Messages

16

Lighting / Nissin Di866 II AF beam works on 5D3

« on: December 23, 2012, 08:50:15 AM »

So I finally got my 5D3 last week and I got around to testing it with my current flash, the Nissin Di866 II. I seem to recall hearing about 5D3 having trouble using the AF beams of the 580 and 600 speedlites. I don't have any of those flashes to give a comparison but I can say that the AF assist with the Nissin was very reliable in low light!

I've tried using the AF beam both with and without actually firing the flash and in both cases, the unit actually manages to find the target even in a pitch black room. Heck, I couldn't even see what I was aiming at! All my subjective testing was done using the Tamron 24-70 lens on the 5D3 and from what I noticed, focusing with the AF beam seems to be just a tad slower than focusing with sufficient light.

Are there any users of both the 5D3 and the Nissin flash that can confirm these? Again, I have no experience with the 580/600 so I can't do even subjective comparisons.

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D: 'I need a Must Have's List'

« on: December 17, 2012, 01:42:48 AM »

I have a Canon EF-S 15-85 on my crop body and that was great as a walkaround lens. But since I got the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC USD, I haven't been using the other lens. The 24-70 range might not be so versatile as far as crop is concerned but I find it does better for people shots since it doesn't have the distorted perspective of wider angle lenses. The Tamron is fast ( f/2.8 ) so you can get decent DoF and its also sharp when using a crop body. And the vignetting its known for also disappears when using crop. And using a lens like that makes upgrading to FF later on much easier! To fill the wide angle, you can then grab a 10-22 and that leaves only a tiny gap in the lens range.

18

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography

« on: December 15, 2012, 03:11:42 PM »

Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of it, but I'm talking about this.  That example is moving the camera to preserve the size of the subject, but that's because it's dealing with a single camera and sensor size.  In my hypothetical though, a full frame and a crop camera in the same position would require different focal lengths to capture equivalent fields of view (as described by Neuro).  (Again, as I understand it) The longer focal length on the full frame camera would offer greater distance compression though, and so a shot with a far away mountain would appear to bring that mountain closer.

In that particular example, the camera was moved around as you mentioned. Focal length doesn't inherently change the perspective. Its the camera-subject distance that does this. So increasing focal length means your subject is larger. To maintain the same subject size, you step back which then changes perspective.

In the APS-C and FF discussion, the FF has a wider FoV due to the bigger sensor. So to get the same FoV as the crop sensor, you can zoom in (increase focal length) without moving the camera. No camera movement = same perspective and same compression.

Well dang, it looks like you are totally right: http://www.scottbideauphotography.com/myths-about-lens-compression/

I've always heard it referred to as "lens compression" and read stuff like this which make it sound as though the focal length is what is responsible for the phenomenon.  Nope!

Thanks for prodding me into reading further.

You're welcome. I actually used to think the same way myself. When I read about how focal length doesn't actually change perspective (I think it was some post by neuro), I went out to my balcony to confirm it.

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography

« on: December 15, 2012, 02:57:13 PM »

Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of it, but I'm talking about this.  That example is moving the camera to preserve the size of the subject, but that's because it's dealing with a single camera and sensor size.  In my hypothetical though, a full frame and a crop camera in the same position would require different focal lengths to capture equivalent fields of view (as described by Neuro).  (Again, as I understand it) The longer focal length on the full frame camera would offer greater distance compression though, and so a shot with a far away mountain would appear to bring that mountain closer.

In that particular example, the camera was moved around as you mentioned. Focal length doesn't inherently change the perspective. Its the camera-subject distance that does this. So increasing focal length means your subject is larger. To maintain the same subject size, you step back which then changes perspective.

In the APS-C and FF discussion, the FF has a wider FoV due to the bigger sensor. So to get the same FoV as the crop sensor, you can zoom in (increase focal length) without moving the camera. No camera movement = same perspective and same compression.

To clarify, I am not bemoaning the lesser apparent reach of full frame.  My hypothetical assumes available glass to get the same field of view on both sensors without cropping.  I'm less concerned with the overall size the mountain takes up in the frame (solvable with cropping), and more with its relative size compared to everything else (which cropping doesn't change).

Undeniably, there will be differences in FF and APS-C if you try to maintain the same subject sizing with the same focal length. But assuming you're simply using the zoom of the lens, there will be no difference in relative sizing. So if what you're saying is that you have a lens and use it with the same focal length for both sensors, you have to move to maintain the FoV which then changes perspective.

20

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography

« on: December 15, 2012, 02:31:06 PM »

As I understand it, zooming as described in Neuro's test preserves field of view, but not perspective.  I don't see that as a problem in the test though, I think it just demonstrates an (admittedly subjective) advantage of full frame over crop in this arena.  In the same way that full frame is seen as having an advantage in portraiture due to shallower depth of field for a given field of view, in landscape shooting I see it as advantageous to get greater distance compression for a given field of view.

Zooming changes the focal length being used which changes the FoV. But as long as the distance between the camera and subject are not changed, perspective is preserved. What this basically means is that you're effectively cutting out the outer areas of the image. The perspective change comes when you try to move the camera closer or farther away from the subject to maintain the FoV. In the of between FF and APS-C, you have to zoom the lens further on a FF to get the same frame and perspective as the APS-C. Without moving the camera, that is.

If the shot I want is at 100mm on a crop sensor and 160mm on a full frame, that's an extra 60mm bringing the mountains in the distance closer.  At least for my own photography, I pretty much always want mountains to appear larger, it's rare that I have the opposite problem.

As some people would say in these forums, if you don't really plan on printing your pictures and resolution is not that critical, you can crop a FF image in post. Since there isn't any perspective difference, you can get the APS-C reach by cropping an 8.64MP out of a 22.1MP image. That might sound like a big loss but that's still a good 3600x2400 image! For screen use, only a few displays can even match that kind resolution and that's certainly not the general public!

Apologies if I've mucked up any of the terminology, or am just plain wrong on anything.  Until a couple of weeks ago I wasn't even thinking about being able to get a full frame camera, and now I'm probably upgrading next week, so I've been doing... a lot... of reading and thinking about the subject.

I'm pretty much new to photography (started sometime around April this year) so I know the feeling. Hey, I might even be wrong with what I just said above! In which case, someone please correct/confirm what I just said.

21

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Crop vs FF for landscape photography

« on: December 15, 2012, 01:19:11 PM »

Popcorn was fine up to a certain point... But I have to agree with neuro on this.

We are discussing whether or not there is an IQ difference between sensors of similar resolution but different physical size. All other factors must be equal in testing this, or perceived differences could be due to something other than the physical sensor size.

I will grant that in some situations those other factors may be practically relevant. For example, when the choices were the 5D and 20D there were no good options for UWA on crop. But in judging any of this we must first determine what, if any, sensor differences exist absent all other influences.

Sorry, I'm not seeing a viable suggestion from you.  The sensors are different sizes - something must change for the resulting images to be framed the same.  The three options are crop the FF image, change the distance to the subject, or change the focal length.  The first defeats the purpose, the second changes the perspective of the image. Maybe I should have moved the camera, but arranged for the Museum of Fine Arts building to be moved closer to the foreground?  Or maybe I should have chosen perfectly flat subjects like test charts, obviating perspective?  Have I missed any options?

Cropping the image and doing side-by-side comparisons definitely isn't the way to go. Assuming that the camera position was not moved and the same lens and focal length were used, you have a 22MP (say the 5D3) at focal length X and an 18MP (i.e. 7D) at focal length 1.6X. So cropping this to produce the same view would mean that your APS-C image has 2.0736 times more pixels than the FF one. You could resample the images but that would give the APS-C image a slight advantage.

Besides, why would you have to deal with the crops? The fact is, the FF cameras out there (on Canon's end at least) have higher resolutions than the APS-C ones. Do our eyes crop the image to equalize the resolutions? Doesn't it make more sense to compare whole images?

Zooming in the lens like neuro makes sense since that at least preserves perspective without biasing the resolution significantly. In fact, if you think about it, some lenses perform poorer on the long end so it can actually be to the FF disadvantage anyway. When you downsample everything to a smaller resolution like neuro did, the difference between 18MP and 22MP should be negligible along with minor fluctuations in lens characteristics (assuming good lenses were used of course). At least that way, there is less bias.

Translation: you can't prove your point with hard evidence, so you're taking your ball and going home.

I was never trying to prove a point with hard evidence. Please go back and reread my initial post, and this time, pay very close attention to the part you ignored in your first response, the part where I stated that my observations were subjective and completely anecdotal.  Your treatment of it as if it were hard evidence was your first and biggest mistake, one that essentially renders the rest of the discussion moot.

Hard evidence was never neuro's point from his first post. But if we're discussing hard evidence, shouldn't the methodology at least be properly established?

FWIW, I am a card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD and a day job in the field

This means nothing at all. All that matters is how a test is performed, and not who performed it. As a "card-carrying 'strict scientist' PhD' you should know and live by this.

What a classic and intriguing case of human bias and emotion in action, and from a "card-carrying 'strict scientist', PhD" no less. This is why I never automatically trust scientists even in their narrow fields of study, but treat their claims with the same critical eye as I would anyone else. No matter what is claimed in training or degrees (pieces of paper with ink), they are still human, and display all the classic flaws of human nature.

Okay... now that really ticked me off. While it is true that everything should be taken with a grain of salt, it is equally as true that scientists do a lot to get their degrees. These are "pieces of paper with ink" but are they inked so easily? Objectivity is one important aspect that is learned as a scientist. You don't publish works that scream out "BIASED". Those things rarely get past peer reviews.

FWIW, I am an academic researcher myself and I deal especially with image processing. And from what I see, neuro's post was anecdotal but technically sound. This would be much easier if there were a good ubiquitous no-reference quality metric but subjective testing is really the only option at this point and there can never really be a perfect "standard" procedure that everyone agrees on.

Personally, I haven't used a FF yet so I can't tell if there is really a difference. I've been using the 60D and I do feel that there's an extra quality that's missing. Maybe its my lenses. Or maybe its the effective DoF. Heck, maybe its even just me! I'll only know for sure when I get my hands on the 5D3 arriving soon.

22

Software & Accessories / Would you use it?

« on: December 07, 2012, 03:26:12 AM »

Okay, out of curiosity I'd like to ask this to the community.

Denoising images post-RAW (or in fact post-demosaicking) presents a few problems and artifacts (e.g. spatial noise correlation) which would otherwise be avoided when denoising the RAW 14/16-bit data. The problem is that AFAIK, plugins to RAW editing tools give access to post-demosaicked data so it would be difficult to incorporate it in existing software. An alternative option is to read RAW, denoise, and save as RAW again to fit into the workflow.

So the question is this... If such a software option were available that would allow you to denoise images better than DPP/LR/others, would you use it?

Of course, this has question has a follow-up. If space is a concern, you can overwrite the original RAW files but this is a destructive process. Otherwise, you can retain the original RAW files but use up more space. Which would you prefer?

23

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 Box Size

« on: November 24, 2012, 03:49:03 PM »

The 5D3 box is about 25 x 18 x 15 centimeters.

Good luck with your camera!

Thanks a lot for that! At least now I won't be worrying about being charged for dimensional weight.

24

EOS Bodies / 5D3 Box Size

« on: November 23, 2012, 10:05:33 AM »

So instead of preordering the 6D, the recent 5D3 deal at $2500 was just so sweet (with or without warranty), I just grabbed it!

Since I'm not within the US, I have to have it shipped to me by my friend. So the question is... For the 5D3 owners out there, can anybody give me the dimensions of the camera box (not the shipping box... the one from Canon)? I can't seem to find that info on the web.

25

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DPreview adds 6D sample images to their preview

« on: November 20, 2012, 05:25:47 AM »

However, this shows how desperate the Canon crowd is for sensor advancement ... the Nikon competition obviously has left its mark :-> ... and again, imho there is no fixed distinction between "pro" or not except for marketing, why not use the 6d if it is at least as good or even better (low light af) for some shots?

Agreed! If the low-light AF functionality of the 6D is as advertised, then it certainly caters to a different group of photographers. Body is still magnesium alloy reinforced after all. What's really missing is the lack of the advanced AF system of the higher-end models. Maybe eventually, the 6D would also be used as a backup body for when low-light is needed.

Personally, as long as the 6D doesn't perform poorer in the IQ area compared to the 5D3, then its certainly a viable option for people like me who don't really take much pictures of moving subjects.

26

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DPreview adds 6D sample images to their preview

« on: November 20, 2012, 02:44:25 AM »

Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

http://i.stack.imgur.com/VVoQ6.jpg - or attachment

Not to burst anyone's bubble but the 5D3 sample I saw in the DPR galleries was with no NR applied. So unless I missed something, this comparison is like comparing the in-camera NR'd 6D images vs no NR 5D3. Hardly a fair comparison. But these images are certainly encouraging compared to the ones on Flickr.

Okay, I just looked around a bit more and I did see the right samples. So unless there was a significant different between the pre-production 5D3 and the final version, the 6D samples look great! Time to really pre-order this one.

27

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade advice: 6D or 5D2/3?

« on: November 16, 2012, 11:46:02 PM »

All those 5D3 deals are taunting me...

But... I think I'll stick to the 6D+Tamron 24-70 with the current budget. The 5D2 sounds like a good system but with the few hundred bucks to the 6D, I do think I can get more out of the built-in WiFi, GPS, low-light AF, high ISO performance (that comes with the newer sensor and DIGIC core), etc. It's not like I do photography to get any sort of income so a next upgrade will take years and keeping the older 5D2 doesn't seem like a good idea.

Note that the 61pt af is only for the most expensive lenses - lesser glass uses less af points, and the outer points degrade to non-cross. Grab the pdf 5d3 manual and read which class your lenses are in so you aren't disappointed. The 11pt 6d af (or all-cros 9pt af on 60d or 19pt on the 7d) work with all lenses alike.

I checked the manual and my lenses seem to work with the 61-pt focusing system but with fewer cross-type. Still a superior system to the 6D in that sense.

In the end, I think my decision is driven primarily by needs and budget constraints. I need a full-frame system but with my photography, as many have pointed out, AF isn't as critical. The 61-pt focus is a good bonus if I go 5D3 though. But in that case, I won't be able to afford any lenses in the near future. And what use is a good body with no good lenses right?

So with all that, I'll probably jump into the pre-order sometime soon. Hopefully there won't be any delays with the release! Thanks to everyone for their input!

(There's no chance of the 5D3 crawling towards 6D prices anytime soon right?  )

28

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade advice: 6D or 5D2/3?

« on: November 15, 2012, 09:42:36 PM »

Great insights everyone! Thanks!

To answer some, the need for a new system isn't all that urgent. The 60D and 15-85 are technically sold but they're still staying for a few more months - its complicated. Then again, I could never resist preordering (early adopter tendencies).

There seem to be quite a lot of concern about the 6D having no reviews so barring IQ from the equation, I'm more concerned about the limitation in AF points (11 vs 61). Great to hear that for my needs 11 might be enough though.

I forgot to mention that budget is quite limited at this point and stretching for a 5D3 would be difficult (not impossible). The move to a 5D3 would mean that I wouldn't be able to get any new lenses anytime soon. I was thinking of the 6D+Tamron 24-70 (yes I know, not as sharp as the canon 24-70 mk II) and that would stretch budget to the limit. Note again that I do NOT do this in any professional capacity and I don't really earn off it.

Also, about the WiFi and GPS features of the 6D, I don't really need the GPS but having WiFi seems like a good thing for me in the sense of getting remote control capabilities.

So as of now, I guess the decision is still tilting towards the 6D.  Unless someone brings up some dealbreaker. 

29

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade advice: 6D or 5D2/3?

« on: November 15, 2012, 11:14:08 AM »

Despite some of the speculation here, I don't think anyone really knows how the AF on this camera is going to perform based on specs alone. Personally, I'm waiting for some in-depth reviews before I take the plunge.

*edit- sorry, I'm really not being helpful here. Probably someone else like Neuroanatomist could explain the technical advantage a 61pt system might hold over an un-tested 11 point system.

Yep, that's the same dilemma I have. No worries though, just looking for opinions. And yeah, technical advantages would be great.

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Upgrade advice: 6D or 5D2/3?

« on: November 15, 2012, 10:57:34 AM »

I think you may be about 3 weeks early if asking for opinions on the 6D. I certainly can't provide you with expert advice, but I think at this point nobody else can, either.

(Nice photos, BTW.)

Thanks! 

It's not really about the opinions on the camera I suppose. Maybe I should put it more concisely... Purely from a specification point of view, is there any benefit of getting the 61-pt AF vs 11-pt AF for my use? Plus other features into consideration of course.

Also, the 6D will be released early-mid December which if you include shipping (I'm not anywhere where pre-orders are available) would be just in time for the holidays. So I think I have to jump into the pre-order wagon if I'm to have the slightest chance of getting it on time.