Messages

16

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Studio shoot, 5D MarkII or MarkIII

« on: March 25, 2013, 01:35:47 AM »

I have the privilege of having the problem of having to choose between a MarkII or MarkIII for a studio workshop. 
I know the differences between the 2 will be minimal, but I'm curious which one y'all would pick for a studio lit, low ISO photoshoot.  People on here say that AA filter on the MkIII is stronger than the MkII which leads me to think the MkII would be a better choice; but then I'm sacrificing the AF of the MkIII which to my understanding has a "finer" focus than the 5D MarkII which might come in handy if I'm going to do any shallow DOF pictures (with a ND filter since the studio light is going to be too bright for apertures that large).  Thanks for the help!

You're seriously mistaken. The 5D Mark III has a much weaker AA filter with much more advanced technology that leads to around 13% more resolution JUST from the better AA filter. Also the highlight and shadow room are much better on the 5D Mark III.

Get the 5D Mark III, it's no question, at all.

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Overly Hot Hotspots On 5Dmk3

« on: March 25, 2013, 01:32:55 AM »

Hello all! This may have been addressed before so forgive me, but I'm just curious to see if anyone is noticing this on their 5Dmk3's.

I understand the 5Dmk3 doesn't have the best dynamic range, but does anyone else find hotspots to be overly hot? As an example, I was camera op on a short film the other day, and both the DP and I agreed to move to the 5Dmk2 simply because some of the things (i.e. lamps, televisions) were so drastically hot and were overexposed, where on the 5Dmk2 they were near evenly lit.

Also, I was walking around the park with a friend who had a 7D, and after comparing shots the shadows were much, much harsher on the 5Dmk3 at the same exact ISO, aperture, and shutter speed as well the whites being much hotter.

Now don't get me wrong, I love my 5D and have been blown away with it at times when I'm able to control the exposure of the subject, but I'm not really understanding why everything is so blown out at times. Is this a user error, camera error, or not an error at all and just how the camera handles?

Thanks, and I appreciate any responses.

The 5D Mark III has MUCH more highlight headroom and MUCH cleaner shadows than the 5D Mark II. I've extensivly compared both and carefully studied both of these aspects for a review website.

Your camera is deffective or you are mistaken. You also might have the camera set up wrong such as auto lighting optimizer set incorrectly.

18

Lenses / Re: Canon 24-70mmL II v Canon 50mmL 1.2

« on: March 17, 2013, 08:35:14 PM »

Hi all,

I have recently sold a a 300mm L 2.8 IS and have some money burning a hole in my pocket. I have recently bought a Canon16-35L II with some of the proceeds and am now trying to make my mind up between the 24-70 and the 50L 1.2 Canon as a walk around lens with occasional use for portrait I have a 70-200L 2.8 II and a Macro 100L 2.8 IS, I use the lens on a 5D mkIII.

I have tried the 50L on the 5D III and it is fast and super sharp, I have read a lot of negative comments about this lens but my experience was very positive. I had a very short time with a 24-70 II at B&H today and it was a lovely lens. I am hoping that someone who has experience with both could give me the benefit of their experience so that I can make a decision.

Thanks

Umm if you think the 50L is super sharp then you should be using an iPhone to take pictures... because the mid-frame sharpness of the 50L near wide open is actually lower than the resolution of an iPhone 5.

The 50L is one of the worst lenses ever made for any image quality metric there is, it is a horrible lens in every dimension because it sacrifices literally everything for that f/1.2 aperture. Most people forget that "L" simply means they use exotic UD glass not that it has a certain level of image quality.

The 24-70mm II is one of the best lenses ever made for any image quality metric there is (except for problems with the focus plane shifting during zooming but those can be ignored). It has virtually no chromatic abberation and on top of that is an apochomatic lens which means it has not purple or green fringing. It is one of the only lenses you can buy other than supertelephoto lenses that has APO correction in Canon's lineup, meaning it's one of the only lenses you can buy that produces perfect out of camera jpg's that do not need correction to submit to publishers. Copy variation is a problem, but if you get a good copy it's a very very sharp lens, which at certain focal lengths has some of the best resolution in it's class.

So your choice is simple. Do you want one of the worst lenses ever made with f/1.2 or one of the best lenses ever made with f/2.8 and zoom? I know my choice (it's the second option).

Zeiss is also coming out with a 55mm f/1.4 that has the same resolution at f/1.4 as the 50mmL has at f/8.0, that's my choice in this focal range.

Here's a comparison:

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Picture quality questions 6D.

« on: March 17, 2013, 10:21:33 AM »

My instinct is to advise against software that claims automatically to correct 12 parameters with one click. That's not the kind of correction I would want. Also, the 'before' and 'after' examples on their website look simulated to me, which sets alarm bells ringing.

The parameters it corrects are all image quality flaws they are consistent from photo to photo.


Digital does far exceed the quality of film. Software only makes digital better and is one of the greatest reasons why it's so good. I would recommend catching up to the future and learning how to at least use Lightroom.

20

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200 f/2L IS & EF 800 f/5.6L IS [CR2]

« on: March 14, 2013, 12:56:12 AM »

It's not the lens that Canon is replacing, it's the price.

The only way they can jack up the price is by changing the costume and launching the same lens as a new lens with a new tan (an extra layer of some all new magical coating), new clothes and accents on...

Or maybe they will change from 200/2 to 200/1.8 and jack up the price close to 10K.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

I've spoken to several different sources at Canon and they all confirm one thing about Canon, they're not a company that makes cameras, they're a company that makes money.

Canon will sonner spit in the face of every one of their customers and set those customers on fire if it makes them money than release a good product.

The 5D Mark III was ready over a year before it was released but Canon just sat on the design until Nikon released their new body because they knew they could charge top dollar for their current product.

The ONLY reason Canon released the 24-70mm f/2.8 II was NOT in any way shape or form to help it's customers with a great lens but because the old lens was getting too expensive to make because they were all being sent in for warranty.

Canon has also sat on the 7D2 design, until Nikon fired off the D7100. The EOS M was designed as cheaply as possible with the highest profit margin possible because Canon thought their customers were idiots. It didn't work.

Like I said, Canon itself admits at all levels that it has no interest in making quality products, it only care about making as much money as possible and it will sell you a ton of garbage and call it gold as long as it can. Canon is sitting on every product you can dream of but they won't sell you any of it until they think you'll stop buying their old junk, or they know they can price gouge you like crazy for the replacement. They have a ton of decade old lenses that are a complete embarassment to even keep selling (100-400 cough cough), and Canon won't replace them until the year Nikon comes up with a much better one, which in the case of Nikon's 80-400 they just did, by a huge margin.

The only reason the entry level primes were replaced (24,28,&35mm primes) is because Canon banked on the fact they could charge double to movie maker for them. The 35mmm f/1.4 was an aging embarassingly old decade+ old design, and the 35mm f/1.4 II was coincidence slated for rlease the same year Sigma slammed Canon with their 35mm f/1.4. Canon has had the replacement fully tested and ready for 3 years now, but just sat on the redesign.

Their idea for a 24-105mm replacement? Add macro and charge double. At Canon innovation means sitting on the products they know need to be updated until the last possible moment, or realeasing gimicky new products that they try to justify ridiculous price gouging for. Canon 1DC? A 1DX that costs double with special firmware. Canon cinema 24, 50 & 85mm primes? Existing L primes with updated coatings, very minor tweaks and a new case that cost 5 times as much.

Price gouging or dragging their feet, that's the Canon way. This will be price gouging because there is no competetive reason to update their lenses. Prepare for a $9,000 + 200mm f/2.0 IS II. Lighter, with better coatings etc.

21

Lenses / Re: I'd love a little adivce...

« on: March 12, 2013, 03:38:50 AM »

Hello CR crew,

I'm in the market for a nice 35mm prime, pref some thing old with a little character. I purchasea Carl Zeiss 2.4 Prakticar PB mount and unfortunately it striked the mirror on my Canon 5D Mark III. Anyone know of any nice 35mm lenses that work well on this body? Full manual is fine as I'm mostly shooting video over stills.

Cheers,

Ed

Canon 35mm is soft but has creamy bokeh

Sigma 35mm is super sharp but has very busy bokeh

Zeiss 35mm is the ideal all around, almost as sharp as the Sigma with better bokeh than the Canon.

That's all there is to it.

22

Lenses / Re: 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?

« on: March 12, 2013, 03:36:33 AM »

Hello guys,

I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?

I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.

The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me  important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

The 24-70mm II is the best lens in your arsenal if you get a good copy, and very dissapointing if you get a bad copy.

The 16-35mm II is average, which is a nice way of saying that it's sub part in my oppinion.

So in other words:

Bad 24-70mm II < 16-35mm II < Good 24-70mm II

23

Canon General / Re: Used prices gone wild!

« on: March 10, 2013, 03:54:24 AM »

Many on this forum like to chew on Canon about prices, check this ad out!

http://winnipeg.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Brand-New-Canon-5D-Full-Camera-Package-for-Independent-Filmmaker-W0QQAdIdZ452226547

Yeah the whole kit is worth $5500 tops $11000 is crazy but it does say please make an offer.

24

Lenses / Re: your goto everyday lens and why?

« on: March 09, 2013, 07:47:37 PM »

I love to shoot wide, wait scratch that, Ultra Wide. It seems that my everyday walk around goto lens is the 17-40. it gives me the ultra wide I like when needed and it also covers the 24, 28, and 35mm focal lengths.  Granted, it's only f4 but I have been using it on a 6d and have had no complaints.  Maybe one day i'll upgrade to the 16-35.

What's your goto everyday lens?

Anthony
My 365 iPhone Project.
http://onedumbphoto.com

My go to lens would be the 24-70mm f/2.8 II.

Why?

Because it has the last chromatic aberration of any lens you can get. It has almost no LoCa or LaCA, and is super sharp if you get a good copy which means that out of camera jpg's will be perfect. No other zoom lens ever made can claim that level of sharpness wide open at a fast aperture while being fully APO (not the half baked APO Sigma does) and having no lateral CA. Not the 16-35mm, nor 70-200mm.

25

Lenses / Re: Full Frame Lens Choice to Match 7D and 17-55 2.8 IS.

« on: March 07, 2013, 01:52:24 AM »

I think you completely misunderstand how full frame works.

A 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, will deliver identical geometry to a 27-88mm f/4.48 IS lens on full frame.

depth of field is a function of geometry.



So as the iris or aperture opens up more it allows more light in, but because that light is light that is coming at a higher incident angle it is focused over a greater area if it is behind or infront of the focal plane. So therefore you have a shallower depth of field. See how the red point is larger and therefore will be blurred on the open aperture example?

Here's another example:




People have been misled with crop to full frame conversions  for years.

The "35mm equivalent" is what is really important and nothing else. Your images on 35mm equivalent will always look the same no matter what.

From a physics perspective the "35mm equivalent" is capturing identical information. What really matters is the geometry of the light hitting the sensor, and with 35mm equivalent the geometry will always be the same for a given equivalence. Not only that but your flash settings etc will be identical:


Going back to the 35mm equivalent discussion, consider this:

On 7D compared the the 5D Mark III


The sensor is 1.6 x 1.6 times smaller.

35mm equivalent aperture - Multiply F-Number by (1.6 ) . (an f stop is a base 2 log, so even though we have 1.6x1.6 times as much light we take the square root, which is 1.6 to multiply the F number by. (example 2.8 x 1.6 = 4.48, 4.0 x 1.6 = 6.4))

35mm equivalent focal length - Multiply by 1.6

35mm equivalent ISO or light sensitivity - Multiply by (1.6 x 1.6) (bet you haven't heard of that,  but if you do the math the 7D's sensor amplifies the signal 1.6x1.6 times more at a given ISO than the 5D3, so even if both say ISO 800, ISO 800 on the 7D  is multiplying the pixels the same as ISO 2000 on the 5D Mark III)


The point is that people are often misled by manufacturers changing the geometry of a camera system, particularly putting in small sensors and then claiming otherwise impressive performance numbers which are incredibly misleading because you are measuring them on a different scale.

It's like saying:

I have a million dollars, and then failing to mention these are Zimbabwe dollars worth $20 not, American dollars.

Yes aperture ISO and focal length are fixed numbers, but so are monetary figures, and the most important thing even the most basic dealing of currency has is WHAT currency you're dealing with, and 99% of people require an "equivalent" frame of refference to understand foreign currency or need to do a conversion. Likewise with cameras, geometry (type of currency) is the most important thing when dealing with the performance of a camera system, and the first thing anyone needs to do is bring up a conversion to the local frame of reference, APS-C 35mm, whatever.

To respond to your concern though, there is NO benefit to a 1 stop faster aperture on APS-C sensor vs full frame because they (more than) cancel each other out. You don't stop action any quicker at all, whatsoever, because remember the ISO is skewed too, so all you're doing is just turning up the ISO sensitivity in a roundabout way by. You have been misled into thinking there is anything else going on.

Anyways, get the 24-105mm f/4.0, it will be much better in every way than your 27-88mm f/4.48 IS equivalent lens. Also remember ISO 800 on the 7D is equivalent to ISO 2000 on the 5DIII.

So in other words theoretically a Crop set to:

#1. 17mm - f/2.8 - ISO 800 - 1/50th - with 1/4 flash
#2. 55mm - f/2.8 - ISO 800 - 1/50th - with 1/2 flash

Will produce a 100% identical image with no difference in exposure, lighting, depth of field, field of view or composition when compared to a full frame set to:

#1. 27mm - f/4.48 - ISO 2048 - 1/50th - with 1/4 flash
#2. 88mm - f/4.48 - ISO 2048 - 1/50th - with 1/2 flash

Literally no difference.

Now of course each lens will have it's own characteristics and each body will likewise have it's own, and the full frame with the 24-105mm will delivery much better image quality as will any full frame body, but if both bodies and lenses were theoretically perfect and had the same resolution these settings would deliver the exact same with completely identical pixels.

26

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon to announce a new 80-400 VR lens this week?

« on: March 05, 2013, 12:46:15 PM »

Manufacturers measure their own MTF charts, and it is normally a computer generated estimate, just like MPG figures for new cars. Further, you can't compare MTF graphs within manufacturers if the focal lengths differ much, the only thing you can really glean from manufacturer supplied MTF charts is how good, or bad, they are compared to an earlier version.

This isn't really true. MTF data is generated from theoretical data which would be the same for any lens built perfectly (ie no copy variation or manufacturing tolerances). You can compre MTF data between manufacturers if you know HOW to compare it and how to read the chart.

The Nikon 80-400 should be as good as the Canon 24-70 ii 2.8.

Copy variation and manufacturing tolerances do play a role though in the end result but those should cancel out more or less between manufacturers.

27

Lenses / Re: 70-400/ f4.0-5.6 Zoom ... Canon, where are you?

« on: March 05, 2013, 12:34:01 AM »

The MTF data on this lens indicates it has worst in class performance, along with being the most expensive. It is worse than the 15 year old 100-400mm from Canon, continuing the long tradition of mediocre Sony lenses.

If you want a really good lens get the brand new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-f/5.6

It's MTF data indicates it is way way way better than the current Canon 100-400mm

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/04/nikkor-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6g-ed-vr-lens-announcement.aspx/

In fact the MTF data indicates the new Nikon lens is actually as good as the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II wide open at f/4.5-f/5.6

28

Canon General / Re: Canon Announces the Development of New High Sensitivity Sensor

« on: March 04, 2013, 01:06:25 PM »

Is it just me or does this seem like a bunch of made up nonsense?

We're already capturing 50% of the light that enters the camera. And noise and clarity under dark conditions are a result of quantum distribution of electrons. Meaning the noise you capture in a noisy photo is the result of noise from the light itself, not from the camera. You cannot capture less noise than exists in the incoming light, and you cannot capture more light than exists.

These videos seem to show a 4 stop improvement. My guess is that they are simulated by a marketing company and that this is designed to be misleading.

29

Lenses / Where's my 50mm f/1.8 IS?

« on: March 03, 2013, 12:44:23 AM »

Or f/1.4, either way.

Why hasn't Canon released this lens yet? Seems like a no-brainer.

30

EOS Bodies / Re: Pixel density, resolution, and diffraction in cameras like the 7D II

« on: March 02, 2013, 08:39:35 PM »

Canon WANTS diffraction to be a limiting factor so that they can remove the AA filter.

If you look at a sharp lens at f11 like a super telephoto and a soft lens at f/11 the sharp lens looks sharper despite being at the diffraction limit.

What 24MP does is it allows the whole system to be sharper due to a weaker AA filter. Diffraction is the best AA filter on earth, current ones degrade the image by 20% which is a lot.

Where do you get that 20% figure? I can't say I've experienced that with anything other than the 100-400 @ 400mm f/5.6...however in that case, I presume the issue is the lens, not the AA filter...

MTF tests of the D800 and D800E back to back

Canon WANTS diffraction to be a limiting factor so that they can remove the AA filter.

If the AA filter is an expensive/complex component, increasing the sensel density until diffraction takes care of prefiltering is definitely one possible approach.

What 24MP does is it allows the whole system to be sharper due to a weaker AA filter. Diffraction is the best AA filter on earth, current ones degrade the image by 20% which is a lot.

Diffraction is dependant on aperture, and not a constant function. In practice, one never have perfect focus (and most of us dont shoot flat brick-walls), so defocus affects the PSF. Lenses and motion further extent the effective PSF. The AA filter is one more component. I have seen compelling arguments that the total PSF might as well be modelled as a Gaussian, du to the many contributors that change with all kinds of parameters.

Claiming that the AA filter degrade "image quality" (?) by 20% is nonsense. Practical comparisions of the Nikon D800 vs D800E suggests that under some, ideal conditions, the difference in detail is practically none, once both are optimally sharpened. In other conditions (high noise), you may not be able to sharpen the D800 to the point where it offers details comparable to the D800E. Manufacturers dont include AA filters because they _like_ throwing in more component, but because when the total, effective PSF is too small compared to pixel pitch, you can have annoying aliasing that tends to look worse and is harder to remove than slight blurring.

-h

You can't compare an unsharpened D800E image to a sharpened D800 image, that's not how information processing works.

The AA filter destroys incoming information from the lens, irreversibly. Sharpening can trick MTF tests into scoring higher numbers, but that is besides the point.

Yes diffraction changes with aperture but if you always shoot below f/5.6 you can ditch the AA filter without consequence, and those images shot below f/5.6 would be sharper than those taken with the same camera with an AA filter.