Messages

16

Lenses / Re: DXO tests the Canon 500 II and 600 II lenses

« on: May 31, 2013, 06:21:57 AM »

I can't imagine any pro photographer who is about to lay down £10K for their new mkII white lens will give any consideration to the DXO fantasy lab metrics.
We all know that 400IIL is optically as good as the mkI but weighs a lot less. We all know the 500IIL is stupidly light and slightly better optically to the mkI (although i've never found the mkI lacking). We all know that the 600L wasn't the critically sharpest of the big whites when wide open (but still very sharp) but the mkII is noticably sharper. So what's the point in passing these lenses through their labs? They didn't bother with most of the mkI lenses.
With the mkI lenses, I felt that the 400L was the most versatile. It's one of the sharpest lenses ever to come out of the Canon stables and it took 1.4x and 2x converters better than most lenses. But it is very heavy, like the 600L. With the mkII lenses, while the 400IIL is just as versatile as the mkI....it's a lot lighter. But the real star in the current mkII line up (in my opinion) is the new 500IIL. It's SO light it opens a lot more options for handholding and is far easier to move around with it. Sure the new 200-400L looks nice, but it's very heavy and not much lighter than the 400IIL. Given the choice I'd go for a 500IIL or a 400IIL or a 600IIL in that decending order.
My opinion on DXO labs hasn't changed over the last 4 years. Their weighting for their point scores are heavily swung according to their own internal brand bias.

17

Lenses / Re: Zeiss 100 f/2 vs. Canon 85 f/1.2 II vs. Canon 135 f/2

« on: May 28, 2013, 10:57:27 AM »

I'm looking to complete my three-lens setup and I'm debating between either the Zeiss 100 f/2, Canon 85 f/1.2 II or the Canon 135 f/2. I currently use the Sigma 35 f/1.4 and Canon 200 f/2.8, therefore I'm looking for a general purpose lens for portraits, street photography and macro (via extension tubes if I choose one of the Canons).

Any suggestions?

The Canon 100mm f2.0 USM is a very well regarded lens too. It's a bit of a sleeper, often passed over for the 85mm f1.8, 100mm L macro or 135L. Personally, I would choose the 100L macro if I was looking to add the veratility of a macro to my line up. I would choose the 85mm f1.8 over the f1.2 L for versatility and size. The L is not a light lens....it's like a cannon ball. I would choose a 135L if I wanted a mid tele as my main long lens.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files

« on: May 28, 2013, 07:23:44 AM »

My neighbor / cousin-in-law...just last week, bought a 1DX with his newly earned "toy money"...and claims he has now relegated his 5D3 to his wife, with a 50 1.4 attached, to make it easier for her to carry around. 

So I hope to attempt to put the 1DX to the test in low light at some point, hopefully with my 135L mounted.

I must say, holding his 1DX with 70-200 f/2.8 series 1, mounted...and then my 6D with 70-200 f/4 (non-IS), it was quite a lot more weight.  Holding his was kind of like holding three bricks, mine fealt light as a feather.  I would not want to walk around with that weight all day.  I own one lens that is a bit more weight than a 70-200 2.8, but I use it on a monopod.  I've rented superteles, and used them on the monopod also (or a tripod).

I might be seen as stupid for asking this, but it seems like much of the recent discussion in this thread, has degenerated into speaking about the 1DX's dynamic range and s/n ratio, at lower ISO.  And yet, the OP shoots basketball games, etc...in less than ideal light at higher ISO.  So why even discuss the low ISO capability, especially if all the independent tests indicate that higher ISO is where the 1DX really shines, and was obviously meant to be used?

It seems to me, that rather than compare the 1DX to Nikon crop bodies at low ISO, or to the 5D3 at most any ISO...that it should be compared to the Nikon D3s.  I suspect the D3s would give it a serious run for its money, perhaps in the ISO range from 1000 to 25,600.  Of course the file dimensions are only 12 MP from the D3s, but it would still be interesting to compare...because if the D3s really does have lower noise of both types, then the actual or practical resolution from the RAW files might be equal or even superior to the 1DX (at least as ISO goes up, perhaps above ISO 4000 or 5000).

It's interesting that the noise pattern of the 1DX might be larger and more difficult to overcome in post editing, since I've found the same true going from the 5D3's files, to my 6D.  The 6D's noise, especially the luminance noise (or "grain")...is about 1/3 the size of the 5D3's...at least on these particular bodies that I've used.

The 1dx is superior to the D3s in every regard. Is it even reasonable to compare a 2012 18mp flagship with a 2008 12mp (no longer state of the art flagship)?
The newer D4 should be compared to the 1Dx, but unfortunatly there's a number of pros leaving Nikon due to the lock ups and problems with their D4 cameras. Nikon have seriously dropped a clanger with this cam. Late last year I was at Birds in flight workshop and there were several guys on Nikkon bitching about their new D4 cams. Both of them swapped over to their backup D3s cams within an hour of shooting. I was the only 5DIII user (no issues and lots of great photos) and two guys with 1Dx's...again no issues and lots of great shots...the AF was amazing by the way. The 1Dx was slightly better at tracking than the 5DIII

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mk3 Reliability

« on: May 28, 2013, 07:12:59 AM »

Ok, just over a year on one 5DIII and a few months on my second 5DIII. My oldest cam has taken a bit of damage this weekend, the top LCD cover has cracked quite spectacularly and will need replacing and there's a single screw missing from the bottom casing...not sure how that's happened, but I remember having a simular issue with my 5D classic a number of years back.  I use a dual camera harness system (it's good for my back and allows instant access to my cams....plus it looks cool) so my cameras tend to bounce about a bit.

Plastic covers get cracked quite easily, becuase they are designed to fail and absorb damage. Although this is the first time I've done this on a camera, I've broken a an AF windows on a lens before (70-200 L IS II).
The rear LCD on the 5DIII is now unprotected. All previous 5D cams had a plastic over lay / protector which broke fairlu easily. But the current model has the LCD glass bonded to the outer casing. If that breaks (and it's a lot tougher than the plastic protectors) it'll be a lot more expensive to repair.

20

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Canon 5D mark 3 in-camera HDR shots

« on: May 26, 2013, 06:41:44 PM »

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7309/8733473482_19c81e5f86_b.jpg

Built-in 5D Mark III HDR, Art Vivid. I like the results except for the transitions between sky and land (trees etc) - glow.

I'm not really seeing what you are getting at in that particular shot. Are you sure you have linked the right image?

21

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 26, 2013, 06:39:03 PM »

For my needs and wants, a 7DII must offer two things over the current model:
Iso noise which is a lot better (I'm talking about a huge disparity between a 5DII and 7D) and the general per pixel image quality. When compared to the output from a 5DII/III the 7D was often left wanting. The rest of the original 7D is still very competitive and very usable...but anything over Iso 400 wasn't for me.
I loved the AF system, the 8fps, the handling, everything except the sensor...the most un-Canon camera Canon have made!

22

Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400mm review

« on: May 26, 2013, 06:32:33 PM »

http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

Lol...I was in the audience when this shot was taken and yes I saw this chap with this lens in the Press pit.
Give me a few days and I'll dig out a photo of this very moment from a less ideal spot

Which of the 6 different shots are you talking about?

Soz, First shot and on review it was a different day. His shot was during one of the qualifying heats. I was there for the finals and she was wearing white on that particular day:

23

Lenses / Re: EF 14-24mm and Filters

« on: May 26, 2013, 06:08:03 PM »

how likely is it that a EF 14-24mm can be used with screw on filters?

will it have a bulged frontelement that prevents the use of filters?

The best way to handle filters for lenses such as this is to do what they do with the big telephoto lenses and put the filter at the rear of the lens.

Not really....the CPL is a tricky thing to turn on those big lenses and the rear gel filter holders on ultra wides (8-15L and 14L) aren't appropriate for CPL's or ND grads.

24

EOS Bodies / Re: Make yourself happy

« on: May 24, 2013, 06:40:21 AM »

This is my idea of fun!

I'm just waiting for someone to post that their 600mm f4 snapped off their EOS-m when they picked up the camera and not the lens.....It's gonna happen at some point!

25

EOS Bodies / Re: Make yourself happy

« on: May 24, 2013, 06:37:28 AM »

The 100D has no Kelvin WB, so no sale.

?? What a strange statement to make??
It can shoot in RAW....and that's really easy to adjust WB.

If you don't have a need or want for a 100D, just say so...but please don't hinge buying / not buying based on some buried tech spec. It just sounds like Cognative Dissonance.
I have no need or want for a 100D...I have a pair of 5DIII's and an S90 which fullfill all of my photographic needs. There is little that a 100D which my 5DIII's can't!

26

Lenses / Re: Canon 200-400mm review

« on: May 24, 2013, 06:06:30 AM »

http://pixsylated.com/blog/peter-read-miller-canon-200-400mm-london-olympics/

Lol...I was in the audience when this shot was taken and yes I saw this chap with this lens in the Press pit.
Give me a few days and I'll dig out a photo of this very moment from a less ideal spot

27

Lenses / Re: What is the next Canon lens you want or covet and why...

« on: May 24, 2013, 06:03:19 AM »

I only covet my neibours OX or is that OSX 

28

Lenses / Re: Will Canon ever release a 100-300 f/2.8 zoom? Thoughts?

« on: May 24, 2013, 05:59:52 AM »

A 140-285/2.8 is pretty much a mythical 200-400/4 with a wider AoV and a 1.4x telecompressor built in. Use that as the basis of the price and availability, should Canon come to the conclusion that there is a market for such a lens.

With the 70-200 II and 300 II and most pros having two bodies, I'd have thought there's not much call for such a lens. Especially bearing in mind what the zoom would be likely to cost.

It would probably be more expensive and heavier than the current 300mm f2.8 L IS II...so is there a point in bringing such a lens to the market? Especially considering the failings of the Sigma 120-300 OS, it would need to be a true 300mm at the long end and keep that focal lenght through the focus range, a true f2.8 and have stellar AF and IQ. It would be bigger and heavier that the prime....so why not take a 70-200 f2.8 on one cam and the prime on another? It's not too difficult and a lot of press pros already do that.
A classic pro line up is either a 16-35/24-70/70-200 line up or a 24-70/70-200/300 line up. Each with a cam fitted, ready to shoot.

29

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 and 24 1.4 II L owners please read!!!!!!!!!!!!

« on: May 24, 2013, 05:53:09 AM »

What Neuro said is also applicable to the 7D, metering is weighted more towards what is in focus [...]

This is how Canon's evaluative metering worked since the 300D (at least). I noticed however that my 350D and my 50D were more sensitive to the AF point than my 5D2.

Yep my old 5D classic was really AF hotspot prone too. In fact every Canon SLR I've used has always been highlight shy, even my old A-1 film slr. In the Digital world this is a good thing because we should all be shooting to preserve our highlights if possible.
AF linked metering is a good thing and not a bad thing. Otherwise all our compositions would be centrally placed to match out metering.

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why is my 5D3 so noisy???

« on: May 24, 2013, 05:48:13 AM »

F9 indoors?

My friend who used to photograph weddings once wondered why his flash couldn't keep up at f5.6 when inside.  I have enough troubles at f2.8.

To be honest if your friend was wondering that, then I'm wondering what he was doing shooting weddings in the first place.

Lol....which says a lot about a large amount of the current crop of new wedding photographers....have camera...can click a button in Auto. After all, P is for Professional..right?