CDD28 said:

This may be a stupid question but I'm always paranoid about damaging my equipment so this has me worrying...

So yesterday on an assignment for work, I was photographing people cooking chicken wings. My cameras now have a slight oily feel and the rubber reeks of cooking grease. This is all just from being in the room where the food was being cooked.

My question -- is it likely the cooking grease from the air got inside the body and lenses? I'm now worrying that there is an oil buildup inside the lenses from being in this environment yesterday. I was using 1DX II + 70-200 2.8 III and 1DX + 16-35 2.8 III, both lenses with filters, if that even makes a difference.

Click to expand...

Its not likely to get inside, just clean the outside as normal.

Sporgon said:

I am no technical wizard and my answers are only what I have found from my own experiences, but the answer to your question is yes and no, which is why there is so much debate and confusion over the internet. Smaller pixels gather less light, so higher mp cameras are worse at this point. However lower mp cameras have a smaller output size, higher mp a larger output size. Interpolate down those higher numbers of less efficient pixels to the same number of pixels as the lower mp camera and you finish with the same performance in output quality terms.

Putting it another way, if you print out a very high iso image from at 5DIV at native resolution, so 28" across at 240 dpi, and also print the same image from the 5DS at native resolution and at the same high iso, so this picture will be 36" across, the 5DIV will show better ISO performance. However reduce the 5DS image down to the same size as the 5DIV, down from 36" to 28", and the quality of the picture will be the same.

Or to sum it up: in theory yes, in practice no.

Click to expand...

FWIW, my simplistic understanding is it works this way.

Smaller pixels gather less light, but the important thing is the total light gathered by the sensor. So, the amount of light per pixel isn't necessarily the key.

Larger pixels have a greater full well capacity. When shooting in good light (so generally low ISO), the greater full well capacity can help because it allows a greater range of results (subtley of tones) than a small pixel which should become full/saturated sooner. On the other hand, a smaller pixel is going to gather less light in a given amount of time, so in the end again, it's not as simple as saying a larger pixel is necessarily better. It depends on how big the difference is between the small and large pixels.

Where a difference comes is that larger pixels potentially mean a greater light-gathering area on the sensor. Each pixel has a "wall", and small pixels mean more pixels for a given size sensor, which means more "walls". Assuming the walls are the same width, more of the sensor is lost to non-light-gathering walls. So, if the pixels have the same QE, the overall sensor QE for the sensor with small pixels is lower than the overall sensor QE for the sensor with large pixels. When there is plenty of light (so assume low ISO), the slightly lower QE doesn't matter. As light level drops though (think higher ISO), the difference in QE starts to become more significant.

Incidentally, I understand this is essentially why BSI sensor designs are regarded as better than the older designs, ie BSI moves some components off the sensor surface which is used for light gathering, so allows the light gathering areas to be larger while the physical size of the sensor stays the same.

However, as Sporgon has said, you have to take into account output size too. As you reduce output size, differences becomes harder to pick. As you increase output size, differences get easier to see. But as you increase output size, the lower resolution sensor starts to hit its limit before the higher resolution sensor, so even if it started with any advantage, it ends up having to fight a slightly different issue once output size gets large enough.

If anyone has a better understanding than me, I'm all ears!

Michael Clark said:

As far as stills via the OVF goes, thinks about this. The new OVF based AF sensor for the 1D X Mark III is essentially another CMOS sensor, rather than a PDAF line sensor as every DSLR in existence from any company thus far has used. That has to have a higher processing overhead than the older line type sensors. The 1D X Mark III is processing the information from the (dual pixel monochrome?) CMOS AF sensor, the CMOS RGB+IR metering sensor, and then integrating all of that data together, and comparing the results with what is likely the most extensive library of different scenarios ever included in a camera's internal database - in addition to processing the images coming off the 20MP imaging sensor.

Click to expand...

The AE sensor data usable for subject recognition is only about 800x500 pixels, or according to Canon "approximately 400'000 pixels". The new AF sensor has 100x more pixels than the 61-point sensors previously used (which have ~70 line sensors). So... another 1Mpx. In total, the amount of data processed is roughly the same as a 1080p video stream. Smartphones have been able to run that kind of data through deep learning neural networks in realtime on general-purpose CPUs for years. But in the last few years we've also seen the appearance of TPUs. I believe there is a TPU core stuck in the DIGIC X chip, because of some mentions of handover to that chip for "AF Priority (people)" in cases where face detection fails.

Deep learning is computationally expensive only in the learning phase. The use of the trained network for classification is definitely something that can be done in embedded systems like a DSLR. There is no database needed in the camera. It has already been reduced to weights:

YuengLinger said:

So, if there is a new flash coming, I hope it has some truly better and additional features.

Click to expand...

Functionality wise, stronger would be better. Stronger is always better with flashes.

Feature wise, besides stronger batteries that eliminate the use of external power packs and AI (perhaps), I don't miss too much today, but you can always improve on features in an unlimited way. Full rotation would be nice, i.e. rotation without a stop somewhere. AC power adapter would also be nice. Improved cooling. Lighter would be nicer, too. More coloured gels.
But I doubt that better features would make me buy some, the 600s that I have are already near perfect. The 600 mark 1 can even be easier custom colour-geled than the mark 2 one.

The EOS R already uses the LP-E6N, which is same same battery found in any current EOS camera from the X0D and up, with the exception of the 1D X series cameras.

There is very little to nothing you can say about the camera ergonomics based on that, other than that it will be thicker than the M or RP type cameras.

StoicalEtcher said:

... you may be interested in the CPS (UK at least) story about Felicia Cisco's try out of this lens. It's obviously Canon's take, but ...

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.
But I like to see reviews and samples from others than the OEM (if good). I've never seen samples from the lens builder that didn't make them shine.

telemaque said:

annulé

Click to expand...

Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire?

Is it worth it? I don't seem to ever having a need to bookmark the site.However the other day I clicked on a Google link for birding/monopod info and found it has gone to a subscription model. Initial reaction? WTF. Now if it were CR or TDP, I'd buy in but....I truly wonder if it is maintaining enough subs to keep afloat. OR just aliening people like myself.

Regarding the RP on high ISO: I also noticed more color noise creeping in above 3200, noticeable on skin tones. Disappointing TBH, as this is a worse performance than the 5D4. Reminds me of my old 5D3 which was similar.

Noise pattern I think is ok though. Frankly I don’t think the 5D4 is that great in this particular realm. Blotchiness is an issue from time to time.

Hope it well have a real, dedicated control ring and not such a stupid mode switch, where you have to switch the focus ring between control and focus.

Pixel said:

A little background on PRM for those not in the know.
(Taken from his Canon Explorer of Light bio)


"Peter Read Miller has been photographing athletes, events and the sporting life for more than 40 years. He has worked as a staff and contract photographer for Sports Illustrated for more than 35 years. His images have appeared on over 100 Sports Illustrated covers.
His editorial clients have included: TIME, LIFE, People, Money, The Associated Press, Playboy, Runner's World, Newsweek, USA Weekend and The New York Times. In addition to covering 9 Olympic Games and 38 Super Bowls, Peter has shot 14 NBA Finals. He has covered the Stanley Cup Finals, the World Series, the Kentucky Derby, the NCAA Basketball Final Four, and the Men's and Women's World Cup Soccer Finals.
Peter has been teaching Sports Photography workshops for over 15 years at locations including Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix, Santa Clara, Knoxville and Honolulu.
Peter has spoken at the Los Angeles Chapter of the Advertising Photographers of America, Photoshop World, Imaging USA, CES and PDN's Photo Plus East. He has also lectured at numerous colleges, universities and professional photographic organizations.
Peter and his work has been the subject of articles in Photo District News, American Photographer, Digital Photo Pro, Rangefinder Magazine and Shutterbug.
Peter is the 2006 winner of The Dave Boss Award of Excellence Photographer of the Year awarded by The Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is a member of Canon's Explorers of Light program. Peter is also the winner of the Society of Professional Journalists 2012 Award for Sports Photography.
Peter's book "Peter Read Miller on Sports Photography" is currently available from New Riders Press. Peter's advertising clients have included Canon, Nike, Microsoft, Western Digital, Adidas, Visa, Coca-Cola, Footlocker, ABC Television, Panasonic, and The National Football League."

Click to expand...

A good reminder to myself to keep my mouth shut when I don't know what I'm talking about. Seldom does putting someone down, elevate one's self and I can't think of a better example than this one - wow.

Jack

Del Paso said:

Results obtained with the Monochrome prove you're absolutely wrong!
Go and test the Leica Monochrome and you'll see...

Click to expand...

I cannot be "wrong" because I'm simply stating a fact not an opinion. Why do you think color filters are used for b/w film photography?

Del Paso said:

Results obtained with the Monochrome prove you're absolutely wrong!
Go and test the Leica Monochrome and you'll see...

Click to expand...

No, they do not. All you post proves is that you cannot read for content.

Viggo said:

I might be wrong, but perhaps it was a DPReview, one of the videos where they at least said it was the sort of sensor that was not limited to a finger, but would have no issues with gloves. Which in fact would be the only way to do it, making it non-responsive with gloves on a 1-series would be a fail of epic proportion. A lot of us don’t exactly live in California

Click to expand...

Kit Lens Jockey said:

No I didn't think to try it with gloves, sorry. But if it is truly an optical sensor, I'm almost sure it would work with gloves, because the sensor would not care if it's a finger or a glove that it's tracking, optically.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine that they wouldn't have tested it without someone using gloves but never heard anything from Canon directly or in any of the previews showing someone wearing gloves. I shoot 99.9% outdoors and a larger portion of when I shoot is in colder weather and wear gloves. Fingers crossed.

RGB49 said:

Hi sclick, I have recently purchased one and so far am pleased with it. i use it with the 600 F4 MK3 and once clamped it is good to use, although it is a bit fiddly to balance it all whilst clamping, I have a RRS replacement foot which keeps the lens close to the monopod so less tipping effect. One point to notice the base width fitting is quite small to help keep the lens close to the monopod and I originally had an RRS lever clamp to speed up the assembly but the width of this clashed with either lens end or the other depending how it was fitted. so I have now replaced the RRS lever clamp with a 50mm Arca swiss clamp which gives more space at both ends. Also carrying a large lens mounted on it your shoulder is a lot easier than with a full gimbal head.

Click to expand...

RGB49 said:

Hi sclick, I have recently purchased one and so far am pleased with it. i use it with the 600 F4 MK3 and once clamped it is good to use, although it is a bit fiddly to balance it all whilst clamping, I have a RRS replacement foot which keeps the lens close to the monopod so less tipping effect. One point to notice the base width fitting is quite small to help keep the lens close to the monopod and I originally had an RRS lever clamp to speed up the assembly but the width of this clashed with either lens end or the other depending how it was fitted. so I have now replaced the RRS lever clamp with a 50mm Arca swiss clamp which gives more space at both ends. Also carrying a large lens mounted on it your shoulder is a lot easier than with a full gimbal head.
[/QUOTE

To mount and balance put your camera down anywhere safe.

Attach you folded monopod with MonoGimbal to the Lens.
Lift the rig a few inches from the Monopod to check balance.
Put camera down and adjust balance point
When rig is balanced extent your monopod and start using.
This is the easiest method to set it up.

Click to expand...

Otara said:

Some lenses are popular and need specific ports, most dont. The issue isn't the length changing its where the focus is on the barrel vs the focus adapter's available from the particular manufacturer. My main one is a Nauticam so should be doable unless something very surprising is involved.

Click to expand...

60mm Macro that Venus sells for crop sensored SLR has a working distance of 4cms and given this lens has been designed from ground up for crop MILC working distance might be better than 60mm Macro. I can understand the need of having right sized housing with mfd beyond the front glass of housing. I wasnt sure before if there are generic housing available and if so is it possible to operate a MF lens with manual aperture or do divers determine the aperutre before hand.

I'm actually super happy with the EOS R. Coming from the 5Diii I had mainly thought it would be good to use all of my vintage glass on, but like others here it quickly became my go to, even for my paid work. At first hated the Touch Bar, but have also come to love it, I really hope they don't ditch it, my only complaint with it is that I sometimes swipe it inadvertently while turning the mode dial. But I have it set up as swipe to zoom in, so it's not like I'm changing a critical setting.

DreDaze said:

I'd say it's close to the nikon:

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Click to expand...

Yeah, Nuh . At 300mm end Sigma is a descent but not a spectacular lens. Very good AF by the way. But, shhhh. Do not tell Sigma that they sell this lens way to cheap

koenkooi said:

Canon showed a 400DO and a 600DO during the Canon expo a few years back, but went really silent about them soon after: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-600mm-f4-do-br-at-canon-expo/

Click to expand...

Yes I remember this. But it weighted just like the new 600III so the only advantage would be the size. For me the size is equally important but maybe this will not happen now. The 400DOII is more than good enough (In fact it is very very good so there is no need for update).

slclick said:

Well, I can make a good (not great) photo with a cardboard box, gaffers tape, tin foil, a tiny hole and some Ilford paper.On top of it it's a whole lot more enjoyable than clicking on a button full of electronics and a keyboard. Now, do I do it very often? No. I like to spread the love around though. Like Canon offering different bodies for different strokes.

Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I made pictures with a Kodak Brownie and made contact prints. The prints were small, but the tones were gorgeous, better than I ever could get with enlarger paper.

dolina said:

I am talking about R&D and not production. Production will continue at a volume that the market can bare.

I find it amusing people hold on to hope that Canon will some day in the future restart R&D for EF lenses.

It ain't gonna happen.

Still camera market has been in decline for over a decade and whatever little money they have to invest is best spent on a growing market segment rather than a shrinking one.

I could imagine people having this sort of discussion when the EF mount was announced in the early 80s. A lot of people in denial...

"Autofocus is not reliable!" etc etc.

Resources will prioritize RF mount products.

Click to expand...

It was in 1987. That's not exactly "early '80s"

The difference between then and now was that FD could not be adapted to EF without what is essentially a teleconverter and loss of IQ and max aperture. Not to mention that FD had no AF and EF does.

EF, on the other hand, can be seamlessly used on RF cameras with no loss in IQ or max aperture or AF functionality. Zero.

The Canon USA store has refurbished Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM lenses in stock for $1519 (Reg $1799). These lenses come with a full 1-year Canon USA warranty.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM $1519 (Reg $1799)

Click to expand...

Continue reading...

I t

unfocused said:

Thanks @canonnews.

One thing I did find interesting is that after being #2 in lenses for the past three years, Sigma fell off the radar this year. I'm guessing a couple of reasons could be that they really didn't release any blockbusters this year (the 60-600mm not generating the excitement of the earlier superzooms) and the new mounts by Canon and Nikon may have limited their sales.

It's too bad they don't distinguish between crop and full frame (at least it doesn't appear to me that they do). I would imagine that Canon's crop sensor mirrorless accounts for a high percentage of total mirrorless sales (just as crop sensors account for the bulk of DSLR sales).

All in all, good on Canon.

Click to expand...

I think Sigma is a victim of their own success. The people who wanted their lenses already have them.
This of course means they will start a line for RF and Z mounts any day now.

SecureGSM said:

Images shot at ISO 6400 with your 5D Mark II were just a little bit over your noise cliff
I am uncomfortable with noise levels of 5D III anywhere over ISO 4000. I do not underexpose images, do not push shadows by more that 1/3 stop typically.

lets see:

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Camera Model		Low Light ISO

Canon EOS 5D Mark II

3123 - no experience.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III

3652 - true to my experience

Canon EOS 6D

4070 - true to my experience

Canon EOS 1D X Mark II

5189 - true to my experience

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

5011- true to my experience

Click to expand...

ISO 4000 is one of the +1/3 stop ISO settings and is noisier than ISO 6400. Do some research into how Canon sensors from around 2006 until at least the 80D handles +1/3 stop and -1/3 stop ISo settings.