Messages

271

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What do you Love about the 5D3? POLL!

« on: November 15, 2012, 03:39:52 PM »

I like that there is nothing in particular that I dislike with the camera. They must have really listened to the feedback from mk II owners. The larger full coverage VF is my one favorite improvement.

I agree, Canon sure did listen.  The numerous refinements in the camera show plenty of evidence of that.  This thread is further evidence.  And it belies the threads on various forums that complain about Canon "not listening" or using "ancient sensors" or building a 5D3 that was only "minor update" over the 5D2.  The 5D3 is clearly designed to be closer to the 1D series in speed and handling, and may be more durable than the 5D2.  The only glitch is the black AF point thing, but it doesn't diminish the overall excellence of the camera.

272

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Will the release of the 6D affect the 5D MkIII's price?

« on: November 15, 2012, 09:58:32 AM »

Now I've discovered (as have others) that the low light focusing has serious issues, esp if AF Assist is enabled with a flash.  It can take 3-5 seconds to lock focus in low light like wedding receptions, etc.

I've shot a bunch of wedding receptions with the 5D3 and AF assist enabled on the flash and have had no problem at all.  It is a wonderful camera for wedding receptions.  With or without flash, the low light autofocus is excellent.  If it took 3-5 seconds to lock focus, I would have gotten rid of this camera immediately.  I hope you get that problem resolved.

273

EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?

« on: November 14, 2012, 05:44:07 PM »

We might want to enjoy what's available to us while it lasts. I'm actually pretty happy overall and can't really understand why people complain about high ISO performance and such. For the most part I would argue that nobody really need this. Decades of excellent wildlife (and other) pictures shot on 400 ISO film are proof to me. But then again, I'm not really the safari/Africa tourist to begin with so what do I know. I'd pay to be nowhere near such a thing.

I agree with you on enjoying what's available while it lasts.  I'm pretty happy overall too.  High ISO performance is better than ever before.  When I shoot the 5D2 and the 5D3 at ISO 6400 and compare the results, it is very clear that Canon has not been asleep.  Instead, they have delivered better high ISO performance (among many other improvements) — in response to the wishes of many photographers.  In the world of night-time indoor event photography, every bit of high ISO performance makes a difference (think candle light and other low light situations).  We can work without flash where flash was previously required.  And when we work with flash, less flash is needed — our flash travels farther and our flash batteries last longer.  We can capture action more easily.  And we can capture the ambiance better.  Of course, we still have to remember when to set the ISO manually. 

274

EOS Bodies / Re: A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]

« on: November 13, 2012, 01:47:57 PM »

lol yeah new technology for canon, ancient for other brands..

Can you please enlighten us as to what might be ancient technology for you? Are you talking about medium format or Nikon's D800? If yes, what's your point? Canon has been told not to push the megapixels for years. Nikon has been told to do the exact opposite. Both vendors reacted to the demands of their customer base.

Canon pushed the APS to 18Mp  years ago, they can expose a 18x24  cmos surface in one piece to an reasonable price=APS APS H
No, they have not the  sensor tech and the know how to make a 24x36mm sensor with high resolution and with a modern lay out  and to a competing low price.

"Both vendors reacted to the demands of their customer base"

What you base this statement on? People are asking after higher resolution from Canon and  a 24x36mm sensor.

Every time a higher megapixel camera is introduced, we see forum posts about the silliness of the "megapixel war" and how camera makers should really be focusing on improving other things, not "just" giving us more megapixels.  There are often comments about how megapixels are driven by marketing, not by photographers' demands.  A few years back, many photographers said that 8, 10 or 12mp was plenty for their work.  I remember a few photographers objecting the the original 12mp 5D as having "too many megapixels".  I know some who always shoot their 5D2 and 5D3 at the medium (10mp) raw file size.  No doubt Canon has listened to some of that; for example, they substantially upgraded the 5D2 to create the 5D3 without adding more megapixels.  The resulting 5D3 is for many photographers the dream version of the 5D2.

About the only thing I would like to see added to the "roadmap" is a new, improved 50mm f/1.4, sharper wide open and with more reliable AF.  I don't need more megapixels or a new sensor, at least not for my current work.  No doubt some Canon photographers do want more megapixels.  So I won't be surprised if Canon does introduce a high mp body to meet their needs.

275

EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?

« on: November 12, 2012, 05:51:11 PM »

..., the most frustrating feature is that the fitting of a flash to the 1D Mk4 forces Auto ISO to fix at 400. Damn nuisance if you are doing night work, want to work Manual at ISO 1600 with a fill flash and the clever Canon firmware decides that it is time to override your settings.  The 1DX has the same problem  feature. This could explain why 7 out of the 10 photographers that joined the leopard safari shot Nikon.

The original post has far too much erroneous doom & gloom for me to address, so I'll write about just one topic.  The fitting of a flash to the 1D4 or any Canon EOS camera only forces the ISO to 400 if one is using Auto ISO or the green program mode.  Why someone would feel this is a problem or limitation of the cameras is dumbfounding.  The obvious answer is:  don't use Auto ISO with flash.  Remember that ISO can be set manually.  Remember what we did before cameras had Auto ISO.  Indeed, from the dawn of the film era through most of the digital era, the photographer set the ISO, either manually or via choice of film.  Once set manually, the ISO stays set, flash or no flash.  Auto ISO works great without flash.  And flash works great with manual ISO.  There is simply no problem with any of this.  If this is putting a damper on someone's leopard safari, or making photographers switch to Nikon, well, they must be Auto-ISO-only shooters, which is rather oddly self-limiting.

276

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS

« on: November 09, 2012, 08:45:35 PM »

Seems like I'm part of that minority of people who are actualy grateful of having IS in a 35/2 lens.

May be you are part of the minority of people willing to pay 900$ for such a lens!!!
It's your right of course. I prefer to be part of the minority of people who enjoy the 35mm 1.4L ...

The lens is being introduced at $849, not $900.  And the introductory price most likely won't last.  The 24/2.8 IS was also introduced at $849 and is now $669 with the instant rebate — a much more reasonable price. 

So watch for the 35/2 IS to be $669 at some point, or at least closer to $700 than $900.  The 35/1.4L is currently $1,329 with the instant rebate, so it looks like the 35/2 IS will cost about half as much as the 35/1.4L after the introductory price falls.  That seems about right.

I love the 35/1.4L but it's quite large & heavy.  I'm looking forward to trying the new 35/2 IS as a possible substitute for or addition to the 35/1.4L.  A compact, high quality 35/2 with IS sounds like a fantastic lens.

277

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

« on: November 08, 2012, 08:26:37 PM »

There was one missing option in the list of questions. That is the ability to see constantly illuminated red AF points instead of the miserable, frequently camouflaged, often invisible tiny black AF points.

-PW

I agree!  That's one detail I wish they would improve/fix about the 5D3.  It is strange that this was overlooked.

Who knew this would degrade into the 5diii d800 flame war. I honestly don't think they are competitors in anything other than relative price point. Actually I love the 5diii would have paid more for it because I see it as a Nikon d4 at half the price. So canon made in my opinion the best event/all around ff camera. Nikon on the other has made the best 35mm landscape camera that approaches Mf quality. Different strokes for different folks. If I was an event shooter with Nikon I would laugh at the idea of switching to the d800, if I was a landscaper I'd consider it unless of course I had a couple of TS E lenses then I'd be happy with any canon body.

Very good points!  They have different strengths, so they don't compete strictly on price.

278

Lenses / Re: Can someone explain the Canon 50mmL f/1.2 "backfocus problem" ?

« on: November 08, 2012, 07:32:42 PM »

Focus shift is when the focal plane of the lens changes when you change the aperture of the lens.  All lenses focus with the aperture wide open, then stop down the aperture to your chosen setting as the shot is taken.  In the case of the 50mm f/1.2L, if you select an aperture narrower than f/1.2, down to about f/4, focus shift means that the lens will actually focus on a point that's behind your chosen focal plane.  At f/4 or a little narrower, the DoF is deep enough to mask the effect, because by then your chosen focal plane is within the DoF.  At very close subject distances, the DoF is shallower, and the effect of focus shift is exaggerated (you may need f/5.6 or even f/8 to get a deep enough DoF to mask the shift).

You are correct, but I've been using the 50/1.2L almost since it was introduced and have almost forgotten about the focus shift.  It's just not much of an issue.  I remember testing for focus shift when I first got the lens, and confirmed that it occurred at about f/2.8 at closer distances.  I often shoot at f/2.2 to f/3.5, where it should be a problem, but it isn't because my subjects are usually not that close. 

I could see it being more of an issue for some photographers.  I believe Canon could fix this with a floating element.  Perhaps an upgrade that we'll see in version II. 

279

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A positive feedback for 6D

« on: November 08, 2012, 07:20:11 PM »

+++1
I am in the same trouble as you, I own quite a bit of glass for my 5D2s, and agree fully with you, Canon is on a very bad slope.... The sensors are crap compared to Sony/Nikon, the AF systems are prehistoric, not talking about pre-war light metering or middle-age flash system. The only thing that speaks for Canon is (sorry WAS) their glass, but since years they just release version 2 of what's already existing. Canon Creativity is about zero, Nikon has improved quite a bit on glass and their prices are decent.

If you take the 28mm f2.8, the old version sells for 200 euros when the new one is 650 euros?? 3 times the price for a basic 28mm? New 24-70mm twice the price of the old one? I don't know what kind of drugs they are on at Canon's but it looks pretty strong......

The 6D is not even for sale it already looks like a joke compared to the 600D and guess what ? It's not available; by then the D600 will cost 300 Euro less....

I switched from Nikon when the 5D2 appeared because it was a revolution (sensor speaking), knowing that everything else was worse than my D200 with it's crappy sensor. As I use a tripod 95% of the time I can cope with the drawbacks. The 5D2 was not a revolution, it was a single event. Canon has not been able to release one camera that competes with Nikon since then (except maybe the 7D).

I really think canon takes people for stupid, they release the 6D with an integrated WiFi/GPS combo, but they charge 500 Euro (WiFi) + 250 Euro (GPS) for the 5D3 accessories. In 4 months they made such a technical progress that they could put it in their mid level camera but not in the Pro ones. Not that I think these features have any use in photography, but for the principle.... They just think we are MORONS.

Canon's releases (cameras, lenses, flashes) in recent years have been great upgrades for me, meeting my photography needs better than at any time since I started with Canon 10 years ago, so I disagree with just about everything you wrote.  Obviously Nikon is meeting the needs of some photographers better.  Likewise for Sony.  This is to be expected, as photographers have different needs and preferences.  If Nikon or Sony meet your needs better, then a switch is in order.

280

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

« on: November 08, 2012, 05:30:47 PM »

Forget about inflation, exchange rates, and all that. Those are all excuses. The 5D3 doesn't have to compete with a 5D2 released at $2700 4 years ago. It has to compete with the D800, which has a much better sensor and sells for $3000.

Right, it does have to compete against the D800, which was priced lower at introduction.  Happily, the 5D3 price is coming down.

However, the question of a "better sensor" depends on the intended use and the preferences of the user.  I prefer Canon color for photos of people, so the 5D3 has the better sensor for me.  If I were a landscape photographer, I'd probably favor the D800 sensor. 

And other important factors come into the equation.  Without a smaller Raw file format and without a super-quiet shutter mode and without Canon ergonomics and certain Canon lenses and the Canon radio-controlled flash, the D800 is less attractive for me, and therefor less competitive even at a lower price.  For these reasons, the 5D3 competes very well for some photographers, whether priced the same as the D800 or higher.  It comes down to the needs and preferences of the photographer. 

So there are multiple factors, some of which have greater importance to certain photographers; DR is just one of them.  Back when Nikon didn't offer a full-frame camera or any camera with excellent high ISO performance, some photographers still preferred Nikon because other factors were more important to them.  This is why reducing camera competitiveness to just one or two factors and a price doesn't work.

There are obviously many photographers for whom the D800 will be a better fit and likewise many for whom the 5D3 will be a better fit, notwithstanding any price differences.  It's apparent that Canon and Nikon intentionally design at least some of their products with somewhat different buyers in mind (with a good deal of overlap, of course) — this way they don't have to compete strictly on price.

281

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

« on: November 08, 2012, 03:34:31 PM »

Generally in parts costs for performance increase are not linear with the performance increase itself. a shutter that lasts 50% longer will cost more than 50% more to make as quality has to rise significantly. Lastly, as others have mentioned scale. iPads are sold by the millions and DSLRs are not pricing comes down with volume and usually efficiency can improve in manufacturing.

Excellent point about the shutter.  Cameras are not just computers or electronics; they are also mechanical.  Small improvements in shutter life, shutter lag time, mirror black-out time, autofocus acquisition and accuracy, etc., may have long development times, added material costs, added production costs, etc.  So improving a $100 part by just 50% may turn it into a $250 part.

And scale is a big factor.  This is partly why Leica cameras and lenses are so much more expensive.  They may make something like 50 cameras and 50 lenses per day (just a guesstimate).  All of their costs have to be recouped from a smaller batch of products.  Canon obviously has much higher production volume than Leica, even for expensive items like the 5D3 and 1DX, but not nearly on the scale of the iPad or iPhone.

Well apple is just an example. What I mean is Electronics in general will have improvements while keeping the price relatively steady or even declining.  I'm talking about time in relation to technology. If the 5D2 and 5D3 were released in the same time periord, I would totally understand the price difference. But we're talking about 4 years of techology advancements! If this trend continues, we are looking at the 5D4 for over $4k and the 5D5 for about $5K!

There is no trend.  The 5D was $3,300.  The 5D2 was $2,700.  The 5D3 was $3,500 (at introduction) and is $3,300 right now, and some sellers have offered it for under $3000.  The 5D2 was a modest improvement over the original 5D, and came in at a lower price.  While we were happy with the lower price, it seemed that many complained that it wasn't enough of an improvement over the original 5D.  More resolution, but same old autofocus, same old sluggishness, etc.  So Canon built the 5D3, executing on a long list of requested improvements and making a very noticeably upgraded product.

But it could have been Priced at $2600 

But it will be.  Just give it time.

282

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

« on: November 08, 2012, 02:37:26 PM »

I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.

My sense is that people always want more of everything.  More features, better quality, greater durability, better sealing, faster speeds, etc.  Improving anything requires greater investment by a manufacturer — in employees, research, development, materials, testing, manufacturing, quality controls, etc. — and of course charging accordingly.  But when a manufacturer introduces the improvements that people said they wanted, there is inevitably much complaining — even outrage — about the price.  "How dare they raise the price!?"  It's as if we forget that all of the extra things we ask for actually cost money.

The 5DIII is the perfect example of this.  Canon improved and upgraded just about every detail of the 5DII, as per many photographers' requests.  Then there was no end to complaints about the price.

Don't completely agree with this. Technology improvements are expected from one revision of a product to another, but it doesn't mean it should increase the price everytime an improvement is made. Look at other manufacturers, like Apple that introduces an ipad almost every year with improvements while keeping the price the same. A more relative example would be the Nikon D700, which had an introduction price of $2999 which is the same as the D800, while Canon increased their price of the 5D3 from the 5D2 about $700!

You're right, not every improvement needs to increase the price.  But many do.  It just depends on the improvement and how much it adds to production costs.  Apple products have much greater sales volume than cameras like the 5D3, so they can take advantage of greater economies of scale.  And I'm guessing production is very different and labor costs are lower than for high end cameras.

I'm not sure that the D800 is as radical an improvement on the D700 as the 5D3 is on the 5D2.  I'm honestly not familiar with the differences between those Nikons, other than that the D800 has a much higher res sensor.  But I do know that the 5D3 is an upgrade on the 5D2 in just about every detail.  The 5D3 is closer to the 1D series in quality, speed and features — and likely costs significantly more to build.

283

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon Surveys for 5D Mark III

« on: November 08, 2012, 01:16:20 PM »

I guess it's Canon sussing out the perception of the competition, but it might give some idea as to the future of the 5D. Make of it what you will.

My sense is that people always want more of everything.  More features, better quality, greater durability, better sealing, faster speeds, etc.  Improving anything requires greater investment by a manufacturer — in employees, research, development, materials, testing, manufacturing, quality controls, etc. — and of course charging accordingly.  But when a manufacturer introduces the improvements that people said they wanted, there is inevitably much complaining — even outrage — about the price.  "How dare they raise the price!?"  It's as if we forget that all of the extra things we ask for actually cost money.

The 5DIII is the perfect example of this.  Canon improved and upgraded just about every detail of the 5DII, as per many photographers' requests.  Then there was no end to complaints about the price.

284

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 08, 2012, 12:13:52 AM »

It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.

The new products are at higher price points because they are better than the old products.  It costs more to build things better.  If they built them for lower price points, they would be worse products than they are.

285

Lenses / Re: 24-70/4 MFT charts

« on: November 07, 2012, 01:45:16 PM »

It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed and so they are trying to get some of their money back by releasing some offshoot products.

How did they fail?  The 24-70/2.8L II seems to be a great success.  I've found it to be excellent so far.  It is the reason why I won't be buying the 24-70/4L, which will no doubt be a fine lens, but won't be as useful for indoor photography due to its f/4 aperture.