Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: CANON U.S.A. INTRODUCES EOS-1D C DIGITAL SLR CAMERA FEATURING 4K HIGH-RESOLUTION VIDEO CAPTURE

« on: April 13, 2012, 12:28:59 AM »

The back of the camera looks (I can only see the small pictures on the CR front page at the moment) like it's suited for video production.  So no, Neuro, it's not just the red "C" badge on front.

The back panel also shows us something about the "no flip screen" worries - that is something that would be inappropriate for a rugged $15K camera where you are going to use that HDMI output to drive a bunch of monitors remotely, possibly including a focus puller.  It would probably be a nice feature to have in some cases, but not at the cost of reliability.  It is probably a feature we'll continue to see on the cheaper cameras, though.

32

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: March 13, 2012, 10:01:48 PM »

I believe the Mark III offers diagonal cross sensors; the Nikons don't.

33

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?

« on: March 13, 2012, 08:56:05 PM »

The D800 does NOT offer frame rates comparable to the Mark III, with or without a battery grip, without taking a significant ding to framing and resolution (and, by extension, the DX crop mode will make your wide lenses frame less wide, and your long lenses appear longer, by a funky 1.2X crop).  And yes, on top of that, you need a battery grip even to do it.  Say what you will about Canon, but I haven't read about them requiring a different power source for faster continuous shooting on any digital camera models - only Nikon wants us to believe in a digital film winder.

The autofocus module looks set to be a significant win for Canon, for the first time in my knowledge.

Dynamic range is an interesting one, but it ought to be remembered that high ISOs sacrifice dynamic range as a matter of course so some more in-depth third-party samples will be very helpful in judging how well Canon actually does or doesn't do in providing useful high ISO settings.

Many of the other points are debatable, but we won't get anywhere without more samples and hopefully a review.

On the whole, I'm pleased Nikon is offering what looks like stiff competition, and I find it interesting that I'm feeling like my Canon partisanship is being summoned at some hackery against "our" camera - when the Nikon camera is looking like it puts into play the "higher MP images offer more pixels for cutting noise interference with detail" argument I've used before.  However, since I did a lot of that writing, I found the 7D...I am finding that for practical purposes the higher autofocus rate is more useful than gobs of unused detail in every frame.

What has me on edge is the apparent fact that the Nikon does not seem to offer (I hope I'm wrong) mRAW or sRAW-alike options, just crop modes which will reduce the number of total pixels being used at the beginning, which is the method you'd use if your CPU was old and outdated.  Canon's CPUs and sensor readouts are fast and parallel enough that they can effectively blend multiple pixels.

34

Lenses / Re: fd to ef lens adaptor/converter

« on: March 13, 2012, 08:31:02 PM »

Further correction:  The Ed Mika adapters are a *range* of adapters for various lenses, including some FL lenses.  I thought there was talk of trying to come up with a more universal solution, but some lenses require unique re-mount brass pieces.

And super teles aren't the only lenses you can use:  I have a mounting kit (which I hope to use soon) for a TS-35mm.  That's not a fisheye, but it is a wide lens.  You could always ask about that one.

35

EOS Bodies / Re: Are we suckers, or smart business people?

« on: March 13, 2012, 08:28:34 PM »

- almost identical sensor (don't kid yourself, 21 mpx to 22 mpx is an almost identical sensor), with yet-to-be-determined improved performance

Ha, ha, what?  "Yet to be determined?"  Did you look at any of the samples yet?

I'm going with "pro troll"

36

EOS Bodies / Re: Cancelled 5d mk III pre-order for D800?

« on: March 13, 2012, 08:27:13 PM »

The D800 has some interesting features that i'd like to have, but the poor high ISO performance is not one of them.  If it were 22 mp and had two stops better, It would be a tougher decision.

Why would it be a harder decision?  In that case, if you liked USB 3, XQD, and the Nikon ergonomics *that much,* then maybe.

The Nikon D800 (and D800E) would be more compelling if it was able to offer a higher shot rate or higher ISO while maintaining the same large file size.  If you don't need 36MP, you can always crop, after all.

Personally, can't wait until 36MP cameras are more common from Canon - especially when data rates are there to support it.

37

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3...why only usb 2.0?

« on: March 13, 2012, 12:40:50 PM »

I have a number of different ideas going through my head (possible licensing, low volume of part availability, power requirements) but haven't found anything to demonstrate what the actual problem is.

I've had a computer with USB 3.0 ports since 2008 but I have had zero devices that use it in all that time.

I do agree that USB 3 would help many kinds of shooting, and there's no problem with transfer speeds to a PC - if hard drive speeds are a problem then you need to set up RAID or maybe even use a SSD.

It would have been nice to roll out with the new cameras, but not essential.  I think Canon is right to play it safe on the CF front too, although Nikon is moving quickly to the new QXD or whatever it's called, many users are not ready to move to a new format, or to deal with the smaller support base available for the new format.

38

EOS Bodies / Re: i just had the X & the 5D in my hands

« on: March 10, 2012, 12:14:05 PM »

I didn't know you had to sign an NDA to take a training course.

Man, how I hate that people can make forum posts like they were on twitter or facebook...

39

Lenses / Re: Still need a fast lens?

« on: March 10, 2012, 12:12:25 PM »

True, that as ridiculously high ISO's are usable in the advanced DSLR world, the necessity of a fast lens for decent images in low light situations  - as we used to have in the film days and older digital days - is less.

With the exception of the 50mm f/1.4 prime, the actual supply of fast lenses seems better than in the film era.  And if you go back to the 1970s and earlier the zoom lenses tended to be slow by today's standards.

It is interesting though that "noisy" ISO settings, that everybody complains about on forums, are probably still better than using many films (although I have seen pretty good results from some newer color films being pushed in processing), certainly better than many of the classic cheaper films.

I think that, indoors, a f/2.8 or even f/2 lens is the minimum for shooting fast action (interestingly, f/2 might be the current "limit" for usefulness of a lens, though we'll have to see how the 5D III and the 1D X, as well as the T4i and other APS-C cameras, treat wider apertures).

40

Lenses / Re: Rumored 10 new lenses, 5 of which (CR) mentioned...

« on: March 10, 2012, 12:05:45 PM »

Shooting the 135mm f/2L recently on the 7D, I got the impression that it was very nearly being limited by the sensor and its AA filter.

I would definitely like an update to the 50mm f/1.4.

Though the TS-E 90mm could use an update for rotation, it hasn't proven to be a make-or-break issue for me.  I think it might be more useful for the EF lineup on balance to get a longer TS-E with the new movements.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 vs Canon 5d3 sample images.

« on: March 06, 2012, 05:48:03 AM »

Well, if we are talking about the pictures on canon site and the one on the nikon site, i may say they are quite different. Most of the nikon are taken f8 to gain dept of field and increse detail. Nikon maximum ISO setting is 640.
Most of the canon portrait are wider than 2.8 with iso reaching 3200.
Nikon pictures are taken in studio, the canon are close to the pictures anyone can take. Don't think there are any pictures really comparable.
The nikon bride is 640 ISO f4.5, the ones on the canon sites are wider and/or higer ISO.
Actually the canon bride @ 7.1 is quite good to be shot at 3200 ISO.
And last but not least, tiger are jpg generated by the on camera raw converter.
Think that most of the people complaining for the lack of sharpness are better wait for more pictures...
Diego

I think you're right on the money here.

So far my favorite of the images is the f/11, ISO 100 shot from the TS-E 90 (the still life with cherries and raspberries).  It looks about like what I'd expect for that lens, although there is still sharpness lost, which is odd.  Should be early for diffraction to be detectable, I think.  It is not a new lens design, though.

42

Lenses / Re: Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens - upgrade needed.

« on: March 06, 2012, 05:36:46 AM »

it doesn't have IS to slow down the AF speed

IS doesn't slow down AF speed, at least not in new implementations.

43

Lenses / Re: Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L ?

« on: March 02, 2012, 03:54:57 AM »

Also, birds generally aren't low-light situations, so f/5.6 at that range would seem to me not to pose any problems.

That's not what I see when I shoot birds.  Small ones love to hide in bushes and tangles of branches.  Then there's the matter of shooting during the interesting "magic hours" after sunrise or before sunset.  Even in daylight, though, you might find yourself wanting more than f/5.6 for stopping action.

To the OP, I would consider the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS.  I have it with an EF Extender 2X III, but if you could get away with using just the Extender 1.4X the results would be even better.  It's an amazing lens without the extender, too, of course.

44

EOS Bodies / Re: Mark III Price turning you off? Considering a different model now?

« on: March 02, 2012, 03:51:54 AM »

If I didn't feel I needed the higher resolution (and "lens reach" through the crop factor) of a 7D I would be very pleased with this.  As it is, it doesn't seem like a good solution for a cheap bird photographer.  If I had 800mm and 200mm f/2 lenses, I would consider it, though, because what it will do for wide angle and standard shots is not inconsiderable.  I'd expect the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and a 5D III to be a better (though not lighter) combination overall than my 7D and 135mm f/2L, for example, at the 200mm end.  But the cost is high enough that I'd rather just stick with the 7D format for now.

45

EOS Bodies / Re: Introducing the Canon 5D Mark III: jpeg samples

« on: March 02, 2012, 03:37:49 AM »

I'm not sure what's up with those aurora shots.  Both just look wrong to me for some reason, even the ISO800 one, I can't explain it.

In the ISO 800 shot, I see the stars are leaving a very slight trail, so that they appear a bit teardrop-shaped (motion diagonally, between a 10-11 o'clock position to a 4-5 o'clock one, roughly).  This is likely due to some camera movement (at a wide lens setting, and only 8 seconds, there is not enough time for the rotation of the earth to become visible, I would think...maybe I could play with the Stellarium planetarium software a bit to figure out for sure).

There also appears to be some "chunkiness" or blurring in some subjects, and the blue sky near the waterline appears to have chroma noise blotches.

The tiger picture surprises me a bit for two reasons - one, it doesn't seem as "sharp" as I would have expected from that lens.  The shadow areas (the dark greens, at least) appear very good though, much better than I would expect to get at 3200 from my 7D for sure.