposed photo was at 1/1250th of a second.

The overexposed photo was at 1/5th of a second.

Let's count:

0 stops: 1/5th (pretend like this is ISO 100)
1/3 stop: 1/8th (iso 125)
2/3 stop: 1/16th (iso 160)
1 2/3 stop:: 1/32nd (iso 320)
2 2/3 stops: 1/64th (iso 640)
3 2/3 stops: 1/125th (iso 1250)
4 2/3 stops: 1/250th (iso 2500)
5 2/3 stops: 1/500th (iso 5000)
6 2/3 stops: 1/1000th (iso 10,000)
7 stops:  1/1250th (iso 12,800)

And the photo itself has several more stops of dynamic range in it.

Cool thing is the comparison with the ISO. Basically, this camera can take a single photo and capture an effective range of exposures as if multiple photos were taken ranging from ISO 100 to ISO 12,800.

63

EOS Bodies / Re: BG-E11 alternatives: which one?

« on: August 19, 2012, 04:22:10 PM »

I have not tried any 5D3 grips yet, but I have tried all the possible options for the 7D grip, including 3rd party and Canon. The best one ever, hands down, was the latest iteration of the grip by Meike. Unbelievable, but it's actually better than the original Canon grip, after several notable improvements in design by the 3rd party manufacturer.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/310383635866

That is the exact seller and item that I bought. Another 3rd party grip I tried came with four free batteries, but those batteries could not be changed in the Canon charger, only in the 3rd party charger.

The two batteries that came with this grip were 100% compatible with both the 7D camera and the Canon charger.

Since the latest Meike grip is better than the original Canon grip, in my opinion, I plan to wait for the 2nd or 3rd revision of the 5D3 grip by Meike and then purchase it, based on their incredible final version of grip for the 7D.

64

Lenses / Re: 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2

« on: August 14, 2012, 03:14:03 PM »

I find the 135mm f/2 more useful. It is so fast (in more ways than just the aperture) and much more well balanced.

And I would recommend for the time being the Sigma 85mm 1.4 over the Canon 1.2.

Since a new 135mm might be coming out, I would buy the Sigma 85mm 1.4 if I were you. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is practically the best achievement of Sigma.

You will not regret it. And if later on you were to buy the Canon 1.2 and use the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 side by side, I am sure that you will prefer the Sigma 1.4. The only downside to the Sigma is it doesn't have the fancy candy cane look.

65

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

« on: August 14, 2012, 11:41:12 AM »

1. 24mm f/1.4 L II
2. 135mm f/2 L or Sigma 85mm f/1.4
3. 400mm f/4 DO

Those would probably be the only lenses I would actually need. (Update: that was lie, except for a few types of events. I need a lot more lenses than that to cover everything I do.) If a new 135m f/1.8 L comes out, I would go with that. Right now I might actually lean towards the Sigma for the second lens. Of course, the 400mm f/2.8 II would be nice along side #3, but really folks, if I am hunting around through the woods for miles, I am going to regret not choosing the DO lens.

I would long to add a fourth lens, the 200mm f/2.0, but I definitely need the first two lenses on the list, and I need a long lens, so if I had just three, the precious 200mm would have to go. Bummer.

The moral of the story is that three lenses are not enough.

My personal comment is that I find those prime lenses to be much more versatile than zooms. Please take a deep breath and try the 24mm rather than the 16-35mm, for example. It will make you into a better photographer. The same for the 85mm rather than the 24-70mm. I never use my 24-70mm lens. One camera with the 24mm and one with the 85mm blows away any competitors who are standing there with wimpy 24-70mm lenses. No client or photo editor would choose their pictures after they had seen mine. Trust me.

As far as the 50mm classic lens, that is just what someone would need if they had one lens. Don't be superstitious. (This comment wasn't aimed at the poster who just posted a 50mm on their list. I was writing my post at the same time. I am just saying that if I put the 50mm onto my list, it will just push out a lens that would do a better specific job. So there is no reason to include it.)

66

Lenses / Re: First L Lens... OH MY #^(*^!& GOD

« on: August 08, 2012, 11:10:58 PM »

You are so right about the 24mm f/1.4 L II. It's one of those treasures in the Canon lens lineup. I barely ever use my 16-35mm L II now, and it's because of the 24mm. My lens has been dusty, taped with duct tape in conditions where the hood might drop into an abyss, and through a lot. And it's still so sharp and beautiful all over the images that it takes that I love it even more.

67

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MKII Shutter Sound

« on: August 08, 2012, 10:42:24 PM »

Yes. The sound of the 5D Mark II is pathetic. Once of the wimpiest, breakiest, plastickyiest sounds you'll ever experience.

Here is a helpful link from people having the same impression as you and I:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=38099330&changemode=1

At the bottom of that link there is a link to where you can hear a recording of the shutter sound. The normal mode is bad enough. Some of the silent shooting modes sound even more agonizing than I remember.

68

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX or 85mm 1.2?

« on: August 08, 2012, 10:41:03 PM »

You should keep the two 5D3s and get the Sigma f/1.4.  Save money both ways.

The point about the 1D X having different buttons is valid.

Also, if you have two body types, you'll start favoring just one of them most likely. I believe that having two identical cameras with different lenses is very important (why do I have so many 7Ds? that's one of the answers) for taking creative pictures and capturing them without delay.

The only reason that I went for the 1D X in addition to the 5D3 is that I'm going to burn through the 400,000 pictures more than once each year. I don't want to have to get my cameras repaired as often as I would if I had only 5D3s to use.

69

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D and 5D II that different?

« on: August 08, 2012, 10:32:59 PM »

The 7D and 5D II are way different. Extremely, extremely different.

The 7D somehow ends up being the most useful camera to me. I am sorry to put down a good camera like the 5D II, but the 7D seems to do everything better except for the sensor. Even the shutter sound of the 7D is professional, while the 5D II sounds like a plastic toy.

Academics (and I'm one myself) might say that the sensor is the essence of a camera. But if a camera can do everything better like the 7D can versus the 5D II, except for the sensor, it just makes it much more easy to use as a machine for taking photographs.

And in the conditions where a low-light sensor would be needed, oftentimes the 5D II's shortcomings (like a focus tracking system that is actually allergic to focus tracking) prevent its better sensor from having a chance to shine. A picture that isn't in focus on a 5D II sensor is much worse quality than the same picture with a bit of noise on the 7D's sensor, but in focus. That's just an example.

70

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX ISO 12,800 real-life test

« on: August 07, 2012, 12:59:32 AM »

Try doing manual white balance off a white or gray card that's illuminated from the light source (looks like window light). That should make the shadows free of a color cast. But then there might be a cast on the face which is lit by reflected light off of various colored objects.

71

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III and green RAw!!!

« on: August 06, 2012, 12:33:13 PM »

I am 99% sure I know the cause of this. When the AWB reading is somehow saturated by an extra bright light source at the time when the AWB is set, then the WB reading is way green. It's happened to me with many other cameras, but actually, with my 5D Mark III it hasn't happened yet. The same thing can happen if you try to set manual white balance from a very overexposed shot, with at least one of the color channels completely saturated.

A picture turning green can't possibly have anything to do with a memory card error, unless the card error somehow has an intelligence of its own and knows how to change the picture's color rather than randomly corrupting some bits.

72

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Other Quick 1DX vs.s 5D Mark III comparisons

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:57:43 PM »

I don't think the 1D X is underexposing. I think that the 5D3 is programmed to slightly overexpose in order to force everyone to use the ETTR technique to "boost" the perceived image quality.

Exactly like other have reported, my 1D X meters about 1/2 stop faster (shorter exposure time) than my 5D3. However, the result is a histogram that is dead center. For instance, take a photo of a low-contrast subject like a frame filled with green grass. You should get a peak smack dab in the middle of the screen when looking at the histogram.

73

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d III - Number of Shutter Actuations?

« on: July 30, 2012, 02:54:02 PM »

eoscount.com seems to work

Keep track to make sure it keeps working, however, because I think that it lost track on one of my 7D bodies. It seemed to say I had taken a lot more exposures than I really had. (I had about 110,000 photos on my computer from two 7D bodies purchased brand new, and eoscount.com claimed that the cameras had a total of nearly 200,000 photos taken between them.)

74

Lenses / Re: Question...To UV or not to UV...that IS the question!

« on: July 19, 2012, 10:58:13 PM »

A UV filter certainly has a small effect on image quality. 11 years ago when I was still a photojournalist, I carried my camera around my neck with no lens cap and no filter for thousands of hours. [Lens caps have kept me from getting more pictures that you could imagine, so I have a very personal hatred for them.] Only a few times did I bash the lens into something accidentally. And never did I damage the lens. The only time a lens was ever damaged was when it was supposedly safely in its case with the lens cap on, and the lens cap was bumped off somehow and it scratched against other things in my briefcase.

The solution I use now is to never use lens caps or filters. I do use hoods, most of them permanently taped into place on my lenses, and in my case I always keep the lens hood end of the lens up against the sidewall of its compartment.

There is information about coatings that says "99.99%" transmission, etc. That is only talking about a specific component of the effect on transmission of the light through its path to the sensor, caused by that layer of lens coating. The entire result of even the most ideal filter is usually at most 97% transmission. That's negligible, certainly much less than even 1/3rd of a stop. But definitely it is not the same as having no effect at all.

I agree with the comments about the irrelevance of lens dust mentioned above. People tend to clean their lenses far too often and actually end up damaging them.

75

EOS Bodies - For Stills / One Example ISO 12,800 Photo from Production 1DX

« on: July 11, 2012, 11:06:16 PM »

There's nothing special about this image, but it has a good combination of rather dark shadow and much brighter highlights. My 1D X arrived on Monday, but just before sunset tonight was the first time I could take it out for a spin.

http://dropoff.us/private/1342061837-1-AJ9P0620.JPG

The photo was taken at ISO 12,800 and 1/200th. Most of the softness that is visible is due to a thin plane of focus or JPEG compression or slight motion blur, or all three. It's amazing for ISO 12,800. Update: the photo is a 100% center crop from the full 18 MP image file.

Another image: the "X" on my camera wants to say "hi"-- (this photo wasn't taken with the 1D X, obviously):