Messages

646

EOS Bodies / Re: Your thoughts on M-RAW vs RAW in 1DX vs 5D3

« on: December 07, 2012, 01:39:56 PM »

I shoot a 5d3, and always shoot mRAW during getting ready photos and receptions at weddings - the only times that couples are really going to blow their pics up is during the portraits, so that's when I shoot full RAW. While many gripe about the 5d3 being "only" 22 mp, that is still far too big for me to want to deal with for an entire wedding. Managing that much data for 30+ weddings throughout the season is especially difficult when you factor in backups and archives, so, imho, that is precisely what the smaller raw files are for - people who shoot massive amounts of pics but still need/want the extra flexibility of raw.

My primary body is 1DX and I have mostly stuck to RAW or jpeg L on rare occasions. And good many times I shoot in bursts and the workflow and logistics involved have slowly moved me to reconsider. But on a more pedantic level, this  got me looking into how much we actually know or don't know about the algorithms, likely varied among the different bodies, and the effect on IQ.

647

EOS Bodies / Your thoughts on M-RAW vs RAW in 1DX vs 5D3

« on: December 07, 2012, 10:24:56 AM »

Would like your thoughts on how IQ compares between the two RAW formats particularly in 1DX, but perhaps it is equally interesting to hear from 5D3 and other users given the difference in sensor pixel density.

Do we have a "firm" sense of what canon is doing in downsampling or could that information be gleaned from real world testing some may have done? The general idea may be the same between the bodies but if they are binning (whatever the nuances), does this predict diminishing returns or even adverse returns with larger and larger pixels? Obviously 1DX and 5D3 are very different animals and several significant parameters other than just pixel density differ between the two and I realize this is a caveat.

648

Lenses / Re: Best lenses for canon 5D mark iii or 6D

« on: December 06, 2012, 10:14:35 PM »

5D3 + 24-70 II + 70-200 II

Slight modification: 5D3 + 16-35 ii (wideangle hole filled) + 50L or 1.4+ 70-200 II

50L is a valid substitute but I think 1.4 is competent without breaking the budget.
Never been a big fan of the original 24-70L and haven't yet tried the new version II...  But people swear by both versions and it may just come down to shooting style /focal length comfort zone.

649

Lenses / Re: 70-300L for Outdoors?

« on: December 06, 2012, 09:57:25 PM »

One of the underrated zooms from canon with excellent IQ and 'reach' especially on cropped sensors. I have nothing bad to say about it that is significant... A tad 'fat', dun't take extenders that I own, but the IQ and IS are stellar. Good OOF rendition on the tele end.

650

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D Dominates Low Light Focusing Test vs 5Dii, 5Diii & Nikon D600

« on: December 06, 2012, 08:37:40 AM »

Ugh... Hope tests like this don't sway people. I wouldn't even know where to start with the holes and misinformation here. 

651

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 5Diii today...

« on: December 06, 2012, 08:24:17 AM »

I went for the.........


5Diii

Smart call.

6D is a stop-gap body from Canon when you strip away the noise and iso babble among some.  At best it may tie 5d3 here... Canon is not in the business of selling better performers for less money. Also, we should expect more frequent updates for the 6D than the 1 and 5 series as the market moves to more FF load and competition on the lower end; perhaps similar to the T3i or 10 series (gasp, I know!). I am not knocking the 6D here, it (and its successors) may well emerge as stable, competent entry ff bodies for the canon line.

But near term, once you move out of the narrow box of iso claims for the 6D with limited data from few sources, the higher end FF bodies simply offer more on AF, build, and other pro-friendly features. If you are entering the digital FF arena and you can afford them, they offer more room to grow, whatever your level of expertise. They will also hold their value once they settle into their market-bearable target price.

Congrats!!

652

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D MKIII - file size and low MPs question

« on: December 05, 2012, 01:02:19 PM »

I' just read the following at kenrockwell website and i am confused. I do realize there is an option to shoot at smaller MPs, but I did not know it is beneficial for image quality. Can some of the tech-smart guys here comment on this? Are you guys shooting at lower MPs?

No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.

Try shooting your 5D Mark III at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper pixel-by-pixel!

When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints.

The smaller-sized images out of the 5D Mark III are spectacular. They are much, much sharper and cleaner than images from cameras on which that is their native resolution. When you start with over 20MP, it looks pretty good if you use all those to make 11MP or 5MP.

Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true scan from film.

[/i]

As soon as I read Ken Rockwell, I knew you would be confused:) Sorry, it's an easy get and I couldn't resist. 

653

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D ISO tests by the-digital-picture.com

« on: December 05, 2012, 12:58:52 PM »

Ok but all things considered, 6d is a slapdash quickie response from canon to nikon's latest lower cost FF entry.  At best, a staving move, not a full fledged defense on canon's part.

As more reviews come in, expect an equally mad dash race among retailers to 6D's final price resting point -I will spare repeating the number here . In months, not a year.

At that price point it will be a good value and competent performer. But by no means is it a 5D3 competition.

654

Lenses / Re: Next Lens - Help

« on: December 03, 2012, 01:06:24 PM »

Anyone else?

The biggest knock for me against 85L II is that it is a ponderous lens... noticeably slow moving all that glass. Till I put it on a 1DX  it was frankly frustrating even with the older 1 series bodies. After all the oooo-ing and ahh-ing is done about the bokeh at 1.2, it really comes down to what you will use it for, given, you already have other lenses within the range. If you are a "heavy" portrait format person...and insist on f/1.2 where the eye is in focus and the eyebrow isn't (ok I exagerate...but only a tad ) then go for it. 

On the other hand,  the TS lenses are a whole new catagory which you dont' have from what you list.  Canon's recent TS's are some of the best hands down. Just my 2 cents.

655

Lenses / Re: Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

« on: December 02, 2012, 05:39:02 PM »

EF 50mm f1.4 is a decent normal for a midrange ff like 6D ... All things including price, build, ftm, and IQ considered. It is a good performer from f/2.0 on up.. Not bad for the price.

656

Canon General / Re: soon to be a 'Canon/DSLR newbie' here!

« on: December 02, 2012, 03:39:56 PM »

I'd get the 18-135mm kit lens, and consider the cheaper 50/1.8 initially - versatility of a zoom plus low light capability of a fast prime for a reasonable cost.

+1
Yes, when it is a new venture, you want to have versatility the most so you don't sour soon or feel frustrated... being stuck with one focal length will do that to most people. You will find the 50mm rather tough in cramped spaces. Plus, on the crop-sensor it is not even a "normal" lens really, it is a "portrait lens" and will not be wide enough for kids running around indoors. With the zoom, you may have to work on the higher ISO end but 60D will do ok within limits here.

Hands down I will go with the zoom first and then expand out to primes. Else you may feel a tad cramped

Edit: Dang! Neuro covered the portrait lens part as I was typing.

657

Pricewatch Deals / Re: amazon - 5d3 -- $2999/3299 wo/w 24-105L...

« on: December 01, 2012, 04:43:43 PM »

Should I wait or get the body only?

Scanning the "bundled" prices over the past month or so... the average body price seems to be ~$2600 if one apportions a certain percentage to the different items in the bundle. In this specific case from amazon for $3,299 (before the price went back up), one could allocate ~$700 for the L-lens...that brings the body price to ~$2600. Needless to say, we had a couple of weeks ago the body for even lower at $2500.

So if you pay $2999 for the body alone now...that's about $400 more . Only you can make that call.

 

658

Pricewatch Deals / Re: amazon - 5d3 -- $2999/3299 wo/w 24-105L...

« on: December 01, 2012, 12:05:26 PM »

Oh don't worry...the deal will pop up somewhere else (B&H, or adorama again...etc)... this is called a "managed slide" ... low prices will pop up breifly, but then go up again, repeat the cycle, all along moving down till the body price hits probably ~$2500 stably. Lets not forget, it has already hit that ...but went back again. You just have to wait till they bring the baloon down slowly

But the amazon deal would have been a fair buy if one had been in the market for a 5DIII. But like I said, Just wait, same or similar deal will be back soon.

659

EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?

« on: November 29, 2012, 03:02:00 PM »

Not all tech 'comes down' in price!  This is true for the all that matters is volume market.  Could the big 3 cut costs?  Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors?  Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom.  Have fun with that!  Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars
1930 $600.00
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00
1960 $2,600.00
1970 $3,450.00
1980 $7,200.00
1990 $16,950.00
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Your logic is laughable. It only works if you argue the dollar value has remained the same since 1936 and inflation was nil. You seem to selectively skirt the buying power of a dollar in 1936 and what the same dollar will buy now. Do you know what the anual salary of a person was in 1936? While you selectively presented average cost of the car in 1936, here is a more complete list that puts the "value of the dollar" then in perspective:

What Things Cost in 1936:
Car: $600
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,200
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 48 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 180
Average Annual Salary: $1,600

Good luck with that 19 cent a gallon gas. It is clear some of us slectively present data to win an argument.  Still doesn't change the outcome of the election

Was that a scientific post?  no, just a quick search based on the idea that all tech comes down in price.

Also, thanks for the selective quoting --- here's the rest of what i said minus the car stuff -

I do believe the logic here is flawed and the time table is flawed too.  The 6d is about to be ready to ship, but yet the 5d2 still retails at $1800 brand new.  And how old is the 5d2 now?  Yes, you may find some internet stores or grey market dealers that will sell for lower than MAP prices, but that's just a retailer offering a deal to move more product.  Yes, if you bargain hunt you can find a mk3 in the 2500-3000 range.  But it's official price from canon, and the price the vast majority of official dealers still have it at $3499!  Rebate it by $200 and its $3299 ---

Not all tech 'comes down' in price!  This is true for the all that matters is volume market.  Could the big 3 cut costs?  Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors?  Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom.  Have fun with that! 

Not many here are willing to except that there is R&D that goes into making a new body, that costs money.  On other threads many claim that for canon to create a new sensor that can match the EXMOR in DR it may cost them 1-2 billion.  So tell me, if you are a CEO for a DSLR company considering whether or not to invest that kind of money in a seonsor, are you putting that sensor in a consumer grade plastic body retailing for $999?  Or, are you taking pride in the advancement and putting it first in your flagship model for $7K?

I say it again ---- the only way we will see a new FF at or near $1K is if they hobble it way more than the 6D ---your putting the original 5d sensor in a cheap plastic body with a flimsy mirror, 3 fps, max ISO of 1600.

USED 5d classics are selling for for around $700----  Used!!!!!!  This camera came was released in 2005!!!!!! And, the mk2 is still at $1800 new ---and canon is trying to clear out the inventory on that model so they can officially discontinue it!  So yeah, I see no price drop like your talking on the 6d.  Maybe a year from now it will retail at a cool $1999, maybe $1899 with rebate.  The 6d won't be sub $1000 for another 4-5 years at least, unless they're going to follow the rebel way and update the 6d in a year.  But, if they do that your still looking at the used market to snag it for $1000 or less.

Again, the only way I see a FF brand new body under a grand is when and if APS-C sensors are phased out.  As long as there is that line in the sand there is no reason for a change in the market to take place like your suggesting.

Sorry, reposting word for word your original post does not win an argument. I don't have time to carry on a flame war here or type as much as you have and probably will. You win, yes FF will for ever cost tons and tons of money. Best.

660

EOS Bodies / Re: When will we have a full frame body below $1,000?

« on: November 29, 2012, 02:26:17 PM »

Not all tech 'comes down' in price!  This is true for the all that matters is volume market.  Could the big 3 cut costs?  Have cheap low wage labor make the sensors?  Yeah, they could, but then the whole pro DSLR market is a race to the bottom.  Have fun with that!  Others brought up the cars and this is a great example - did a quick littkle search and this is the result overt he past 70ish years:

Average Cost of New Car Cars
1930 $600.00
1940 $850.00
1950 $1,510.00
1960 $2,600.00
1970 $3,450.00
1980 $7,200.00
1990 $16,950.00
2008 $27,958

So much for advances in tech driving the cost down!

Your logic is laughable. It only works if you argue the dollar value has remained the same since 1936 and inflation was nil. You seem to selectively skirt the buying power of a dollar in 1936 and what the same dollar will buy now. Do you know what the anual salary of a person was in 1936? While you selectively presented average cost of the car in 1936, here is a more complete list that puts the "value of the dollar" then in perspective:

What Things Cost in 1936:
Car: $600
Gasoline: 19 cents/gal
House: $6,200
Bread: 8 cents/loaf
Milk: 48 cents/gal
Postage Stamp: 3 cents
Stock Market: 180
Average Annual Salary: $1,600

Good luck with that 19 cent a gallon gas. It is clear some of us slectively present data to win an argument.  Still doesn't change the outcome of the election