Messages

151

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The 5D Mark III Fix

« on: May 02, 2012, 02:44:12 PM »

My Mark 5DIII is in the mail on the way and you are telling me that I also get two FREE pieces of tape with IT!!! I so have to get ready for this.

They've actually raised the price to 3499.99 to offset the price

 

And what about the long term as the glue from the tape begins to dissolve and to spill at the electronics? The repair is short-term, but in the the warranty period should not be anything wrong with that, and after the warranty is no longer a problem of the manufacturer, but a buyer. 

You do realize that this tape already exists in other parts of your camera. And that the computer or phone you typed this message on also has a similar type of tape. Especially if it's a Mac. God help you if you try to take apart the newer ones, they have tape everywhere. Oh, and your house/apt. That thing has tape ALL over its wires.

LensRental took about a D7000. There basically isn't a section where they don't mention "remove tape shielding". In many cases, its what keeps your camera from breaking by shorting wires, etc.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/d7000-dissection

My phone might have the same type of tape inside of it, but my phone is only designed to last a couple years or so.  And while it might already be in my camera, I'd dare say it's to tape together wires that are already shielded.  Same with my house - tape isn't not applied directly to exposed electrical connections, but to shielded wires or such.

I too would be worried about the long term affects of the glue on the exposed electrical connections.  Cameras are exposed to heat, humidity, cold...all of which speed up the degrading of the tape.  Tape is not designed to last 10 years...or 5 years in such conditions and I've witnessed electrical tape 'disintegrate' into 'goo' after just a few short months in the heat.

As an engineer I have to say that your response is mind numbingly idiotic. Adhesive used around electronics doesn't disolve and magically find electrical contacts to disrupt - in fact adhesive designed for electronics like the type they likely used doesn't even conduct electricity. Furthermore electronics adhesive is insanely durable. There are different sorts of electronics adhesive but in many designs they actually use the adhesive to hold the parts together in favor of metal screws. Read that again, they use the adhesive instead of screws made of hardened metal because it is more durable. The life expectancy of most electronics adhesive is 20-50 years... when directly exposed to the elements 24/7.

So for a non-structural peice already held by friction, and weather sealed from the elements you can expect the electronics adhesive to outlast the camera 10 times over.

152

EOS Bodies / Re: differences in color between Mark ii and Mark iii?

« on: May 02, 2012, 02:35:56 AM »

The colors in the 5D Mark III are a substantial improvement on the 5D Mark II. This is after about 20 hours of comparison between the two on color reproduction which is important to me.

If you don't like the colors you can always correct them with a passport color checker.

153

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon did everything it could in 5D3

« on: May 02, 2012, 02:30:55 AM »

I sincerely believe that Canon did everything it could to 5D3. Its AF is dramatically improved, its body is improved, and its shooting is improved. There is no question that if Canon had improved sensor, they would have made it part of 5D3. So, if/when Canon has a modern sensor, it will make it part of 5D4 or 5D5.

Canon just does not have a modern sensor or technology for the price point, thus 5D3 had to be content with 5D2 sensor.

That above was our conclusion and the factor in not completely switching to Nikon. We will hang on to our Canon gears (lenses and flashes mostly) for a year or two.

After talking to a lot of Canon insiders I have to disagree with your statement.

The 5D Mark III was in development and ready for a long time. They delayed the release for a long time to make sure 5D Mark II stocks were really low so they didn't have to lower the price. They also didn't put their best pixels in the camera. The G1X is about a quarter stop better in ISO and has an even better AA filter. The camera also received virtually unchanged video which is pretty much the same as the 5D2 so they could start selling their 16k video cameras and 1Dc at a huge mark up. The camera was easily capable of twice the video throughput and even more with simple upgrades.

Canon built the camera for profit. Nikon built their camera to capture market share.

In the end Canon ended up with a camera that has better iso and similar or equal resolution (lens limited in most cases, according to both Canon's tech guys and many tests), and Nikon ended up with a camera that has better DR and can sometimes acheive 27% more resolution with the best primes between f/4.0-f/8.0.

If Canon built a camera to truely acheive epic performance and value it would have a third of a stop better ISO and much better video.

154

Canon General / Realistic Pro Wishlist that Canon Could Build THIS YEAR

« on: April 30, 2012, 05:38:47 AM »

So I decided to do some brainstorming and figure out what my ideal set of gear would be which Canon could deliver in less than a year. I thought I'd post it and get some feedback.

Bodies:

Canon 3D

29.0 Megapixels

7 FPS

1/3rd stop better ISO than 5D3

Almost all butons able to be reassigned through custom functions (not just set button and a few others)

Built in Wi-Fi with remote live view and automatic file sync

Built in Canon wirless flash transmitter

Canon has the technology to go 1/3rd stop better with ISO and deliver up to 200 megapixels, as proven with the G1X pixels, the other stuff is a no brainer, come on Canon.


$4,500

Lenses:

Note: Canon does not use APO designations, their big L lenses are APO though. Canon really neglects APO and needs to stop.

Canon 24mm TS-E II f/3.5 L (existing)

Nothing needs changing with this lens. Maybe a faster aperture.

$2000

Canon 24mm f/1.2 L USM

The old lens with the faster aperture it could make good use of.

$2000

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 IS L USM

Tamron has shown Canon how to make this lens, now all they have to do is make a high quality version of the Tamron.

$2600

Canon 50mm f/1.4 L APO USM

Rodenstock Makes a 50mm APO lens that is 2 stops slower, it would be fairly simple to make the design larger.

$1200

Canon 85mm f/1.4 L APO USM

Leica has a fantastic 90mm APO lens, which has a very similar design to the 85mm 1.2L. It should be fairly easy to design such a lens.

$1700

Canon 135mm f/1.8 L APO USM IS

This would be an upgrade on the existing 135mm, Zeiss already has a great 135mm f/1.8 design so it's readily possible.

$2000

Canon 75-225mm f/2.0 L USM IS

Sigma proved you can make such a lens with the 50-150mm OS, all you'd have to do is scale their design up. Many EF-S lenses inspire or are based off of full frame lenses.

$3000

Hopefully Canon is listening.

155

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D3200 announced. Is Canon going to rise to the challenge?

« on: April 29, 2012, 12:46:59 AM »

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25492/D3200.html

The nice 24.2 MP sensor from Sony NEX-7 in the D3200 is going to present a challenge to Canon to come up with a competitive body at the $700 pricepoint.  After the 5D III vs. D800 embarrassment (and this coming from a 5D III owner), I sure hope Canon has something good to announce, something that does not use the same old 18 MP sensor in all their cameras.

I write reviews for camera websites and spend a lot of time talking to Canon tech people for insight and insider info on their products.

There are absolutaly no crop or full frame lenses from anywhere which can outresolve 15.5 Megapixels on crop. Take that number and give a little headroom for bayer patterns and anti-aliasing reductions in resolution (15% or so) and anything more is just a ridiculous joke.

According Canon's tech guys the reason they aren't going past 18 Megapixels is because it would be useless do so. The fact that Nikon is going all the way to 24 MP is not an embarassment to Canon, far from it, if anything the joke is on Nikon releasing cameras with useless resolution. People seem to really have a hard time wrapping their head around the idea that more megapixels will not equal more resolution and more printing ability. Here's visual proof of what the difference would be between an 18 MP crop sensor interpolated to 24 MP and a 24 mp crop sensor:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/7867844/img/Picture-Box/5d3d800-zoomresolution.jpg

Incidentally that is also a comparison between the 5D3 rendered at 36 megapixels and the D800. That is the exact difference you will see with zoom lenses between the two and the exact difference you will see with all but the best primes. The best primes top out at 28.3 megapixels and the best zooms top out around 23 megapixels. According to Canon's tech guys they are choosing to stick to the 20 MP range because there are no lenses which can deliver much more than that. In fact the whole reason for introducing a lot of the Mark II lenses (like the 16-35mm II) was so they could resolve 21 megapixels on the 1Ds Mk III and 5D3 compared to the 13 of the 5D. 

In my mind though I feel that a sensor with slightly more than the max resolution of the lenses out there is reasonable. Canon should call it quits around 29 MP instead of having slightly less resolution than the lenses out there. That's what you don't want.

According to Canon they would rather focus on high ISO than eeking out the last bit of resolution. 

156

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?

« on: April 07, 2012, 04:42:23 PM »

It seems that this is a an issue with the LED's of the LCD backlight leaking light onto the metering sensor. The amount of light that's leaked is so small that in most situations it would effect exposure about 1/100th of a stop which is not noticeable to the human eye. The light doesn't leak onto the sensor so that's a non issue.

The far greater issue is when bright sunlight strikes the LCD and leaks to the metering sensor, that could noticeably affect exposure. (this is unconfirmed though)

I just tried this on my 5D II and 20D and this seems to be an issue there too. Clearly this is a small enough issue that it took 10 years to find, and everyone still took great photos, but if the LCD actually does leak light onto the metering sensor that should be fixed, otherwise, it's a non-issue. 

157

Lenses / Re: Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?

« on: April 06, 2012, 11:59:35 PM »

I think it's more than just all of the Canon 50mm's that suck. I would go as far as to say that virtually all the 50mm lenses available for Canon or Nikon aren't very good, at least above f/2.8. The performance of the Canon 50mm: f/1.2, 1.4, & 1.8, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Nikon 50mm, 1.4D, 1.8G, & 1.8D and Zeiss 50mm 1.4 are all fairly bad above f/2.8.

The Voigtlander Nokton 50mm 1.4, Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro, & Nikon 50mm 1.4G are decent at f/2.0 though, but leave a lot to be desired compared to what we're used to with top lenses at f/2.0.

The whole 50mm fast lens range seems to just be bad.

158

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

« on: April 05, 2012, 03:38:22 PM »

Looking at the pictures, it appears that, yet again, Tamron didn't bother to make the focus and zoom rings turn the correct direction. Do they not realize that the primary customer for this lens is going to be a professional who owns lenses such as the 70-200L and 17-40L?

This is a serious usability flaw, and a dealbreaker for me. A consistent user interface is critical, and Tamron has broken it here. They finally graduated to the late 20th century and added USM and IS to their lenses; would it kill them to make Canon-mount lenses that behave like Canon's own lenses?

Who cares as long as it has stunning image quality? This is going to be Tamron's biggest issue by far. Every single one of their lenses, except for the 18-270mm & 60mm Macro, has performance that matches Canon lenses from the late 80's to early 90's for a price that's usually not much lower than the current ones. Some of their lenses besides the 18-270mm and 60mm are decent, yes BUT so were Canon's equivalent lenses from the 80's.  Their lenses perform decently on paper but if you look at any comparisons on the-digital-picture.com they have extreme issues with hazing and soft corners, often to the point of being comically terrible.

The focus and zoom rings could be made of paper mache if the image quality is decent and it would still be a major acheivement as a lens and a major acheivement for Tamron. We'll have to see.

159

EOS Bodies / Re: Comparing my 60d with my new 5d3 not seeing much of a difference.

« on: March 31, 2012, 08:47:09 PM »

I am having a hard time comparing photos at various iso's between the two in real life around the house shots any suggestions that anyone has would be great on how to test this during my return period. So far it has better color saturation and lower noise but it's still there. Maybe it's the kit lens but if so that's all I can afford right now. Ohh yeah and I do like the auto shutter speed you can set. Those who said it does not work just don't realize if the camera cannot shoot at your max set iso it will lower the shutter speed. That is a good thing. It's like people would want it not to work. Either way any good testing suggestions would be great. Also it seems like the 24-105 is really not that far of a zoom. I think if I keep it I will have to invest in a zoom before a prime.

If you really can't see the difference between a 5D mark III and a 60D then it's probably too much camera for you. The difference between the two is probably the greatest difference between two DSLRs in any given generation, ever.

The difference is groundbreaking when compared to what you see between any other two cameras. I'm also not sure why you're criticizing the 5D3 for "still having noise" despite it being lower. The 5D3 isn't magically embued with the power to defy the laws of physics. Light has noise on a quantum level because the particles themselves arive randomly on the sensor. The more particles you collect, the lower the noise because the randomness averages out.

The 5D3 collects around 6 (SIX) times as many light particles as the 60D, that's obscenely huge, in the camera world a 30% difference is considered a big improvement. In fact the 5D3 collects around twice as much light as the 5D2 (based on initial comparisons), and the 5D2 collects just under 3 times as much light as the 60D (according to DXO mark).

Your kit lens has nothing to do with noise and color.

Anyways here's what the difference is:



The difference is very obvious, again six times less noise

160

EOS Bodies / Re: Can anyone post production 5D Mk III raw files?

« on: March 21, 2012, 09:08:53 PM »

Hi
I have 2 off 5d mk111, I got them on friday 16th March from a UK canon stockist, who I purchase all my kit from.
My initial thoughts are I'm really concerned about the amount of noise the raw images are producing. There is confusion over use of Lightroom 4 as it currently doesn't support the canon cr2 files, but if you convert them using the new adobe dng converter v6.7 (still at beta stage though) then you can import them into lightroom 4. The raw files are extremely noisy, and I am currently processing the canon cr2 files with canons own software, and intend to run a few comparison's. So if anyone else has this issue, then I would be delighted to hear from you. I am currently very frustrated and concerned as all I see in the press is how amazing the camera is. I appreciate its early days though, and I really need to use the proprietary Canon software first before I get too despondent.
I'm a real canon fan and I'm back to using my lovely 1d mk111's and feeling much better. I also have two 1DX's on order so hope lightroom catches up in the interim as workflow is far slicker in lightroom.

Thanks for the reply I'm suprised I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere as it is a serious issue, let's hope it's just a software problem for now.

161

EOS Bodies / Re: How "raw" are raw files?

« on: March 21, 2012, 08:45:36 PM »

Both Canon and Nikon ALREADY use processing to increase the dynamic range of RAW files. Nikon's processing is several times more advanced than Canon's though.

Very interesting. So is the Sony/Nikon Exmor sensor that much better than Canon's full-frame sensors, or is some of its advantage in DR attributable to better in-camera processing? Is contrast and color reproduction/saturation also tweaked by in camera before the information is recorded as a raw file?

IMHO, all that really matters is the end product, regardless how large of a role in-camera processing and the sensor itself plays in the equation. I suppose the notion that raw images accurately reflect sensor performance is bogus, but not quite as bogus as a jpeg.

The advantage from Nikon is both in hardware AND software from Nikon. Not only do they process their raw files to maximize dynamic range much better than Canon, but they have better hardware. Color is not tweaked but constrast is (to help dynamic range). So Canon files have more contrast.

In-camera raw "cooking" is a serious issue because cameras are tools sold on their performance and trying to fool people by creating deceptive performance means people get a sub-par product. Generally speaking dynamic range, and long exposure noise are the only things that benefit from in camera processing. Beyond that processing degrades the image. The quality of the sensor is the single largest factor determining the level of noise and sharpness at a given ISO.

There was a recent camera system launched, I beleive it was a 4/3rds system which used in-camera sharpening of raw files, they did this so reviewers would think their lenses were sharper than they were which was a handicap of a small sensor. The lenses acheived litelrally impossible sharpness figures and made the impression you were getting L glass for half as much but the real photos didn't look that great. You were actually getting a worse product for more money because of the deception of raw cooking.

This is a pretty interesting discussion. Given some of the discussions here from simple benchmarking tests, you'd believe that Nikon are absolutely destroying Canon at low ISOs. While I'm certainly impressed with what Nikon can do at 36MP, there are comparison areas where I think the equivalent Canon image is stronger.

I'm sure it'd be possible to design a sensor and preprocessing logic to create really strong results on synthetic benchmarks. It's the engineering equivalent of teaching to the test, and we've seen in in the past with processor and gpu benchmarks on PCs.

I wonder how well a benchmark can control for something like that.

Canon and Nikon already cheat very heavily when it comes to camera performance. Thankfully neither do anything that degrades sensor quality and for the most part they don't cook raw files to boost performance. They do however over-rate the ISO of a given camera to help in back to back benchmarks. The over-rating of ISO is so bad that in some cases it's 80%. Meaning your 6400 ISO photos are actually taken at around 3600 ISO. Thankfully both manufacturers do it so it evens out.

162

EOS Bodies / Can anyone post production 5D Mk III raw files?

« on: March 21, 2012, 04:35:24 PM »

I've been playing around with a few pre-production raw files in ACR. As a professional photo retoucher this is my area of expertise. I realize that the latest version of ACR is in beta and pre-production bodies aren't a good representation, but at 100, 200, and 50 ISO I'm noticing some profoundly terrible results which are noticably worse than the 5D Mk. II.

It just looks like there is way too much noise at low iso, the images look like they were taken with a 5 year old point and shoot camera at base iso, not the latest pro body. Specifically, at iso 100 I'm finding images look like the 5D Mk II at iso 800. I've seen this in two pre-production bodies so far and am becoming very concerned about the 5D Mk. III image quality.

So if you guys could post your 5D Mark III low iso raws, I'd appreciate it, thanks!

163

EOS Bodies / Re: How "raw" are raw files?

« on: March 21, 2012, 04:14:34 PM »

With all the comparisons of high ISO raw files that's been going on lately, my pea brain needs some clarification on a few issues. My understanding has always been that raw files represent the information that the camera actually captures in its purest form, with no manipulation whatsoever. However, others have mentioned that Nikon bodies "cook" their files by applying in-camera noise reduction. Obviously, at that point a raw file doesn't represent what the camera captured in it's purest form, and therefore does not accurately represent the performance of the sensor. Does Canon do the same thing with its raw files?

This raises a few more issues. If a camera applies noise reduction to its raw files, what's to say that it can't extend dynamic range with in-camera processing as well? I defer whether or not extending DR of raw files via in-camera software is even possible to the real tech heads on here, but if a camera did do this, how would you even know unless a manufacturer disclosed this info in its literature? 

On one hand, I can see why you'd want a true, unprocessed raw file as a means of measuring sensor performance. On the other hand, if in-camera processing is sophisticated enough to improved overall IQ to the point where that a photographer can't even tell that in-camera processing was applied in the first place, who really cares?

Both Canon and Nikon ALREADY use processing to increase the dynamic range of RAW files. Nikon's processing is several times more advanced than Canon's though.

Nikon cooks the raw files for noise reduction ONLY during long exposures.

Beyond that there is nothing done to the raw files as far as I've been able to find, and real world tests seem to confirm that no noise reduction is applied to the raw files.

164

Lenses / Re: Sigma new 105mm macro better than canon 100L macro ?

« on: March 20, 2012, 10:49:20 PM »

If you look at the chart, the Sigma maybe has the edge (a small one) wide open at f2.8 but as soon as stop down to even f3.2 or f4.0 the Canon L Macro actually seem better 0 to my eye anyway.

Am sure they perform both very well in real life situation however.

Agreed, there is a slight edge wide open, but the Canon smashes the Sigma stopped down. It's a shame because it could have been a great bargain.

165

EOS Bodies / Re: Based purely on specs, used only for landscapes: D800 or MKIII?

« on: March 17, 2012, 05:29:20 PM »

I'm too much of an amateur to tell from the specs which is better for landscape photography. 

I've read multiple posts on various sites that the D800 is better. 

If you wanted to just do landscape photography, in a variety of environments, for the purpose of selling framed prints, selling cards, and entering contests, can you tell just by looking at the specs which one is better?

Thanks!  I'll go back to my T1i now. But I'm going to buy one of the two.

The D800/E is your best bet. The D800 and 5D3 aren't too different overall for normal use, because the 5D3 has a very weak AA filter, so for general purpose it's not that big of a deal.

Here's a comparison with randomly arranged samples, with the 5D3 uprezed to the D800 resolution at 100% and one of the sharpest lenses in the world a Sigma 70mm f/2.8:

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/7801636/img/Picture-Box/crops5d3vsd800.jpg


The D800 is still better but if you're not using the best techniques, lenses etc or pushing base iso raw files a lot, it will be a wash, plus the 5D3 has in camera HDR for jpgs.

The D800E is going to be extremely supperior to the 5D3 though for landscape work. It doesn't have an AA filter which means you might have to do a lot of work to reduce moire but it will be decidedly sharper and noticably so.

Nikon cameras also have much better dynamic range, while signal to noise ratio tests show that they are similar they are not because the Canon has what's called banding noise, which noise reduction cannot remove. Noise reduction is good for 2-5 stops of improvement so there is a noticable difference when you're trying to make the shadows more than 7 times brighter on a Canon camera. This video should explain that:

http://testcams.com/blog/2011/05/03/nikon-dx-vs-canon-aps-c-dynamic-range/

So in conclusion: Landscape Pro = D800E, Landscape Amateur = either one