Data updated on 10/3 by ExploreCams, who mines internet EXIF data:

(by rank)
https://explorecams.com/stats/top/models

(in fun interactive pinwheel charts)
https://explorecams.com/stats/global

Of note, Sony's not even in the top 20 by camera ranking (of shots posted online), which is a little hard to believe. Any chance Sony folks are getting their EXIF data scrubbed somehow, perhaps by a wifi/bluetooth protocol trying to save a byte or two as it posts to social media?

- A

AlanF said:

scyrene said:

AlanF said:

unfocused said:

AlanF said:

The Old World has bird hides in most reserves that would pass off as luxury hotels in the Yukon...

Click to expand...

More information please! What countries? How do you find out about them? I want to go to there!

Click to expand...

In the U.K., the largest organisation is the RSPB, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Look at their website. We have various Wild Life and Wetland Trusts in our different counties. I pay for membership of three of these. These organisations are just so good. Some just have a reserve plus hides. Others have cafes and nature-related shops as well. The Dutch are great birdwatchers as well, but I don't have details on their facilities.

Click to expand...

And I would add, even most of the small local nature reserves have a hide or two, although they tend to resemble sheds.

Click to expand...

All they lack are birds. I'm not joking. It's long patient waiting much of the time. Thousands of bird reserves but a shortage of birds. It's the thrill of the chase that keeps you going here.

Click to expand...

Lol. Well I tend only to go to places when I've seen reports of something interesting. Fortunately, my local bird club posts incredibly thorough and detailed daily news

What I have learned from this thread for myself personally is to not to jump to conclusions and resist being judgmental. It's so easy to presume things that may not be true.

It's nice when CR threads can share exchanges without hostilities creeping in even though there are differences of opinion. Since I will soon have my 1DX II I'm watching all the related threads hoping to learn a lot in short order!

Jack

Done and done. Thanks, gang.

I will keep that feature turned off as I'm stuck with my 16-35 f/4L IS and undoubtedly will be shooting at a very high ISO.

- A

Maybe, I found the real problem for the shut off: When I disassemble the battery grip, the body works properly. I phoned the service company and did an last send in with the mounbted battery grip. I hope this was the problem

something else to consider.. if the lens is becoming a bit de-centered (micro movement of adjustment spacing/parts wearing out over time) this may also look like miss focus? Possibly? Maybe it can't focus properly or as well in that case? If it was in one particular corner? I'd also make sure it was at least a cross point you are using.. horizontal or vertical only points can be near useless in low light.

deadwrong said:

Actually i really like Canon, i have alot of Canon products other than Cameras even. But i cant help but put the props out for a company like Sony that is seemingly advancing and pushing these other big guys around abit.

Click to expand...

Sony pushing CaNikon around? With their market share....?
Still, its nice for the 'big boys' to have a proof-of-concept platform to test the waters for them while they concentrate on things that matter to photographers in the real world.

My default is usually in favor of L glass. The exceptions have been for a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (pre-Art) and a Sigma 12-24 MkI. A Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C was a completely forgettable, almost unusable abomination.

The 50 f/1.4 was occasionally heroic wide open, but the hit rate for accurate AF was dreadful. I couldn't trust it and never once used it for commissioned work. AF inconsistency with a 50mm lens shooting at wide apertures is ruthlessly revealed. Pity, it was just fantastic when it did nail focus. Sold after a few months.

The 12-24 is a lens I use a few times a year when the 16-35 doesn't quite make it and the situation won't readily allow for stitching. It's not a fabulous lens, but I have likely scored a good copy. Wide open it's complete mush, but at its sweet spot of f/11 it delivers files acceptable for most usage requirements. I believe the updated 12-24 is a great improvement. Any AF inconsistency with a UWA stopped down to f/11 is unlikely to reveal itself.

Sigma will see radically increased sales once they fully consign their AF issues to history and the perception of AF unreliability has faded.

That's not to say every L lens I've ever bought has been a keeper. The old 16-35's were mostly terrible and the MkI 24-70 f/2.8's were very inconsistent from copy to copy. There are good ones out there, but tend to be the exception. A 50mm f/1.2L was a short-lived relationship. This lens does have its fans, but it never completely cut it for me. The EF 50mm f/1.4 while pleasingly compact, was never the best lens in the bag.

This year I've rationalised my lenses, selling off surplus, under-performing or obsolete glass. What remains is 16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8isII, 24 f/1.4II, 100L macro, 300 f/2.8is and the 12-24 Sigma. The two least used lenses are the Sigma 12-24 & the 24 f/1.4II. Hmmm...may as well sell the 24 f/1.4II too. Unused this year.

-pw

I'm not trying to be negative but the more optimism you have, the harder it hits when it finally dies.

One thing I'm sure of is that I will never trust it in a paid job or in a vacation without a second body anymore.

privatebydesign said:

pwp said:

privatebydesign said:

Over the years I have honed it down.

1Ds MkIII + two batteries and charger and RRS L-Plate.
35 f2 IS.
11-24 f4.
100 f2.8 IS L Macro.
Acratech GP head.
Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 or a tiny Giottos MT9240.
Canon Selphy CP 910 printer.
iPad Pro with CCK, this acts as backup and additional storage and now LR Mobile does RAW edits it is even more efficient, truthfully no need for a laptop now.

Click to expand...

You travel with a printer? Is the Canon Selphy CP 910 tiny and light?
But why? Giving prints to people along the way? That's the first time I've seen a printer on anyone's travel kit list.

-pw

Click to expand...

Yep, it is small and light

And yes it is so I can give prints away. I find it gets me places and shots I wouldn't get otherwise, it also means my footprint has some value for the subjects, which is something I have become very sensitive to. Seeing a busload of tourists overwhelm an isolated village sold to them as an 'authentic' excursion normally hurts everybody but the tour operators.

My first love is travel portraiture, it makes me very little money but is what I enjoy most in my photography, being able to give a little value for what I take makes me feel the interaction holds some return for the subject as well as me. People are overwhelmingly enthusiastic when they see those little prints pop out of the printer!

Click to expand...

Thanks PBD, what a fantastic and now obvious idea! That immediate flowback is so important for both parties.

And yes, pretty compact:
Dimensions (W xDx H)
178.0 x 127.0 x 60.5 mm
Weight
Approx. 810g

A review:
http://au.pcmag.com/canon-selphy-cp910-wireless-compact-photo-printer/3807/review/canon-selphy-cp910-wireless-compact-photo-printer
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1024760-REG/canon_8426b001aa_selphy_cp910_wireless_compact.html

-pw

B&H has some high end chargers that run about $300.

The issue with inexpensive Chinese chargers is that they can fail but appear to be functioning properly. When this happens, its possible that they may destroy the protective circuit in the battery, leaving the battery unprotected from overcharging, which is the main cause of meltdowns. You may not even know that the damage happened.

I'd be concerned about a third party charger unless it was manufactured by / for a reputable seller, and not a cheap unit with a custom label slapped on it and available for anyone who buys 500 or more for $8 each. I import Chinese products and occasionally do have custom labeled products, but they are made to my specifications. I've been burned by having a manufacturer slap my logo on a existing product. In fact, its rare that I'm able to buy something that actually meets my specifications, so I tighten them up, knowing that I'll get something less..

http://www.edn.com/design/power-management/4405282/Proper-Lithium-Ion-battery-charging-and-safety

I am going to hold off on the M5. I don't feel like Canon put enough into it to justify the $900.00 price. An A6300 and a A7 are better from the specs I have seen. I do understand if you are invested in the M Lenses though.

diagrams here
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2016-10-03&edit-text=

If one comes out, I hope that it has "macro" or certainly close focusing ability (<1 m) like a previous version without OS has.

The current version has a MFD of almost 2 meters.

Jopa said:

Most likely it will be released in a few years in a regular update cycle to replace the 600 f/4 II. I think they have quite a few lenses to update that much worse/older than the 600 f/4 II.

Click to expand...

Quite true...

Always when I'm suspecting something with flash, I put it either pointing completely away, or pointing close by at a object or wall. Then fire test shot. If close to object or wall, it should be really bring compared to surrounding. If not, timing is wrong. Or when firing flash wrong direction, if that didn't change the picture brightness compared to earlier, again timing is off. Simple troubleshooting. Then when you have that done, you can try changing FEC and other settings to see which one is causing the too dark picture (assuming that first step proved that the flash is firing at correct timing).

The link below shows that PSE 14 only supports ACR Version 9.5. There's a good chance they will not add 9.7 support until PSE 15. This has happened to me previously where I had to buy the newer version to get the latest ACR version. I've played with DNG and Raw on some other photos and was pleased with using DNG. After converting to DNG I could use all the options for processing raw in the current version of PSE. Adobe has included 9.7 in the latest version of Lightroom, but I've seen nothing to indicate they have included it in PSE 14. If you opt for DNG, you can use the converter to do the whole batch a one time and have them stored in the same folder. Then when you open PSE the next time you should get the message new files have been found and they can be brought into PSE for processing.


https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-compatible-applications.html

I have not tried Reikan. I know several CR members like it a lot.

But, OP, you also asked for the easiest, and I'll tell you what it is.

My results are very good. I love shallow DoF, and I have fast primes, including an 85mm 1.2L II.

All I do is set up a target (currently using SpyderLensCal), take several shots with my camera on a tripod, wide open, good light...Then I check the image on the camera's LCD, zoomed in. I wear reading glasses to see as sharply as possible. Based on the results, I adjust the AFMA in camera, try again, and have it zeroed in usually within a couple of minutes.

I do use LiveView AF first as a baseline to make sure I'm spot on with that before going to phase detect through the view finder.

I can imagine the eye-rolling, the scoffing, the claims that this isn't precise enough, but it works consistently on two bodies, a half dozen lenses, zooms and primes. When I use my lenses for portraits, focusing on an eye, I'm spot on, even pixel peeping.

So, in a nutshell, just find a good target and use the LCD display to check and make adjustments.

It has to be the simplest method. Maybe not the best down to a millimeter, but, wow, it's fast and reliable!

Ah ha, i have 1dx2, sorry to disappoint you ;D :-*

Received an Email from Canon support. They will send me an guide for free. (The shop where I bought it, required 49€ for the printed manual So, I cancelled the order....

I think this is a fair assessment . . . it's a brilliant stills camera but lacking too many key features for pro video people. I think Canon's protecting of their Cinema EOS line will push more video users towards the Sony A7 series

SkynetTX said:

I will ignore not only the LCD but the complete lens.
I've contacted Canon support a few times before and told them that FTM and USM is a must for all lenses.

Click to expand...

Stupid Canon, continuing to ignore your perfectly reasonable demands. How dare they? I suggest you contact Mitarai-san directly.

Josh Denver said:

Antono Refa said:

Josh Denver said:

2- 50mm and 85mm lenses.

Canon were always said to be bought for their superior lenses but now, two of the most important key lenses for photography are surpassed by other manufacturers. Leaving the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 L two over-priced and low quality lenses. (This is in relation to Sigma ART lenses and Sony Batis lenses, etc)

Click to expand...

This claim is wrong for three reasons:

1. The uber 50mm f/1.4s (Sigma Art, Zeiss Otus, Sigma 58mm f/1.4G) are not in the same class as the EF 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a $350 lens. The uber 50mm f/1.4s are in the $1000-$1500 bracket.

The EF 50mm f/1.2 is a portraiture lens. The uber 50mm f/1.4s are sharpness lenses.

Your comparison is apples to oranges. The ubers are in a new spot, and Canon hasn't made a lens in that spot yet.

2. Canon has plenty of lenses the competitors haven't answered yet, e.g. MP-E 65mm 5x macro lens, TS-E 17mm, and EF 11-24mm.

Its fun saying "canon is behind is this lens", and forget that "the competitors are behind on this lens".

3. You're looking at how things are *now*.

Canon has upgraded a lot of lenses in recent years, e.g. the 24mm-28mm-35mm primes, the 24-105mm kit, the super-teles, etc.

Wait a year, see whether Canon catches up with those two lenses. You can't? Buy Nikon, and remember it works both ways - the EF 11-24mm f/4 is ~18 months old, the TS-E 17mm is 7 years old

Click to expand...

There's a reason why the topic is not called ''where does canon crush the competition?''. This topic is just for the lagging points.

It seems this is so hard to understand to all but 1-2 posters in 8 pages, for the life of me can't realize why. It clearly says ''Lags''.

Okay well let me make you happy first in order to get this out of the way:

Click to expand...

You still miss the point. You've got the full list of things in which canon lags behind in the competition in your first post, which must have made you very happy, and got them out of the way. Since then, we're discussing other stuff.

Shana Tova (Happy New Jewish year)
Love and Health to all of you dear Friends !!!
1

2

3

GMCPhotographics said:

Larsskv said:

GMCPhotographics said:

Larsskv said:

Mikehit said:

Larsskv said:

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Click to expand...

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

Click to expand...

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.

Click to expand...

That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.

Click to expand...

I agree with you to some extent, but have a look at your own pictures. I do believe you will find that some of your lenses generally render depth better than others, and you may find some truth in the claim, that simpler lens design generally show more depth than complex ones.

Click to expand...

As it happens I regularly review my portfolio of work. Depth is rendered by depth of field and angle of view...not by a reduction in the number of elements within the lens. This is utter gibberish to think otherwise. If this crazy opinion were true then the height of lens construction would be a pin hole camera...

Click to expand...

With your reasoning, bokeh is only determined by focal length, aperture, sensor size and distance to subject, and every 35mm f/1.4 lens would produce the same bokeh, if used in the same situation and with the same settings? We all know that´s not the case. How can you be so sure when it comes to rendering the impressions of depth?