Messages

106

Software & Accessories / Re: RAW Pics processing programs for 6D

« on: January 31, 2013, 09:26:12 AM »

Lightroom 4 does an excellent job with 6D RAW files (just as it does with the RAW files from any other camera I've used; I also have DxO 8, but I don't think it's as good).

107

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: a digital photography noob has a question about image quality

« on: January 30, 2013, 11:24:20 AM »

As others have said, you will notice differences as the light goes down and/or ISO goes up.  If you don't expect to shoot at ISOs higher than c. 800, you will see few differences (aside from the obvious ones of crop magnification and depth of focus) if you start out with the correct exposure.  If you need to tweak highlights or shadows, you can get more out of a RAW full-frame image. 

As for the superior features the 5DIII has compared to your 650D, how much do they matter to you?  They don't much to me, which I why I decided to supplement my 5DII with a 6D rather than a 5DIII; and the 6D is even (albeit only marginally) better than the 5DIII in low light.  Had you asked for such advice, if those features don't matter much to you either I would suggest returning the 5DIII in exchange for a 6D (I would probably want to keep the 650 D as a back-up for such an important trip; or, if this is affordable, a second FF camera such as a second-hand 5DII).

108

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D or 5D Mark III

« on: January 29, 2013, 11:28:12 AM »

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.

Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.

The advantages the 6D has over the 5DII in low light are considerably less noise (slightly less noise than the 5DIII too, for that matter) at high ISOs (though coming from any APS-C camera the 5DII will seem pretty amazing) and slightly better focusing in the dark (though the 5DII has usually impressed me there, too).  Otherwise, the photos you take will look much the same whether it's 5DII or III or 6D - though of course, depending on what you shoot, focus accuracy may be higher with one vs the others.  (It may seem a small detail, but I find the silent modes of the 6D and 5DIII a big improvement over the 5DII - I get embarrassed noisily clicking away with my 5DII in churches, museums and other quiet places.)   While he's still in the US the original poster may want to rent these cameras and find out just which features he would(n't) miss.  For my purposes a 5DIII doesn't have $1000 worth of advantages over the 6D, so I just bought one of those (currently $1900 at B&H).     

109

Lenses / Re: Can You Beat it?

« on: January 28, 2013, 12:17:57 AM »

EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM @ just under $800?

I don't own any L glass.  For this price it looks like a good first L lens for my FF camera.

What do you think?

If you want 200mm, like primes and don't need IS, don't hesitate.

110

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 27, 2013, 04:42:49 PM »

• It continues to shock me that Canon is top of the line for lenses, AF, and ergonomics (in my opinion), yet it continues to have poor sensors compared to the competition.  I don't put too much faith in those DXO scores, but the dynamic range data out there, particularly in low ISO, gives compelling reason that Sony/Nikon sensors are a solid step ahead of Canon's.  Heck, in some of these tests we're seeing lower price point sensors beat the Canon counterparts (D600 trumping the 5D3, for instance).

How many of those complaining about Canon's "poor" sensors have done a real world comparison as opposed to reading lab reports?  I own a 5DII and a Rebel and recently rented a 5DIII and, together, a 6D and Nikon D600 and spent a few days switching between the D600 and 6D.  Not once did I think the image created by the D600 looked better than its 6D counterpart, (I tend to prefer the colours conjured up by Canon, and I'm inclined to attribute the greater sharpness of the Canon photos to the superiority of the Canon lenses, but who knows?), and I found the D600 a pain to use.  The Nikon sensor may have superior dynamic range, but I was able to restore detail to blown-out highlights in LR4 at least as well in the 6D as I was in the D600.  The D600 may allow for better detail retrieval at the opposite end of the spectrum, but that's not something I tend to do and in the couple of photos I tried the differences struck me as trivial.   Others may feel different, depending on how/what they shoot.  But I certainly didn't come away from the experience with sensor envy, let alone Nikon lens envy (as for Nikon's ergonomics...); rather, I just bought a 6D.   

(I have no comment on the relative virtues of current crop sensors; I used to own a Pentax K-5, which probably had the best sensor of any crop DSLR, slightly better in low light than that in my Rebel - the trouble is, you have to put up with inferior focusing, generally inferior lenses etc., etc.)

111

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

« on: January 27, 2013, 04:21:47 PM »

It would be nice to have an update on the 50mm f/1.4 - at least I am curious about it.

What would be the improvement in a new 50 f/1.4 have over the old one?
As an amateur the current lens works pretty well for me. Took a picture just yesterday. Very low light. Only source was a flatscreen. No NR applied.

oh that´s simple.

AF that does not break that often.
the 50mm f1.4 is one of the lenses where the focus breaks quite often.

better border sharpness.
better sharpness at f1.4

less bokeh fringing.
better bokeh overall on FF cameras.

the lens is good but that does not mean there is nothing to improve.

+1

Better control of coma would be nice, too.

112

Canon General / Re: Why did you choose Canon?

« on: January 26, 2013, 07:22:01 PM »

After progressing from cheap film cameras to digital point-and-shoots and not much liking them, something induced me a few years ago to try a real digital camera, and I dipped my toe in the water via a Nikon D3100.  I went from being bowled over by its superiority over what I had used before to being conscious of how it could be better in terms of image quality, and after its autofocus mechanism broke a mere four months after I bought it I started investigating other cameras.  Much research let me to a Pentax K-5, in part because it seemed to do best in low light/high ISO among crop sensor DSLRS (as you may know, it has much the same sensor as a Nikon D7000).  It seemed a definite step up (in price, too!).

But as with the Nikon D3100 I started to think, well, good though this is, it could be even better and decided to see for myself what all the fuss was about with FF and rented one.  Not sure why I chose a 5DII to rent rather than a Nikon, but when it showed up I was impressed by the improvement (especially low light/high ISO) in picture quality and amazed by the superiority of the L lens I rented simply as a piece of machinery.  So, I sold all my Pentax and Nikon gear and switched to Canon, buying a 5DII with a Rebel for back-up (the 5DIII was not yet available).  When the Nikon D600 was so cheap before Christmas I checked back in with Nikon by renting one along with a 6D and 5DIII, but the superiority of D600's sensor was lost on me; good though it is, I never preferred the images I took with it (plus, as with the D3100, I hate the convoluted controls).  Canon has more lenses that appeal to me too.  So for now I'm sticking with Canon (am impatiently awaiting the arrival of a 6D on Monday).

113

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What is the 6d actually good at (*positive* fact list)?

« on: January 17, 2013, 03:54:20 PM »

I can believe that. But should any of that really affect your decision to get one of the 3 cameras over the other? I

i agree, but that is a different point.

in this forum a lot of people spend more time arguing about technical stuff then shooting.
so you have to be technical correct!

the canon fanboys can talk hours about sharpness of one lens vs. the other.

but don´t you dare to say canon sensors lack behind sony/nikon.. then you will hear that doesnt matter.
i guess that is called "selective reality". 

i find it somewhat interesting that a 5 year old canon sensor produces sharper images then the new FF sensors.
it´s not much, sure.
but be honest, you would expect sharper images not softer images from a new sensor.

Whether it matters depends on whether it makes a difference to the sort of photography you do.  I own a 5DII and, within the past couple of months I've rented the 5DIII, 6D and D600 (the latter two simultaneously).  I haven't performed any properly controlled tests - certainly nothing compared to what someone conducting a serious review involving test charts, etc. - but merely used them as I would normally use a camera (except that with the 6D and D600 I kept switching back and forth, photographing the same thing from the same place at the same time).  While the D600 made good photos, not one ever struck me as superior to those I took with the 6D in any way; at most the differences were fairly small/trivial, and where I had a preference it was for the Canon, mainly because I preferred the colors.  So other features were decisive - Nikon's absurdly complicated controls, the weird greenish cast to the D600's monitor, its drab viewfinder (so what if it's 100%?), etc.  Relatively trivial stuff I would put up with if it made noticeably better photos, but for my purposes it didn't.  I will cheerfully concede that others may conclude otherwise.

As for whether the sensor of the 6D makes "softer" photos than the 5DII or 5DIII, while it's true that it has slightly lower resolution than the sensors of the other two, that's only one factor that determines the sharpness of a photo, and those differences may work in favor of the 6D or 5DIII vs the 5DII.  I wonder how many people, in a "blind" test, could tell the difference (and how many of those who have remarked on the softness of 6D images were looking at images from RAW files).

114

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?

« on: January 14, 2013, 05:06:57 PM »

135L (though I end up using other lenses more often because I usually want more or less reach).

115

Software & Accessories / Re: DxO optics pro (8)

« on: January 11, 2013, 03:11:17 PM »

For those you use DxO and Lightroom/Aperture for editing.. what do you do in DxO vs. what do you do in Lightroom/Aperture?  In other words, what are the relative strengths of DxO that justify the extra step in your workflow?

The DxO lens corrections are an obvious strength... what else?

I preferred DxO (I used 6, 7 & to LR until LR 4 came out, but now use LR4 almost exclusively.  DxO may be a little better at correcting lens distortion when it has a lens/camera module (but it doesn't always have one - it was seeking such a thing for my Sigma 50-500 OS that prompted me recently to give LR another try), but I prefer LR for the sorts of tweaks I do.  Often the differences (in photos processed from RAW, which is all I use them for) are subtle, and sometimes all but indistinguishable, but at others not - when it comes to recovering detail in overexposed highlights, LR strikes me as being far superior to DxO, finding more detail and in better colors too. 

116

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you really serious about 6D?

« on: January 08, 2013, 10:30:33 AM »

IMO, one could actually make a pretty good gear bag with one each of these bodies [6D & D600] and a couple of lenses for each that exploits their strengths. JMO.

That sounds eminently sensible, and with something like that in mind I rented both for several days over the New Year weekend, thinking that one or other would make a good companion for my 5DII.   For reasons explained in another thread I preferred the Canon in every respect that matters to me and actively disliked a few aspects of the Nikon (esp. the controls and relatively murky viewfinder), so I'll not be adding a Nikon.  But it's not hard to imagine that someone with different taste/priorities might conclude otherwise.

117

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D reviewed by PhotographyBlog

« on: January 08, 2013, 09:34:53 AM »

Another one

Yada yada yada - I think all the bloggers just read other reviews and write a new one, what I'm waiting for is dpreview.com that strangely takes a lot of time, but imho is one of the best for reviews that really tell you where the hidden catches are.

We can either (1) wait on the dpreview, then, or (2) do as everyone and start our own review webpage!
(May I suggest ctrl_c_ctrl_v_reviews.com?)

Better yet, rent one and judge for yourself how it does the things you want a camera to do.

118

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Thinking of downgrading my 5d3 system

« on: January 07, 2013, 04:12:56 PM »

I have been considering selling my setup

5d3
24-70 2.8 mkii
70-200 2.8 is mkii
Cf cards
600 exrt speedlite

To get a 6d
24-70 f4 is
70-300l
Newer speedlite 430ex ii replacement

I just spent thousands of dollars this year and have hardly used the gear. When I do its for candids or vacations. I wonder if I am wasting the money and should sell it to downgrade to something more enthusiast level and cheaper. Also it's just so much to lug around. Just not sure and wanted some opinions.

1. If the reason why you don't use it is the weight, switching from 5DIII to 6D is pointless - the difference is trivial.  Ditch the lenses instead.  (If the reason isn't just the weight, what is it about the 6D etc. combination that makes you think you would use it more?)
2. How picky are you about image quality, and how much do build quality and mechanical reliability matter to you?  For instance, you might find that the differences in image quality between the L and non-L versions of the 70-300 are exaggerated and that the much lighter weight of the non-L outweighs the obvious mechanical superiority of the L version.  You might be better off replacing your lenses with 17-40L + 70-300 L or non-L (or, if 200mm is long enough, 70-200 f/4 Ls - they don't weigh much) and fill the gap with a 50mm 1.4.
3. Do you like swapping lenses?  If you don't, the prime route won't appeal.  If you would rather not swap lenses at all and aren't that picky about image quality, Nikon D600 + 28-300 lens might make sense - just don't look to closely at the results when comparing them to photos you took with your current gear....
4.  If the gear you have now is simply too much stuff and you wish you had something simpler instead, consider a tiny Sony RX100, which, despite its size, is capable of near-DSLR quality (crop, at any rate) - the results won't be as good as what you could get now with your current gear if you used it, but you're not....

119

Lenses / Re: Canon 100mm macro IS vs non-IS - any further input?

« on: January 05, 2013, 08:17:25 PM »

I have read prior threads and am still not sold on one lens versus the other. My usage would be weddings plus typical insect and floral macro shots. I have a tax refund coming which would pay for either copy plus a 70-200 f/4 or 70-300L. Any input, especially practical use experience would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I'm inclined to say that the L is worth having if only because of the IS; it may not help much with true macro photography, but it does at all other times, especially when there's less light and you're not using a tripod.  As for the two zooms you mention, I own both and they're both superb (so I probably shouldn't keep both...).   The extra reach of the longer zoom is nice to have, and while it's not as fast as the 70-200, its excellent IS, coupled with the low light performance of your 5DIII probably compensate - I often take hand-held shots with it at night and have had very good results on my 5DII (probably even better on 6D and 5DIIIs I recently rented).

120

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35MM F/1.4 DG HSM Worth the price

« on: January 04, 2013, 10:31:10 AM »

Hi

I enjoy portraits of family & friends mostly on my old 450D, and planning to get an indoor portrait lens addition to my EFS 15-85. Does Sigma 35MM F/1.4 DG HSM really worth the price or should I get the cheap EF 40 f/2.8 STM?

I wouldn't consider either unless you find yourself taking portrait photos as wide as 35 or 40mm; assuming you've been taking portrait photos with your 15-85, see what focal lengths you've been using most and proceed from there.  (Of course, there are lots of other reasons to want either or both lenses....)