Messages

91

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D or 5D3 for low light candids?

« on: February 13, 2013, 01:49:27 AM »

5D3 is a better low-light camera.  But the 24-105/4 is not the lens for low-light candids — generally speaking.  If low-light candids are a priority, get the 5D3 and buy a different lens.  Pretty much any fast prime or f/2.8 zoom would be my preference for low-light candids.

92

Lenses / Re: Anyone Want an Improved 16-35mm over the much requested 14-24mm?

« on: February 13, 2013, 12:35:12 AM »

I much prefer 16-35 to 14-24.

93

Canon General / Re: Physical Ailments From Heavy Gear

« on: February 12, 2013, 02:38:54 PM »

Canon has a bunch of small prime lenses which are fabulously lightweight.  Pick any ONE of these and you will save a lot of weight.

24/2.8 IS
28/2.8 IS
28/1.8
35/2.0 IS
40/2.8 STM pancake
50/1.4 USM
50/2.5 Macro
50/1.8

But pick just one, not two or three.  In particular, the 40mm pancake lens is a delight to carry.

94

Canon General / Re: Post-Processing Woes

« on: February 10, 2013, 02:19:09 PM »

It helps to have a reference image up on the screen and to compare the image you're working on to the reference image.  If you work on pictures of people, the reference image should be a correctly exposed and processed portrait.  The white balance should be right on.  There should be a good skin tone and a neutral white or gray.  Because the reference image is a known constant, it keeps your eyes from getting fooled.  Otherwise, it is easy for your eyes to get fooled if you've been staring at the screen for a while.  Just pop the reference image up on the screen next to your current image and you can instantly see if anything about your current image is technically off (including brightness, color and contrast). 

Helpful advice and reference image here:  http://www.atkins.com.au/2012/07/colour-correcting-using-a-reference-image/

Oh yes, and it is essential to calibrate the monitor using a calibration device.  But even with a calibrated monitor, it is easy for your eyes to get fooled.  A reference image is a constant, so it is helpful even if your monitor gets mis-calibrated after a while, or if your brightness setting is way off one day.

95

Lenses / Re: Considering the Zeiss 21

« on: February 10, 2013, 10:58:13 AM »

Canon urgently needs to replace the 16-35 and 17-40. Or at least the 17-40. That's even if they bring out a 14-24 or similar. Otherwise, yes, get the 21 because nothing from Canon compares.

Perhaps not so urgently, considering ...

Here's a comparison of the TS-E24mm f/3.5L Mark II vs Zeiss 21mm by Darwin Wiggett: http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/a-quick-lens-test-canon-ts-e-24mm-versus-zeiss-21mm/.

Wiggett concludes:  "Sharpness is much better with the Canon lens and I was pleased to see  little or no fringing. The winner here is clearly the Canon lens."

96

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 09, 2013, 11:51:42 PM »

Thanks for the reply neuroanatomist. The 70-200/4 is $710 at Amazon, so that would be well within my price range. I'll definitely keep that one in mind.

I was really disappointed with that lens.  I owned 2 or three copies that I bought either to keep or to resale at a profit... and all three got sold.  So... not my favorite option... but there are people who really like it.

I like the 70-200/4 very much, but the IS version.  I have used it quite a lot and always find it to be excellent.  Without IS, however, it would not be as useful.

97

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM

« on: February 09, 2013, 11:41:26 PM »

What I'm looking for is a second lens to compliment the 40mm. Something well under $1,000 that is fun to shoot with, and that will serve a clear purpose where in situation X I'll definitely prefer my new lens to the 40mm prime. I think the answer probably involves a focal length that is further removed from 40mm (such as 200?).

The lens that will compliment the 40 and serve a clear purpose in situation X is ...

... it depends entirely on what situation X is.  Without knowing what it is, the 18-135 range would be highly recommended as it covers a lot of different situation X's.   If you replace the 18-135 with a 200, you may encounter a number of situation X's that are covered by neither the 40 nor the 200, as you will not have a wide angle at all.  Your complimentary lens may be a 15 fisheye, 20, 24, 28, 50, 85, 200, 300, etc.  Or for birds, perhaps 400, 500 or 600 (though all are over $1,000).  It all depends on what you want to photograph.  If you're not sure, keep the 18-135.

98

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line

« on: February 09, 2013, 03:13:07 PM »

Personally I can't wait for their 85mm f/1.4 art line lens (assuming they will actually make one).  If it's as good as the 35mm, it could be an awesome alternative to the 85mm f/1.2L.

Isn't the current Sigma 85/1.4 already an awesome alternative to the 85L?

According to DxO, the Sigma 85/1.4 scores higher than any Canon lens.  I haven't tried the lens, but I have to wonder how that is possible.

99

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: future of sigma art line

« on: February 09, 2013, 03:03:04 PM »

How about a Sigma 28mm f/1.4?  Canon doesn't make one.

100

Lenses / Re: Roger Buys a Camera System: A 24-70mm System Comparison

« on: February 07, 2013, 07:30:43 PM »

I'd easily recommend a D800 to someone using it for low ISO landscape images when they only took a few at a time, but not for someone who uses it in very low light and shoots 500 or more images a night at ISO 6400 or above.
Its merely a matter of the best tool for the job.

I agree.  For landscape, D800 (or D800E) is the way to go.  I typically shoot in low light (weddings), lots and lots of images, high ISO, etc., so Canon works better for me — better skin tone, radio-control built into the flash, and the option of smaller Raw file sizes.

101

Lenses / Re: DXOMark Reviews the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS

« on: February 07, 2013, 02:08:05 PM »

I do like this lens, looks like a solid performer that I'm thinking of adding to my spread sooner or later  Prefer this over the Sigma 1.4 for size and weight + travel.

+1.  That is an outstanding score on DxO, better than some very fine lenses.  And the size & weight make it very attractive.

102

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 03:40:08 PM »

I just expected more after 8 years of technology development.
....
So, this thread started as a comparison of image quality at f8 and 100ASA, between cameras that are 8 years apart.

At f/8 and ISO100, pretty much every camera looks good.  That's not where technology development has been directed.  You're comparing 16.7mp to 22mp and finding that the differences are minor.  This is to be expected as it is only 15% more in linear resolution (files 5760px wide instead of 4992px wide).  15% is just barely noticeable. 

And you're not seeing the slight benefit of even that minor resolution increase because you're comparing both images at 100%.  With this method, the lower resolution camera always looks crisper.  This is like using a magnifying glass to compare a 10-inch print to an 11.5-inch print of the same scene and concluding that the 10-inch print looks slightly sharper because every detail is 15% smaller. 

However, technology hasn't stood still — 8 years of technology development has resulted in improved high ISO performance, and a much lower camera cost to achieve comparable image quality (at least when you compare these two models).

103

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 09:51:21 AM »

Here are two 100% crops...
Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.

If you down-res the the 5DIII photo to match the 16.7mp of the 1DsII, it will look sharper.  Or enlarge the 1DsII image to match the 22mp of the 5DIII and it will look less sharp.  The 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene, so it looks less sharp.  If you had a 36mp photo of the same scene and viewed it at 100%, it would look even less sharp.  Also the unfortunate moire effect in the 5DIII photo is usually a result of greater resolution, not less.

This really makes no sense.

If I have tiny real details and texture in the white blinds on the windows in 1DsII sample
and I only have moire in the 5DIII sample,

why do you think that just by downsampling the 5DIII file to 1DsII file size, the detail that is not present in the 5DIII file will magically appear,
...or that just by upsampling the 1DsII file to 5DIII file size, the visible detail in the 1DsII file will magically disappear? 

The resolved details are present in the files or they are not.

You can just try what you have suggested - use the crops that i have posted above,
resize them both way to match each other
and see if the lost details will appear in 5DIII file when you downsize it,
or if the fine resolved details will dissapear from 1Ds file by upsizing it.

Except for the moire effect, I don't see detail in the 1DsII image that isn't in the 5DIII image.  Moire is a problem, but you are mistaking moire for lower resolution.  Moire results from interference between detail in the scene and the grid of pixels in the sensor.  It is more likely to occur with higher resolution.  Higher resolution cameras such as the D800E are a magnet for moire, much more so than say the original 12mp 5D.

It is fact that when you view both images at 100%, the 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene.  If you could compare the original 12mp 5D to the 22mp 5DIII, both at 100%, the original 5D would undoubtedly look crisper.  This is a fact of life of higher resolution cameras:  as the resolution gets higher, the images look less crisp if you keep looking at them at 100%.

Here is your 1DsII image up-ressed to match the 5DIII image (still at 100%) below it:

104

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:35:23 AM »

The thing I noticed between the my 1dsII and the 5DII & III is, the 1DsII has less DR and in a sense makes the photo seem crisper since the image is natively more contrasty.

Oh yes, that's a good point.  The camera with greater dynamic range will present a less contrasty image.  The camera with less dynamic range will present an image that looks crisper overall.  But greater dynamic range is usually preferred as you can always add contrast.

105

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: I just finished comparing my old 1Ds MkII (mark two!) and the new 5D MkIII

« on: February 06, 2013, 12:28:10 AM »

Here are two 100% crops...
Scroll them to the right to see those windows with white blinds:
real usable detail in 16.7mp 1Ds MkII files,
mushy moire in 22mp 5D MkIII files.

If you down-res the the 5DIII photo to match the 16.7mp of the 1DsII, it will look sharper.  Or enlarge the 1DsII image to match the 22mp of the 5DIII and it will look less sharp.  The 5DIII is presenting a bigger image of the same scene, so it looks less sharp.  If you had a 36mp photo of the same scene and viewed it at 100%, it would look even less sharp.  Also the unfortunate moire effect in the 5DIII photo is usually a result of greater resolution, not less.

Both look extremely good — very, very similar.  If I had to choose, the 5DIII photo looks slightly more natural to me.  Extra sharpness in 100% crops can look overly digital and is not necessarily welcome.