April 17, 2014, 04:04:57 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DanielW

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17
166
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Body for $2599 via eBay
« on: December 08, 2012, 12:58:32 PM »
Damn, how can I decide between the 6D and the 5DmIII now?  :)

167
Sadly I don't have the equipment to test this formally, but I will have a 60D and 6D tomorrow for some rough analysis.
Great! Can't wait to see the results!

168
I understand we're talking about focus speed and sensitivity of the central point, but has anyone tested the outer points with fast glass in terms of focus accuracy? Most of the tests I've found on the web, like Roger's, concern the central point exclusively.
I'm asking this because 11 AF points should be enough for me, if they're all really usable. Maybe the only situation for which I actually need the outer points is when shooting with a very shallow DoF and placing the focus zone very off-center, when composition would change too much and the focus-and-recompose technique would sure fail. (If the subject is not so close to the camera, then the angle changes little when recomposing and I can usually take a sharp pic, even with a shallow DoF.)
I sure appreciate -3 EV sensitivity, but in very low-light situations I won't be playing around with composition anyway, and having one reliable, sensitive central point sounds good enough, IMO. The precision of the outer points concerns me the most, for I can't rely very much on them when shooting with my 60D, even in reasonably well-lit situations.
(Sorry if it's been discussed before; I searched, but found nothing.)
Thanks!
Daniel

169
Contests / Re: Gura Gear Giveaway!
« on: December 07, 2012, 10:37:37 AM »
Wow, most popular thread ever...
Well, who doesn't want to win?! I sure do! :)

170
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Likely Price Trend
« on: December 05, 2012, 07:03:49 PM »
Past performance not indicative of future results, but here's the trend for the 5DmkIII since being available last summer (scroll down to see graph):

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03868/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-price.html

And here's the same thing for the 5DmkII (ditto):

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02699/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-price.html


Er...what's the deal with the 5D II dropping to $0 for...maybe a week...in the middle of November? Was Canon simply giving them away for free? And how in the world could I have missed that incredible opportunity!!!  ??? :o ::)

I missed it then too, and would miss it once again, for I can't find the mid-November drop to $0 you found on the website...  :P

171
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 06:49:15 PM »
"The camera’s sensor does not give equal weight to all tones. In fact, your digital sensor is heavily weighted to the brightest areas in your photo. (...) Taken another way, the camera has a fixed number of numeric values for describing the brightness of a pixel. Fifty percent of those numeric values are devoted to the brightest f-stop in your photo. Each successively darker f-stop receives one-half the number of the f-stop ahead of it, until the shadows receive only a small sliver of the total possible values. This is important information, because all detail in your photos is a result of subtle differences in tone and color between adjacent pixels. In the shadows, where fewer values are available to describe these differences, it becomes more difficult to retain details. Underexposing photos drives more of the information contained within a photo deeper into the shadows, causing a loss of detail and an increase in noise (unwanted color impurities) in the photo."
(Taken from Perfect Digital Photography, 2nd edition, hopefully not infringing any copyrights.)

That is correct. If you want to know the reason is quite simple.  Humans see light in an approximately logarithmic fashion (as if we were taking the log (base ~2) of the actual light we see).  (We also hear in a logarithmic fashion as well.)  This is very useful to us since it means we can see when there are just a few photons, and when there are tens of thousands of times more photons per until area of our eyes - and yet it looks to us like it's only a few times brighter.

Sensors are linear, they just measure the approximate number of photons per pixel.  So if your images has 9 stops of dynamic range, the brightest stop has half the the available data.  And the darkest stop only has ~0.2-0.4% of the data.

Exposing to the right (as long as you aren't blowing out the highlights), is a very good idea if you want to have more freedom to play with your images afterwards - since you'll have much more data in the shadows.  Just one stop of "overexposing" will give you twice the shadow detail.

However I digress, and still want to know what's going on with those 6D long exposures...
Thanks for the explanation!
Are you familiar with some book or website where I can read more about it? I do enjoy digressions... :)

172
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 04:18:38 PM »
Well, as somebody in the comments section of that page mentioned, if its underexposing, a long exposure (like the 30 seconds in the night shot of San Francisco on the link) will exacerbate the issue.

The test shots on those links were shot at 1/4 sec.

I am pretty concerned about this issue, I'm really hoping it's just the factory settings, like Auto Lighting Optimizer being turned on.

My T2i overexposes constantly, especially with my 28-135mm. I'd really like to be able to use aperture priority mode without having to mess with the EV settings constantly.
I oftentimes shoot with my 60D overexposing by 0.3 stops (sometimes 0.6), and it has never annoyed me. I just set it to +0.3 and leave it like that.

Are you looking for a brighter look, or does +0.3 look more correct? I'm constantly moving between -.6 and -1.3 just so images aren't totally washed out and clipping.

Sorry if this is derailing the thread a bit. It seems like this could have a major impact on night sky/star field shooting, which I am looking forward to doing when I go full frame.
I see no problem at all in derailing...
I've found myself quite often disagreeing with the camera's meter and increasing exposure in LR, and (although those with better knowledge on the subject may disagree) digital sensors deal better with overexposure than the opposite. I always shoot RAW, so I can bring exposure down if necessary with no loss of detail; on the other hand, I would probably introduce noise if I were to bring exposure back up.
It might sound like it's all good, but I've screwed up a few (too many) shots already by doing like that. When shooting something important, I always overshoot and vary exposure.
I think it's about knowing your camera, too, and having it do what you want and adapt it to your own photographic tastes/needs.
Neuro and others here sure know it in details; I just read it in one of the first books I bought (read quote below) and believed... :)

"The camera’s sensor does not give equal weight to all tones. In fact, your digital sensor is heavily weighted to the brightest areas in your photo. (...) Taken another way, the camera has a fixed number of numeric values for describing the brightness of a pixel. Fifty percent of those numeric values are devoted to the brightest f-stop in your photo. Each successively darker f-stop receives one-half the number of the f-stop ahead of it, until the shadows receive only a small sliver of the total possible values. This is important information, because all detail in your photos is a result of subtle differences in tone and color between adjacent pixels. In the shadows, where fewer values are available to describe these differences, it becomes more difficult to retain details. Underexposing photos drives more of the information contained within a photo deeper into the shadows, causing a loss of detail and an increase in noise (unwanted color impurities) in the photo."
(Taken from Perfect Digital Photography, 2nd edition, hopefully not infringing any copyrights.)

Hope it helps. :)

173
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Under-Exposing?
« on: December 05, 2012, 03:33:53 PM »
Well, as somebody in the comments section of that page mentioned, if its underexposing, a long exposure (like the 30 seconds in the night shot of San Francisco on the link) will exacerbate the issue.

The test shots on those links were shot at 1/4 sec.

I am pretty concerned about this issue, I'm really hoping it's just the factory settings, like Auto Lighting Optimizer being turned on.

My T2i overexposes constantly, especially with my 28-135mm. I'd really like to be able to use aperture priority mode without having to mess with the EV settings constantly.
I oftentimes shoot with my 60D overexposing by 0.3 stops (sometimes 0.6), and it has never annoyed me. I just set it to +0.3 and leave it like that.

174
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:36:32 PM »
Thank you, PW and Paul! I'm aware that gear won't make me a better photographer (but it sure would be nice, wouldn't it?), so I'm studying a lot and shooting as often as I can.
The answers I've got on this thread have really helped me figure that what I'm lacking in fact is a fast WA. The Tokina is sure worth considering, although maybe a little too much on the wide side for what I'll use it (mainly people). The 17-55 f/2.8 is probably the way to go if I stick with crop sensors (27 mm wide should be good enough), but I think it's a tad too expensive a lens when I think I could pay considerably less for a 24-105 f/4L.
Sometimes I feel that APS-C users (myself included) always have to make do somehow; the decisions feel much harder to make when buying lenses. The grass looks so much greener on the FF side...
Well, anyway... :)

175
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 05:14:46 PM »
Hi all,
I've been shooting with a 60D (my first dSLR) since 2010 or 2011, and am naturally considering going FF. The thing is, everybody asks, "will I benefit from going FF?", and the answer is more likely "yes" -- although it sure depends on the photographer and his/her uses for the camera. What we seldom know is, do these folks who upgraded and now have better gear take better pics now, or is it all the same? For how many of them has upgrading made significant difference?
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?
Hope it doesn't sound too crazy -- it makes sense in my mind... :)
Cheers

I usually don't reply to only the OP, I generally read through then possibly reply, but this this one I will take a stab at it before reading the other replies!

IMO - Upgrade should generally come when you've hit the limit of whats possible with what you've got.  With crop vs FF though, it gets a little trickier.  First off though, no amount of new camera will magically make you better!  As I am sure many have also said here, you get better by shooting, reading,m refining, trying new things, etc, etc.  Also, the benefits of FF are somewhat subjective (IE, if you shoot wildlife, with long lenses - your longest lens will appear to have shrunk on FF.  But, if you are shooting in a small studio, you may have hit that wall where none of the focal ranges of your lenses make sense anymore (IE your buying a 35mm because you want a 50, buying a 50 cause you want 85, buying an 85 cause you want 135, and passing on the 135 because its too long on a crop).  Low light work is another factor, if you find yourself shooting in lots of tight low light environments, you may find the light sensitivity of a FF sensor much to your liking. 

I made the transition from crop to FF in early July of this year.  For the work I do, it made sense and I have very much enjoyed the transition.  On my 7d, my go to lens was my 24-70.  my 70-200 sat in the bag more often than not.  And I used the 10-22 quite a bit too.  Transition to full frame though ---my 70-200 is now my favorite lens, with my 85mm 1.8 being the second fav and I just snagged a 16-35vII and i am very much liking that lens too!. 

To a certain extent, going FF is like grabbing a new lens.   I don't know what your lens setup is, but, for me I found that covering the wide end was much more difficult on crop.  I liked the 10-22, but found it to be much less flattering than I'd like for people shots. 

Not sure if any of that helps.   
Most helpful ever!
My problem is really the wide end, for I don't care much about reach. I mainly shoot people and landscapes and find myself often increasing ISO, and it's being hard to find some fast WA lens for APS-C. I considered getting  the 10-22, but it's not really fast for indoor use -- I'd have to push the ISO maybe a little too high for my 60D -- and would mean sticking to APS-C for a good while. I also thought about the 16-35, and although I could use some more reach for avoiding changing lenses, it's my plan B in case I don't go FF. (I guess the 17-40 L is just too slow for indoor use on a 60D.)
The thing is, I want a good, not-expensive-like-hell lens for better indoor, low-light shots. The 24-105 L sounds just perfect (I'm no pro), but its not as wide as I wish on my crop camera.
Probably FF is really the way to go, for indoor WA is just so damn difficult on crop.
Thank you very much for replying!

176
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 04:54:39 PM »
I've got a 7D, and Sigma 8-16mm.
My only other zooms are EFs 15-85, and 70-300L.
The widest primes i've got are Tokina 17mm, Mir 20mm, some junky 28mms, then Samyang 35mm.

So if we take the Samyang 35mm as having *good* IQ (which it does, all those wider ones just don't), and we take the Sigma 8-16mm as having *good* iQ (which it does), then by going to FF i'd be missing out on wide angles, super wide angles, über wide angles.
In fact, 8-16mm is the FF-equivalent of 12.8-25.6mm. The sigma 8-16mm mounted on my 7D I would be guessing gives as good if not better IQ than the Sigma 12-24mm v1, probably the same as v2, mounted on a 5D3 (at iso100 on a tripod for landscapes).
So by *upgrading* to FF, i'd be losing everything between 12.6-35mm at decent IQ, *or* I'd have to buy a Sigma 12-24 v2, or a nikon 14-24 and adapter, or a Canon 14mm *and* 16-35 and still miss out a few mm on the wide end. And that's not even considering the extra cost of those FF lenses, my 8-16 only cost me $500.
I see... That's kinda why I'm stuck. My WA is not very good nor fast (the only option I have is my 18-135 kit lens, my other lens being the 50 1.4), and I miss a better WA lens for indoor shots. The thing is, a good WA for crop means sticking to crop (EF-s 10-22, most likely), because it's gonna be an EF-s lens that's not that cheap. High ISO IQ is also something I consider important, although I can't say I'm totally dissatisfied with my 60d in that aspect.
Bottom line is, I want more lenses, but the 1.6 multiplier is pissing me off! ;D

177
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 01:25:53 PM »
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

Well, no small number of FF shooters would miss the ability to post smug things about how superior FF is on intangible things like dreamy bokeh, color saturation, etc..., whether they could actually pick a FF print out of a police lineup or not.   ;)

I think the biggest thing about going FF to crop would be losing 2 or 3 stops of low-noise performance at higher ISO settings, at least when comparing it to the newest FF bodies.  That is very valuable stuff.

I think you can get all the blurry background/shallow depth of field most people would really ever want using a crop body by following the basic rules.  Bright prime lens shot wide open, shot close to subject, background far away, etc... Frankly, I find the 50 f/1.8 DOF shot on a crop to be too thin sometimes.  My wife actively dislikes the look, actually, when we shoot my girls and you see an eye or two in focus, but an ear that is blurry.

Three pages later and nothing has been added. This thread could have stopped with Scotty's response and covered about everything that needs to be covered.

Thank you all for kindly taking you time to answer. It's been most helpful, for I've decided I will upgrade and keep my 60D. Time to save money now... :)

178
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:20:35 AM »
I'm in the same situation. I still have a 350D (yes they still exist), and plan to ugrade in the near future. In the race are the 6D, and the upcoming APS-C models (70D? 7D MkII?). I only shoot as an amateur, and I'm really asking myself if it is worth to upgrade to a FF (6D).

DOF is one point, but I think that the DOF is already quite shallow on a APS-C with a decent lens; especially when you are close to the subject. There is a range in distance where the FF would be helpful, but is it worth the money?
Reach; this is only a question of money. Are you willing to pay twice as much for a lens, to get the same reach with a FF, as you would have to with a APS-C? Croping is not an option; why should I pay for Sensor-area I do not use?
IQ/Noise. This is the biggest issue. But living with 8.5MP for 7 years showed me, that the quality of an Image is not measured in ISO, Noise or dynamic range. Sure, Images from a FF look really nice. I compared the pictures from FF to APS-C on The-Digital-Picture.com, and the the FF looks much better (no surprise), but then I looked at the comparison tool at dpreview and there the verdict was not so clear anymore. Sure FF is always better, but by how much?
If you are a pro, then it is easy to deceide, but as an amateur I'm still asking myself if it is worth to upgrade.
Same boat. If I could only find a 24-105 f/4 equivalent for my 60D, I would sure hold it for now and upgrade to FF when(ever) I start making money from photography. I would stick to my 50 1.4 and get a 35 1.4 (or a 28 1.8?) and an 85 1.8, and have fun!

179
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 09:01:04 AM »
So I ask you FF shooters: what is it that you can do nowadays with you FF that you would no longer be able to do if you downgraded to crop?

I'd miss the thinner DoF you can achieve with FF, for the same framing.  To get the FF-equivalent of f/1.2 on APS-C would require an f/0.75 lens...last time I checked, there weren't any in a Canon EF mount.

If your long shots are at the long end of your current zoom lens and you shoot from a distance, you will miss the reach.

Well, we've had this discussion before.   ;)  The reach only matters if your output demands it.  A FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ - the only thing you're really giving up is megapixels.  So, if 7-8 MP is sufficient (which it is for web, slideshows, and prints up to ~12x18" - and I suspect that covers most people's needs), then a cropped FF shot will do just as well as an uncropped APS-C shot. 

Does it possibly make sense to stick with a crop sensor for telephoto/sports needs and a full frame with a "normal" lens for general photography?

From a sensor standpoint, not to me (again with the caveat above regarding need for high MP output).  Especially if you're not focal length limited.  One of the keys for sports is a high shutter speed to stop action, and the much better high ISO performance of a FF sensor means you can push the ISO higher to get a shutter speed that stops the action.  With the sensor in the 60D (I have a 7D), I really prefer to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower.  With the 5DII, I had no problem shooting at ISO 3200.  With the 1D X, I routinely use ISO 6400, and I'm fine with ISO 12800.  That's 3 stops better than I prefer on the 7D (although I can tolerate ISO 3200 on the 7D, so call it 2 stops to be conservative...but still that's the difference between a blurry 1/250 s and a crisp 1/1000 s).

Of course, the sensor is only part of the story for sports/action.  The AF system is the other big part.  For fast action, I'd take the 7D and live with the noise vs. the 5DII/6D and lower noise.  The 7D's tracking capabilities are far superior to the 5DII, and will be similarly superior to the 6D.  But I'd take the 5DIII over the 7D in a heartbeat for sports/action - FF for higher ISO and even better AF more than makes up for the loss of 2 fps.

I can tell you that after getting the 1D X, my 7D has just gathered dust.  As I stated above, IMO a FF image cropped to the same FoV of an APS-C sensor will have essentially the same IQ.  I tested that semi-formally with the 5DII vs. 7D (with a static test scene) and proved it to my satisfaction.  I've actually decided to test my statement above with the 1D X vs. the 7D, with a 600/4 lens, comparing the 1D X and 1.4xIII vs. the 7D (as approximately equivalent focal lengths), and also at the longest AF-capable focal length (1200mm f/8 on the 1D X, 1344mm equivalent f/5.6 on the 7D).  This will be a 'formal' test with an ISO 12233-based chart, and a static 'real world' scene.  If the 1D X cropped gives equal or better IQ vs. the 7D, I'll need to decide if I sell the 7D or keep it solely as a backup camera.
Do you actually own those lenses? :o

180
EOS Bodies / Re: Downgrade to crop
« on: December 03, 2012, 08:42:01 AM »
My first dSLR was a 7D, I recently bought a 5D3.  Technically speaking I upgraded my camera because the 5D3 is superior in many areas.  But I am not of the camp that a FF is an automatic upgrade over a crop--its apples and oranges, trucks and cars.

I shot film cameras for many years so I've always been use to the FF FOV.  Adding a FF body gives me a better low-light, landscape, and portrait (shallow DOF) option.  My 7D gives me a the reach and FPS benefit.  I'm lucky enough to have two excellent bodies for different uses.   :)
I'd add, too, although I'm not as lucky as you are and would own only a 60D and a 6D! :)
The 60D would be kept to walk around and as backup, since I don't need too much reach (and you can always crop those 20 MP files) and 4 fps seem enough for what I shoot.
Thanks for answering!

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 17