December 19, 2014, 04:06:33 AM

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 - dlleno

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 41
An interesting implication to the data us that canons low end market share is not as high, maybe equal or that Nikon may lead in this segment

EOS Bodies / Re: It's Christmas Eve !!
« on: December 20, 2012, 12:05:56 PM »
Just curious, why did you buy from B&H when there are all these people selling it for $400-$600 cheaper than them?

Probably because B&H is much more trustworthy than the eBay retailers.

+1 for supporting reliable retailers with a workable return policy, a staffed customer service department, real people behind real telephones,  etc.  B&H is among the leaders here.  Adorama in the past has been a little quirkier but  recently they are great to deal with as well - they even refunded shipping when they slipped up and didn't ship 2-day after their recent holiday break, during which they shipped no orders.  Good experience with Amazon too. and they all use real credit cards. 

So yea, I'm rather partial to the big three.

to each his own, to be sure.  bargain hunters love the chase and risk takers come out very well sometimes.  the game is just not for me. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Stop Using Instagram
« on: December 19, 2012, 09:43:25 PM »
I've never understood folks who don't read the facebook TOS, or any other site for that matter.  too many don't even think twice before assuming that a particular site exists for the greater good of the people, and oh look what I can totally give to fb with a perpetual royalty free world wide license.    I post an occasional photo on fb but its always low res and always something that I really don't care if it gets stolen. its astonishing the amount of personal information people really give away to fb.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: December 18, 2012, 06:03:07 PM »
I'm not so certain that Canon will introduce new sensor tech just for an 1.6 ...

You are basically right.

Still, the most practical thing to do when introducing new tech is to put it in smaller sensors first .
In fact, that's what Canon is doing already with the S100/S110/G15 sensor - which is made on new tech.

Eventually, this new tech will make it into DSLR sensors as well.
At that time, it would make the most sense if it's used for 1.6x sensors first.

Of course this is not guaranteed and Canon might have other plans.

To me, though, a 7DII with the same sensor as the 7D is kind of pointless.

introducing a new crop sensor in the 7D2 would follow the 7D tradition (although the 18MP 7D sensor was not really revolutionary or disruptive at the time;  it represented incremental improvments with over-sold ISO performance imho). The 7D2 sensor will either be a distruptively new crop sensor (perhaps with 46mp influence) or it will be an incrmental improvement (with t4i heritage)  in pretty colored wrapping,  oversold to appear disruptive (like the 7D sensor was).  If Canon builds and measures the 7D2 against the 7D, ("look, we listened and updated the 7D with better AF, 10fps...) then the upade will feel a lot like the 5D3:  great anticipation, followed  by some disapointment fueled by those who read numbers, followed by the realization that the camera is a very solid performer in the target venue, followed by arguments over whether or not one should upgrade, followed by a low DxO score.... etc.   If Canon builds and measures the 7D2 against the market, then we will see some wahoo. 

wow teedidy that is extraordinarily different results than folks using 580 ex ii and 600 ex-rt.  so perhaps we ARE talking about a marriage problem between the AF system and the AF assist beam supplied by the newer flashes.   


I I think you are right about Canon" planning its response" but probably only in the sense that there must be a chalkboard somewhere with notes about 5D4.

lol you and I both hope you are wrong of course :D  Only market pressure has the ability to modify Canon arrogance.   Maybe they will discontinue the 5D2 and sell the 5D4 along side the 5D3 for another $1,000. 

has canon said anything about this yet?

no.  In fact, we have one example, cited on this forum, where Canon repair indicated that they could not reproduce the problem. 

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D vs 5Diii vs 5Dii - Speedlite AF Focus Beam Assist Tests
« on: December 18, 2012, 12:38:56 PM »
My serial is xxxxx4xx5xxx and has the IR focus issue.  I've had it for 2 weeks from an authorized seller.
In -2EV of light my Rebel 550D was faster than the 5D3 (1/2s vs 1s).  In 1EV of light the 5D3 is faster.  The test was simple.  Fully depress the shutter simultaneously on both bodies to see which shot first (images were in focus). 

[The setups were different (5d3+600ex+70-200ii vs 550D+580ex2+24-70v1) but I found in previous tests that  combinations of lens and flash did not make a difference to the outcome.  Subject was a uniform tiled wall at 8 feet.]

By themselves, these data do not concern me greatly -- a 1/2 sec penalty for the extraordinary AF accuracy of the 5D3 seems reasonable at first. and thanks for being specific about the light level!  But -- with the AF assist beam active, the AF systems are seeing greater than -2EV of light especially since both beams were active at the same time!  So to me this is describing a marriage problem between the 5D3  AF system and the assist beam.  The fact that the 5D3 focus lock time improves with an increase in light suggests that it is not even looking at (or isn't making very good use of) the assist beam. 

now then, take off the flash and force both cameras to focus in -2EV (and other levels of) light.  how do they perform?

take both cameras into a closet and close the door ("pitch dark") both cameras should utilize the AF assist beam and should take photos, when tested separately (don't let both assist beams fire simultaneously)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Tips on shooting hockey?
« on: December 18, 2012, 12:25:35 PM »
Yes, I was refering to the tripod ring that comes with the 70-200L.

I do use a Bogen (now Manfrotto) quick release tilt head on my mono-pod so I can tilt down and up.  The tilt and the quick release work well for me.  This is a personal preference thing.  Some prefer mounting the lens tripod ring directly to the mono-pod without a head.  You'll have to figure out which works best for you.  (But, be wary of the ball mount.  It never stays put when shooting action.)

personal preferences to be sure;  here's mine:  I brought in the 234C and sent it right back because I wanted something beefier atop my Gitzo.  I also wanted a head that could rotate 180 to accomodate the difference between my camera body plate and my 70-200 lens plate.  The RRS monopod head is expensive, but for me its perfect.  2-axes of rotation is all you really need for a monopod --  I didn't want a ballhead for the same reasons you mentioned, but this RRS head is a real wahoo I have to say.

Its available in the lever mount too...

echelonphoto:  can you be more specific:  what level of light were you shooting in (tell us the ISO ,shutter, and apertuture) -- did you capture any (even out of focus) photos where the EXIF data would reveal this information?

if you put your 5D2 side by side with the 5D3 perhaps you could capture some photos (without flash or AF assist) and we could know what levels of light we are talking about.

Guys remember designing a work around isn't the way forward, There shouldn't be a need to have to work around a problem that basically should not exist in the first place, Im worried that the problem may start to become overshadowed by "what we all can do instead" I really am hoping for this tread to get heard, its a real problem and I do not believe for a moment it only happens in certain cameras (ie other 5D3's don't have this problem) its a problem with the 5D3 itself and needs to be addressed,

I would like to say thanks to everyone that has of course offered help in ideas making it easier while we wait for answers, but let us not forget the true problem exists and needs to be fixed,


good comments Louis. my only contribution, having read most of the threads on this topic is that there does appear to be two problems that are being confused with each other. 

1.  A problem where some cameras appear to perform better than others:  Low light AF performance without flash or AF-assist.  I see a lack of consistency in the test descriptions (standard, normalized EV is trivial to find and express but no one has done it)  and no clear repeatable result saying that the AF system on a statistically significant number of 5D3s does not perform " in a way that is commensurate with the photo set-up, subject movement and required shutter speeds that would be associated with taking the picture in that amount of light, and when the camera is used as it has been marketed"  RustyTheGeek has shown that his replacement 5D3 performs better than the one he originally purchased, for example.  This to me is mfg QC.

2.  A problem where none of the 5D3s described here perform well, and even some 1DX contributors have described similar behavior:   Utilization of the AF-assist.  Here the amount of ambient light shouldn't matter -- you should be able to walk into a dark closet, close the door, and take photos of a mouse running across the floor  in pitch black darkeness.   At reasonble subject distances, the AF system should use the assist beam!   Frankly, given the information posted here I'm suspicious of a marriage problem between the AF system and the nature of the AF beam itself, its width pattern, pulse duty cycle, frequency;  something.  The common denominator here is the 61 point AF system shared (largely) between 1DX and 5D3.   Its like the AF R&D team and the Speedlite R&D  team don't know each other, or one doesn't consult the other, because something is fishy here.   The AF system needs to be tweeked so that it can see and utilize the beam, for pete's sake.  This is what makes me suspicous that Canon can fix this problem with a firmware update. THey just have gone dark side of the moon because they know the problem to exist and are planning their response to it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: December 18, 2012, 11:27:00 AM »
in order to acheive all of the rumored capabilities, the 7D2 is going to have to utilize a newer sensor generation than even the 6D, and maybe even come in at a similar or even a higher price.  $2500 wouldn't surprise me.     Its also possible that it may utilize the same sensor technology as the rumored 46mp FF "big megapixel" sensor that we're supposed to hear about next year as well.  Realizing that 46mp happens to be the same pixel density as a 1.6x crop at 18mp, we could also suggest that the newer sensor generation could stay at 46 "ish" MP for the FF version, and spawn a 25 "ish"  sensor for the 7D2, making the former (FF) sensor perform better in those IQ areas driven by lower pixel density.   

a  high-fps dual digic 5+ 7D2 that shares the AF system of the 1DX and 5D3 is probably going to be priced more than $1800, just my opinion.  especially if it equals or outperforms those cameras in low-light AF performance and can either provide its own AF assist or at least impressively utilize those provided by shoe mounted accessories.  Time will tell how Canon positions this one, but to me the indications are that it's getting promoted to a higher pay curve with "flaghship crop" status, i.e. weather-sealed, grip-optional but otherwise worthy successor to the 1D4 type of body :D

too bad the AF systems are not perfected to work with IR assist...  that would be cool

BTW, another bonus would be GPS/Wifi borrowed from the 6D and/or integrated radio flash controller.  Canon is clearly moving away from optical controlled speedlites, so my guess is that this paves the way for a "no pop-up flash" on the 7D2 and an integrated radio controller.  just CR-1 speculation of course...

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 vs 6D AF in low light
« on: December 18, 2012, 10:59:15 AM »
Saying things like "I shoot alot of low light" doesnt mean anything really...

...I for one hardly take my flash with me - the camera takes great pictures in low light with some help from lightroom, but getting it to focus sometimes is a problem.

so....what IS low light to you?  are you approaching the EV limits of the AF system, or well within them?  These tests are all are very enagaing, but if we could express the level of light in terms of the EV numbering system understood by the photography world, it would be more meaningful.    Can someone please explain to me why this is either difficult or unattractive? 

Most of the the tests in the video were reasonably done.    For example, the guys did a good job of exposing the "snappy" (5D3) versus "heasitant" (D800) AF in the studio, which was revealing, to be sure, especially when acknowledged by the confessed Nikon shooter.  Notice he didn't even say anything like "when side by side there is really no important difference", as he did in the shadow DR comparison.   for the studio lighting condition the AF performance of the 5D3 was a definate, measureable, and meaningful advantage in real situations.

The low light focusing shootout was disapointing to me because it didn't really test the capabilities of the AF system's thesmselves in low light. All they did was point out that the D800 has an  AF assist capability that is useful at reasonable portrait distances when the visible AF assist light is acceptable.  Good information, to be sure, but low-light shooters don't necessarily want visible AF assist!  What they should have tested is situations where AF assist is either impossible (due to distance) or undesired. 

Back to the subject at hand, are you all saying that the 5D3's AF performance in low light (without flash attached)  isn't commensurate with the situation, i.e. shutter speeds that would be typical, subject movement etc?   Unless I've missed something, the only consistent performance issue meaningfully described here is that camera does not utilize the AF-assist beam from the flash very well. 

nice test gilmorephoto. emperically, very strong evidence that the 5D3 AF is not very good at utilizing the AF assist beam at least in the factory 'out of box' configuration.   By they way --  for a reality check  EV -1 is enough light to see where you are walking... and within the 5D3's ability to focus by itself without the AF beam.  With flash on board, the camera should be able to utilize the AF asset beam in  total darkness. 

the fact that a modern camera takes several second to acheive focus  using the flash AF assist beam  is rather astonishing to me.    I have tested the lowly 40D in this situation with the 580 EX ii  (70-200 f/2.8 and 17-55 f/2.8), and find that this body utilizes the AF assist beam quite handily, and acceptably acheives AF in total darkenss.   But then, the 40D AF center point isn't as precise as that of the 5D3 -- it may "see" more of the AF assist beam!

is there a geometry problem here - I mean is the AF system so precise that the AF assist beam doesn't nail the exact location of the center AF point?   is the hot shoe manufacturing dimmentional tolerances such that one camera will aim the flash better than another?  Has anyone mounted the flash off camera or at various distances and experimented with this?

If geometery is unrelated to this issue, then perhaps the AF sampling rate of the 5D3 does not live well with the pulse rate of the AF assist beam

EOS Bodies / Re: 6D vs 5Diii vs 5Dii - Speedlite AF Focus Beam Assist Tests
« on: December 12, 2012, 06:24:37 PM »
Michael -- re 70 seconds.  what EV level are we talking about? I can see the evidence of more accurate AF here, in the 5D3,  perhaps via more retries and/or higher credence level before the system is satisfied.  But I want to know do these numbers represent a severe corner case test or a comon real-world scenario?  even the speed deamon 5Dii took 45 seconds which is also an eternity if you have groomsmen in black tuxdos in a dimly lit church foyer.

I'm getting the feeling, from the wide variety of responses on this topic, that:

1.  we still do not have a solid, consistent, "repeatable by a monkey" use case representing a real scenario consistent with the marketing language,  that would communicate to Canon that the camera does not function in the way it was advertized.   

2.  there may even be some hardware related component here that is similarly not well understood.  Canon may have even changed something in the manufacturing process that would reduce the exposure of this problem to older 5D3s . I wonder, for example, what portion of the mis-behaving 5D3s have s/n lower than RustyTheGeek's replacement camera?

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 41