What I see in many comments here and around internet that many people underestimate what does it mean and focus on current camera limitations and native lens selection.

From my point of view, this is major breakthrough and this marks beginning of the new era in photography.

Some of camera limitation (e.g. only CDAF available) is due to the limitation of the current sensor which is more than 1 years old. When Sony will release new generation of this sensor with PDAF support then this will be something great – it will be like Sony A7R2 but in MF format. Even now, current X1D could be great tool for landscapes and architecture using Canon TSE17, which should be enough image circle coverage for the whole X1D sensor.

Frankly speaking I am very positively excited about that and with high probability might buy second generation of X1D with the new Sony BSI stacked PDAF capable sensor with improved high ISO performance. There so many possibilities are opening with that, especially for low light street photography using appropriate lens.
E.g. if there would be one 35 f1.4 AF lens made for X1D this could open extreme possibilities.

Click said:

Very nice pictures, stochasticmotions.

Click to expand...

+1...I like the blue bird best

lion rock said:

Need large plate glass windows for natural light photography!
-r

Click to expand...

Maybe a plan for the more security conscious

Cheekysascha said:

I've been looking at the 85 1.2 ii lens a lot lately as I'm really getting into portraits and with what I've read the only bad parts about the 85mm is the slow focusing and the rear element sticks out which makes it easier to scratch when mounting, so I was thinking what could the new one improve besides that? And also to you owners of the 85mm what problems do you have with it? Anything you would want in a new one?


Also how much better is it then the 50mm 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8 is ii for portraits?

Click to expand...

The 50L is a disappointment in my opinion. Sure it's fast, but it's AF is sluggish and prone to miss focus. It's sharp but not razor sharp that all the other L primes are and it's tricky to use. The 85IIL has less dof of field to play with and that's sharp and it's easier to focus. So the 50L is a lens I've bought twice, used 4 copies of and they are all the same. Now i pass on it and go for either the 35L or 85L.

The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II is a great portrait lens but it was built for the press and sport (P/J) so it's out of focus rendering isn't as smooth. At 85mm, an f2.8 lens will render out of focus areas as sweet as an f1.2 lens. The 85L is able to gently compress and melt back grounds from just over 1m away from your subject. A 70-200 f2.8 needs a lot more distance because of the focal length. That puts you a lot further away and can disconnect you from your subject. Also the 200mm perspective is heavy on compression and will make your subject look different that with the 85's gentler compression.
As lenses go, they aren't really comparable, they both do what they do very well...but differently. I think the 135L and 70-200 f2.8 are more comparable. In terms of ease of use, the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II is a lot easier to handle (although heavier) due to deeper depth of field, faster AF and an IS unit. Plus the zoom helps with framing. With the 85L...your legs becomes the zoom and your working DOF is very frustrating...great when it's nailed...but disappointing when it's slightly off.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Viewing the outside of a lens is no guarantee that it has not been damaged inside. With your symptoms, even a minimum fix is going to cost $250-$300, it will have to be disassembled, parts replaced, tested and recalibrated. Send it back.

Chances are it was dropped on the end, and some parts cracked so that each time it moves, there is excess friction, and possibly more damage. Dropping a lens on the end often leaves no sign of damage.

Click to expand...

Sure the labour costs are expensive, but the lens will only need calibrating if any of the optical elements or the rear mount is replaced. All the casings and housings come off really easily and don't require any post adjustments of the lens. Even the AF motor is easily swapped out without touching the optics.

I've replaced my old Spyder 3 system (no longer supported by Datacolor) with the Spyder5 Pro. The calibration is much warmer than with the old Spyder 3 system. I've tried it 5 times and get the same results. Since all of my images have been processed to the old calibration, which printed true colors, every image I've got in my Lightroom catalog looks like it's taken at late sunset.

Any others with this issue? I've contacted Datacolor and they seem to miss that all my previous processing is now out the window with the new calibrator. This is their response..."Since the Spyder5 is a completely new device which calibrates much more precisely compared to the much older Spyder3 calibrator, you simply can't compare the calibration results visually.
Give you eyes some time to get used to the new calibration with the Spyder5 - they are able to do a kind of automatic whitebalance.

However, if you still got issues, send us the profile you generated and photos (taken by a camera in manual mode with fixed white balance) showing the calibration on / off (from the SpyderProof showing the 16 images in the software - use short cut from the drop down menu lower left in the Spyder software). JPEG < 1 MB each.
Please also let us know the Spyder-hardware-serialnumber which you'll find on the sticker of your Spyder's USB plug (a photo as JPEG file is OK).

Last but not least, also send us a screenshot of your computer's start-up list (MSCONFIG). On Windows 10, you will find this via the task manager.
That way we could check and make sure you got no tools running which could "destroy" a correct calibration."

East Wind Photography said:

TeT said:

They make changing bags... Patterson I think is one maker. Somebody makes a thing that looks like a popup light box for changing lenses in also...

Click to expand...

It does seem pointless to purchase a light proof one for digital cameras. Would be easier to just use a clear plastic trash bag and maybe some rubber bands.

The concept is sound as long as it's not over engineered.

Click to expand...

If you spend your days around wind sea and sand... almost a requirement that you have something in place, I would think.

to what I could recall when I got my 5D2 at Adorama when It got announced - people started discussing about ISO (at least that when I got aware about it ) - and it was concluded that the ISO 100 of the camera was near ISO 80.

So people started testing/experimenting with this idea of ISO and its performance in regards to SNR.

That's when the concept of shooting at 80 / 160 / 320 / 640 .... etc - got started.

for which, I myself still used to this day with the 80D, 1DX and even my sony's.

Hi all

Here is the portrait taken by Canon 6D and EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro.

Hi,

Could someone send me mraw and sraw samples from 1dx mark ii (using dropbox, google drive...) please ?
It is to document the CR2 format at
http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2

Thank you a lot

Laurent

Andyx01 said:

privatebydesign said:

That is pretty much all argumentum ad hominem.

Click to expand...

Well that was an offensive thing to say. I found it rather factual and to the point myself.

privatebydesign said:

The only 'correct'* 'color' is done on a neutral tone and that is best done automatically via the WB tool.

Click to expand...

So now there is a 'correct' color. And it is 'Neutral tone", "Best done automatically via WB tool."

This is all bad information and false. Please don't spread bad information.

privatebydesign said:

The only neutral tone in the image that is usable is the eye,

Click to expand...

You cannot be serious?

privatebydesign said:

putting the WB tool on the eye takes 1 second,

Click to expand...

It does? Sounds subjective.

privatebydesign said:

any other 'adjustments' to the WB, color and tint, are entirely subjective.

Click to expand...

Not true. WB is a crude method. Read up on Color Rite Passport.

privatebydesign said:

You were not here, you did not see the light I saw, your 'correction' is your subjective assessment of what you think it should look like on your monitor.

Click to expand...

Correct

privatebydesign said:

The rest of your drivel is just that, ad hominem drivel.

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm just puking garbage. I'm a bad person. That is slow to edit by your standards, posting bad criticism. You are right in every way. Enough is enough, what you have is all anyone needs. Thanks for clearing everything up.

privatebydesign said:

P.S. Thanks for the colorblindness tests, it seems I am good to make color assessments of my own images.

Click to expand...

Sure no problem. Not sure the two are mutually exclusive, but I'll leave you with your take away. You did an amazing job, with the best gear anyone could ever need. Good for you!

Don't listen to comments like mine or:

chauncey said:

Identifying camera and/or lenses based on internet display is, at least, an exercise in futility.
That said, based only on the screenshot crop, I would not print...lack of IQ.

Click to expand...

We are full of drivel, and are mean people.

-PC

Click to expand...

Why would you make the assumption that I haven't profiled my camera? Look through my history and you will see it is a core aspect of my replies.

Did I walk up to the owl and put a color checker in the frame with it? No I didn't, but I do have profiles for this camera with this lens and similar light.

But a custom profile will do nothing for the temp and tint, that is why there are so many different 'whites' on an X-Rite Passport, once you have the three channel tone curves in some kind of order the subjective bits are the temp and tint. Again, you were not here, you don't have a clue what the colors were.

Your 'corrections' are entirely incorrect with regards the scene as it was, they are your subjective version of what you believe it looked like on your screen, why is that such an upsetting thing to be told?

As for me being offensive. You told me I was color blind, I proved I wasn't, how exactly is that offensive to you?

chauncey said:

I'm beginning to think that we should have a Proctologist in attendance.

Click to expand...

Only if he is also a dentist ;D

dilbert said:

StudentOfLight said:

dilbert said:

ahsanford said:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D500-sensor-review-Performance-redefined

4 points lower score than last year's D7200.

Worse low light performance than their Rebel equivalent D5500.

Verdict: "Performance redefined."

Click to expand...

The way you've started this thread would lead one to believe that nothing else matters except low light performance? Not even autofocus? Plenty of people here tell me that autofocus is really important but you're making it seem not.

Summary: this topic leader is what I'd call "trolling" but what would a troll know?

Click to expand...

When I google internet troll:
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."

Adam does not hide who he is, so he puts his reputation on the line when he makes comments or other posts. He started this thread so he's not derailing any conversation and is sharing what has been published. How is that troll-like at all?

Click to expand...

Given the history of this site, this thread looks like it was deliberately started (to me) to provoke readers into an emotional response and that it is inflammatory in nature (i.e [1]). There are other ways the thread could have been started - especially better quote used.

Click to expand...

I got none of that?

Sek

JonAustin said:

siegsAR said:

bereninga said:

I hope they add a lock switch to prevent lens creep.

Click to expand...

Creeping is already fixed on the later released Mk1 but yeah I get you, my latest and only 24-105 F4 which was manufactured on early 2014 still has that problem.

Click to expand...

@siegsAR: While I don't refute your claim that Canon has fixed the 24-105L's zoom creep in later released copies, I wonder how much later, since you report creep in your early 2014 copy.

Zoom creep is one of my major complaints about this lens, probably because the only other lens I own with an extending barrel is the 100-400 II, and it has a zoom lock (a.k.a. "zoom touch adjustment ring").

I tried to eliminate (or at least reduce) the zoom creep in my first 24-105L (purchased new in 12/2005), by applying some of the "fixes" I found on the web, none of which worked. I sold that copy and bought a newer one in 9/2013 out of a 6D kit. Its zoom action was tight at first, but it eventually loosened up, and so its creep is nearly as bad as its predecessor's.

I will be watching for reviews of the 24-105L II with interest, and a zoom lock mechanism of some kind would be a significant inducement for me to buy, especially if the lens' optical performance is also improved.

Click to expand...

My copy was fine for years but has also started loosening up and creeping... A zoom lock to keep it in the wide angle position would help against the wear and tear due to the hood catching when taking the lens/camera combi out of the bag.

Hi guys,

Thanks for all of the input. Definitely helped me in my consideration. I think I will try out the new Canon 50mm 1.8 STM. Money is definitely tight right now, and it seems to have overall solid reviews, from slightly improved IQ to more reliable AF.

Thank you again, much appreciated.

Just made the leap. This might be my default lens with the others on hand as needed.
On a side note - the Think Tank Slim Changer is the PERFECT minimalist bag for the body(not a 7D)/pancake lens.

Sorry to reply to such an old post but just found this online and is very interesting and a great comparison. Last night I took 2 photos of the moon using a 400mm lens + 1.4 x extender. One on my 7D ii and the other on a full frame 1DS mk iii (Old I know). The 7D picture was considerably better - very surprised as images that I haven't cropped so heavily look a lot better on the 1D.

Really interesting to see your direct comparison

Hi Folks,

Just wanted to share quick edit I made of this artist Joonbug's mural piece I had captured.

https://vimeo.com/171164419

Thanks in advance for watching.

Cheers,
BJ

bsr visual

Whoops! Indeed I did! Thanks for pointing that out!

haggie said:

Last weekend I had the opportunity to try out both an EF 70-300 L and the 100-400L II during an air show. I met some people with these lenses there, and could try both lenses for about half an hour each on different planes...

Click to expand...

Comparisons side by side, in the real world always give more reliable answers. That being said, can not escape the reality:

Canon 100-400 L ii, is calling you, and not will be another one that will satisfy you without regrets.

Other lens brands?
Sigma and Tamron has some good optics, but fast and reliable focus is not its features. Perhaps the Sigma 120-300 F2.8, but the price is higher than the Canon 100-400 L ii ... :

Actually on 2 I should have said the bit rate is lowered via compression..
More needed due to more pixels to process.

Any more rumblings about this lens? Crossing my fingers that we will get official word on it any day now

Mt Spokane Photography said:

My thought after seeing and reading the recent patent is that the object of the new lens is mostly to cut manufacturing costs, and to make more profit, of course. It may also be a slight improvement, but I'd bet cost is the driver if the one in the patent is it. So maybe the initial cost will be less than I first assumed.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes. But do you think it will be a big improvement over the version 1 after all these years?

IMHO, all the new lenses (EF and L) are built in a less expensive design. Compare them to the older L lenses and they are using a thinner and more matte paint (as opposed to the 'baked/spattered' semi gloss black), less detailed silkscreen lettering, less 'bling' lettering or lettering badges, etc and the switches are frankly... cheap. Does it all work? Sure! Is it sufficient and fine? Yes. But it's not the same quality level, even if the older design was overkill.

And the prices went up! Canon is compelled to increase the profit margins due to so many years of currency devaluation and global economy issues. Not to mention the vague market shifts with regard to demand.

SmallHD 702 Bright is the best 3rd party on-camera monitor I've worked with so far.
It's very bright, it has a lot of video assist tools, LUTs support and for pulling focus I consider FullHD monitors a huge step forward compared to HD monitors.

barton springs said:

The Canon store now has it marked down 20% so $479.20 instead of $599-

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/wireless-file-transmitter-wft-e8a?WT.mc_id=C126149

Click to expand...

I ordered one back on May 26 after seeing this post. With tax and shipping the total was $525, still $75 less than B&H with free shipping and no tax.

I checked the status several times and today noticed that the status had changed from Backordered to Order cancelled without any notification.

I did find somewhere there just now that says the Save 20% Instantly - Offer valid May 17, 2016 12:00 a.m. through June 30, 2016 11:59 p.m excludes the Wireless file Transmitter WFT-E8A so maybe it was an error that the order was initially allowed and they chose not to honor that order.

thetechhimself said:

Woody said:

Hey, there's no mention of the Nikon D5! ;D

Click to expand...

It'll be the D500 that gets compared against it; D5 is a FF, would be unfair to compare the two. DXO hasn't benchmarked the D500 yet or else they would've compared it.

BTW, I'll be very interested in the D500's performance as it (probably) represents Nikon's newest APS-C tech.

Click to expand...

D500 just got posted today:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30104.0

(Spoiler: doesn't quite make it to ISO 1.6M...)

- A