Messages

301

Lenses / Re: About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....

« on: October 01, 2012, 04:05:08 PM »

I think this is only a part of the problem. If you check the measurement data sheet, the 300L maxes out at ~50lp/mm, whereas e.g. the 28-135 reaches or exceeds 70lp/mm across the focal length range. The 70-300 non-L also shows higher lp/mm at 300mm. Utter rubbish, even more so than their sensor shenanigans.

Their results are absolutely screwed up.  They run counter to the experience of many photographers.  A few have testified to that very clearly in this thread. 

Is there even a single Canon photographer who would rank the 85/1.8 at the top of all Canon lenses?  I doubt that there is even one.  If the DxO lens ratings were at all meaningful, then we could all SEE that the 85/1.8 offered the best resolution.

The 85/1.8 is an excellent lens and a great bargain, but there is simply no way that it is the king of the Canon lenses.  No way.  This result, like so many measurements at DxO, simply doesn't accord with everyday experience. 

I find the 85 focal length much more useful than 135, but the 135L is without doubt the better resolving lens.  Here is evidence:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

302

Lenses / Re: Using the 24-70 II for documentary wedding photography - my review

« on: September 29, 2012, 08:59:59 AM »

Great!  Thank you for the review!  Very interesting to read your review of this lens as I have much the same needs from it.  Very good point about "appropriate" depth of field too.

303

Lenses / Re: Using the 24-70 II for documentary wedding photography - my review

« on: September 28, 2012, 10:56:18 PM »

I just sent Mark a PM about the web site's error message.  I'm eager to read his review.

304

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 - problem?

« on: September 27, 2012, 03:14:31 PM »

I bought my first 5DMKII in '08 and have two plus a MKIII. I have NEVER turned the mode dial by accident on either MKII.  I don't know if I hate the button on the MKIII, but to me it is definitely more of a hinderance than a help.  I would definitely prefer the camera without it.

I've also used the 5D2 since 2008, but have occasionally accidentally moved the mode dial and have missed photos as a result.  The dial on the 5D2 is not very stiff.  I think the locking dial on the 5D3 (and also on the 60D) is an excellent feature.  It keeps me from accidentally going into Bulb mode (yikes!) or Manual when I thought I was in Av mode.  Having to push the button on the 5D3 feels awkward at first, but quickly becomes second nature.  I don't give it any thought now, and I'm confident that the mode I set will stay set until I decide to change it.  So I do prefer the locking mode dial.

By the way, the locking mode dial was an available upgrade on the 5D2.  Canon started offering this modification in response to requests from photographers.

305

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Any update on 1DX / 5D3 AF point display?

« on: September 27, 2012, 03:06:58 PM »

I would not call baseball stadiums and football stadiums as being horribly lit.  They have reasonable lighting, unless the teams are playing in the dark.
The issue comes when literally using the camera in the dark with only extremely dim lights. 

I have to agree.  I think stadiums have reasonable lighting.  The problem for me is when photographing weddings in the evening, sometimes by candle light or the equivalent.  The AF point display is the only detail that I would like fixed on the 5D3, which is otherwise excellent for my work.

306

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony Rx-1

« on: September 27, 2012, 02:59:58 PM »

Just curious - how interested are you guys in purchasing this camera as a secondary backup to your DSLR? If not this specific sony rx-1 how about a canon full frame compact camera?

Is there a market for it? What's a price you'd be willing to pay?

While the rx-1 looks and sounds amazing - I don't know that I could stomach spending 3k on a fixed lens camera. The idea behind it is awesome tho. I'm reading lots of rumors of the nex-9 (or whatever it ends up being) that will be Sony's FF mirrorless camera entry.

Now that I might pick up.

Kinda interested what everyone's thoughts were on this.

Its an amazing camera, and wouldn't mind the fixed lens. Its just that I rather get an EOS-M for 799$

I agree, the Sony looks amazing.  The few image samples that Sony has posted look amazing too.  But it's pretty expensive.  The EOS-M isn't that different from the Sony and is just a small fraction of the price ($800 vs. $2,800).  As far as I can tell, the key differences are that the EOS-M has an APS-C sensor and lacks the manual aperture dial and ... well ... likely the Sony offers better image quality.  On the other hand, the EOS-M accepts interchangeable lenses, while the Sony doesn't.

307

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 03:19:52 PM »

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW.

You may want to Google this and review mRAW and sRAW creation.

Why Google it when my cameras create these files all of the time and there is no perceptible difference in write speed vs. full RAW?  The buffer clears in about the same time as when writing full RAW.  Is Google going to tell me that it takes 30-60 seconds to create a medium RAW file?  If so, it is wrong.

I'm pretty sure Nikon doesn't offer medium/small RAW because Canon has the patent, not because "it takes extra processing time".

308

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 02:09:14 PM »

The 5d3 is designed to be a beast of a wedding/event camera.  It can handle most other stuff well too, but it is designed first and foremost as a wedding camera.  The D800 is designed to be a studio/landscape camera.  Both are very good at what they are designed to do.   Kind of just wish people would realize that and move on...lol

Exactly right!

309

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 02:05:01 PM »

With all of the vulnerability you claim Canon is having, one would think you would be the first to be selling your Canon gear.  You say the D800 and D600 have superior sensors, and yet you haven't sold your Canon gear in order to buy Nikon?

these braindead arguments are very popular.

you can´t criticise canon without some clown (with a rebel and a kit lense probably) jumping in the discussion telling you to sell your gear.   

You can criticize Canon as much as  you wish, but when you make claims that Canon is failing and losing customers because of the supposed superiority of Nikon products, then you can expect to be asked why don't switch to the supposedly superior camera.  If it's so SUPERIOR, as claimed, then a switch would be the rationality and intelligent thing to do.  Who wouldn't want superior gear?  If a person makes such claims and states them as facts, but isn't switching, then that raises strong questions about their claims and their rationality.

310

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 01:54:42 PM »

m/sRAW is indeed much the same as a JPEG. It is a processed image format. Ironically, both use a YCC-base chromaticity/luminance storage structure, and both are compressed. The only real difference is that JPEG is lossy-compressed, where as m/sRAW are losslessly compressed. But none of them are actually "RAW"...they take the RAW data from the sensor, process it, and burn in the tone curves (picture style) and all the other camera settings into a final output image. You have more latitude in an m/sRAW image than a JPEG because it is not compressed with a lossy algorithm...so you have all the original YCC data, and because that original YCC data is 14bpc, rather than 8bpc.

You can push exposure around in post with m/sRAW a bit, and you can do moderate white balance corrections. But if you need the ability to do any significant editing in post (say, when you accidentally over- or under-expose a photo), your pretty much screwed if you use either one of those "RAW-but-not-really" formats. I've experimented extensively with them, and particularly with highlights and white balance, your freedom to correct is greatly limited relative to a true RAW.

Granted s/mRAW is not the same as full RAW, but your characterization of it as "much the same as JPEG" is not at all my experience.  I process 100's, usually 1,000's, of m/sRAW files every week and your characterization is not at all what I see.  If there is any less correct-ability than for full RAW, it is not meaningful in my work.  Perhaps your work is different.  I have all the latitude I need with m/sRAW files, but don't with JPEG.  With m/sRAW, I have made substantial adjustments to white balance and exposure many times with excellent results.  You can push them around in post more than just "a bit".

311

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 12:39:21 PM »

The reason why it isn't offered is because it takes extra processing to make a med raw file meaning way longer than a human can tak for a file size that large unless it had CFast 2 the new compact flash card system and stellar buffer.

Sorry, I don't understand your point about extra processing time.  Canons shoot just as fast in mRAW and sRAW as in full RAW. 

312

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 12:21:45 PM »

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!

Not only that, the camera will NOT likely shoot mRAW or sRAW.  Unless you want to wait 30-60 seconds between shots and wait on the camera to convert the RAW down to m or s.  Nikon chose not to do this in their D800/E models because of that reason.

mRAW and sRAW are great.  I use the medium RAW quite a lot.  It is not "the same as JPEG".

Of course the rumored 46mp Canon would offer mRAW and sRAW.  These are highly desirable options that Nikon doesn't offer.

313

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:48:30 AM »

After 4 years what we see is basically a resolved AF. Thats great, but given the resources of Canon for R&D, it's just laughable how they advanced sensor-wise. Basically they didnt.

You seem to be uninformed about the list of improvements going from the 5D2 to the 5D3.  Canon's R&D was busy addressing numerous requests from professional photographers, and they delivered brilliantly.  The AF is not just "resolved" as you say; it is upgraded to 1D-series level.  And you're incorrect about Canon not advancing the sensor.  I shoot both 5D2 and 5D3 and I see the advance in the sensor every week.  The 5D3 has significantly better high-ISO performance, which makes a big difference for my work.

314

EOS Bodies / Re: mhm... open letter to canon?

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:37:18 AM »

...then go buy Nikon.

well many would.... if they had not thousands of euros invested in canon glass.

Easy to sell it.  Very easy:  eBay.  You can sell all of your Canon gear within a week.  I've never had a problem selling my used Canon gear and have always gotten a fair price.  The loss on resale is modest, certainly fair for the use I've gotten out of the gear.

315

EOS Bodies / Re: More Big Megapixel Talk [CR1]

« on: September 26, 2012, 11:34:39 AM »

So finally a rumor to stop the bleeding of people owning Canon gear selling up for Nikon.

i.e. this rumor was to be expected after the combination of the D800 and D600 showed up Canon's current full frame sensor being found wanting.

Expect the 5D Mark III to have a shorter life than either then 5D or 5D Mark II.

So, are you one of the people "owning Canon gear selling up for Nikon"?

Whether or not I am is not the point.

This rumor is strategic in nature, as will be the announcement of the camera next month, because it is talking to specific feature/performance areas where Canon is currently vulnerable.

Canon need to do something to keep people from wondering whether or not their R&D has fallen behind and cannot keep up with the pace that Sony have set.

With all of the vulnerability you claim Canon is having, one would think you would be the first to be selling your Canon gear.  You say the D800 and D600 have superior sensors, and yet you haven't sold your Canon gear in order to buy Nikon?