RED records RAW video, but there's still a codec - just as .CR2 files have a codec (a way to arrange the bits so your computer can understand them)

if you refer to "lossy codec", RED's codec applies very moderate wavelet intra-frame compression (lossy, but visually flawless)

Because I only occasionally dapple with macro and already have a pair of 580ex flashes I didn't want to invest in a dedicated macro flashes. I teach lighting and devised DYI modifiers for my speedlights so I devised a DIY modifier which allows me to light macros very naturally with my existing flashes. See: http://photo.nova.org/MacroDiffuser/

Natural light has an overhead, downward, 45° modeling component. Our perceptual "looks normal" baseline is formed by constantly seeing objects lit from that angle.

The MR-14 used by itself creates flat unnatural light. The origin of ring flashes that attach to the lens like the MR-14 was medical documentation where shadowless light was desired and camera and flash needed to be enclosed in a sterile drape. That's not the ideal lighting for realistically modeling 3D objects. It is however ideal for adding flat even fill in the small space between the lens and macro subject in tight quarters. So the ideal application of the MR-14 is as fill and master with a second EX slave flash to the side or behind creating the modeling highlights.

My DIY diffuser performs a similar role to the MR-14, creating even fill at the end of the lens with a slightly downward angle which is actually more natural than flat fill because skylight fill comes from overhead all the time and there are always shadows under objects in natural light. It wouldn't work for very close in work, but with extension tubes or a 100mm macro where the gap between lens and subject is several inches it creates very natural looking downward modeling with just a single flash with enough "wrap" effect from the sides to soften the shadows. It works even better when combined with a slave flash placed behind and to the side of the object.

The convention of putting the key light 45°V and 45°H from the lens axis is a human thing resulting from the fact human faces have deep set eyes with a sun dial nose sitting between them. Putting the key light 45/45 from the point between the eyes is the ideal place for getting light in both eyes and modeling the 3D shape of the nose naturally by virtue of its shadow falling over 1/2 of it and not hanging out exaggerating it's size and shape.

But for nearly every other creature and object their 3D appearance in a 2D is better revealed by putting the dominant modeling source behind the object at about 135° from the camera with the shadow side illumination controlled via the fill intensity. It has to do with the fact in 2D photos we react and interpret shape based on contrast patterns, mentally matching the patterns will see in the photos to memories of seeing 3D objects in the natural baseline 45° downward angle from front, side, or back.

To see this take some 3D objects outdoors in sunlight at 10AM or 2PM when the sun is at 45° vertically and walk around them 360° taking photos every 15° and note where the sun is relative to the objects when the modeling looks most natural in the photo. Do that exercise and you should realize that lighting an earwig naturally isn't any different that lighting an elephant. The same angle of downward sun "key" lighting and predominantly downward sky fill hits both. To duplicate that natural lighting with flash you'll need to keep the key light 45° above and 45° behind the subject.

The MR-24 which creates crossed lighting isn't ideal for 3D rendering either. Crossing lights at 45° is another strategy for getting flat even lighting for tasks like copying flat art work. That's the angle lights on copy cameras are placed to eliminate reflections and how background lights are placed light one evenly. More natural lighting with the MR-24 would be obtained by using a bracket that positions one flash behind the object as rim light and the other close to the lens axis.

Whether the subject is human or bug there is an ingrained instinct to make eye contact. The crossed configuration works very nicely for bugs with bulging eyes because it creates symmetrical mirror-image catchlights on the eyes. The overall lighting on the bug will not be as natural as with the rim-light / even fill strategy but with huge balls filling the frame as the focal point that's a less important goal.

As with lighting anything there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for lighting. So you would need to light bugs differently than your coin collection and might want to light both two different ways depending on the context of the background. If you are shooting a wide shot of the bug in its natural setting you'd want the more natural rim-light / even fill strategy. But for a close-up of it's scary face a crossed frontal scenario to get the symmetrical catchlights with a third flash from behind to rim light the body would be more ideal. For coins you might want flat lighting for some shots and strong side lighting with even fill for others. If shooting toy soldiers you'd want the same key and fill angles you's use for life person. So the ideal set of lighting tools are the one that will allow you to perform the most different tasks for the least amount of money

spidyhero said:

pj1974 said:

FF
- 5DmkIII ('enthusiast') 26MP 5fps. 19pt AF downgraded 7D AF, A few cross-type AF pts.
- 3D ('premium') 34MP 8fps. 45 AF, many cross-type and extra sensitivity AF pts. Better body.
- 1DX ('professional') 18MP 14fps. 61AF. Full professional body. Highest connectivity and feature set.


The main marketed differentiation between the 5D line and the 3D line will be on the sensor, with the focus for the 5D line being on low noise and great DR, whereas the 3D marketing focus will emphasize resolution, advanced features and body quality.

Paul

Click to expand...

Reasoning on market segment, IMHO the 5DIII should lure those that own the 5DII (they are a nice segment in dimension), making them update to the newer, as much as those looking for an all around professional camera less expensive than the 1DX.

The high framerate on a high resolution sensor camera has a reason if you don't split the line (as Nikon is doing with the D800).

If Canon is planning to split the 5D line, the high framerate should go to the lower-res camera (as a feature for general purpose shooter).

The high-res camera should be addressed to studio professionals or resolution addicted amateurs (they don't see high framerate as a big selling point) and bring a higher cost in comparison.

If you also take account of what the video enthusiasts are expecting, they don't need a higher megapixel camera, but a better Dynamic Range sensor for sure (as much as some video oriented new features).

So if you push on the DR feature, you must lower the pixel count and increase pixel dimension.

Canon can do the split since it is a mammoth company with a huge R&D dept. in comparison to Nikon (using Sony made sensors on proprietary specs), and it also makes sense on a usage-driven market segment (photo vs. video).

This is only speculation, of course, keep it with a grain of salt because we don't know all the photo-video Canon market numbers.

But also keep for sure that if a disruptive innovation has to be made for a product (the Canon 5D), it should be Canon itself to do it, because it opens new markets, don't cannibalize the existing one (think to the Apple iPhone 's new models development path).

Click to expand...

Hi spideyhero

Also thanks for your comments above, replying to my initial post in this thread.

I can see the logic, of splitting the FF under the 1DX by having both:
1) a 'high resolution / slower fps' camera (studio / landscape) and
2) a 'lower resolution / higher fps' (sports / wildlife / photo-journalists)

However, for some reason, at this stage, I am just thinking they might split differently. I could very well be wrong. I just see there being a 'gap' for a (perhaps) 3D - which is above 5D line in resolution and in fps. Like the 7D was when it came out (above other APS-C cameras in both resolution and fps).

I think both the 5D line and a possible 3D line will be relatively high resolution, compared to the 1DX, which has the ultimate image quality per pixel - in terms of very low noise, great DR - and the most speed of them all.

Let's see! Thanks again.

Paul

24-70 and 70-200 covers most things for me... but on vacation, no way would i want to carry around the 70-200

Good points. I will try to be more specific. The photos in the project will of course vary. But there are some aspects that I think will be general.

- not studio
- prefferably the shot will be at their home/work/hobby-place. perhaps 1-2 flashes will be used, though I prefer natural light.

- not overly postprocessed for wow-effect (rather black and whites to let the time between the shots focus on the person and not the colour of the clothes / shooting style at that moment)

What I would like to learn more about is how to work with the full body shots and people expressing their feelings. IE not just headshot / head and shoudlers. I want to be able to include, their hands expressing something, people smoking, people crying... I know there are codes in body language etc and I am after learning about these + portraits.

Some shots will probably be more portrais head shot style where as in some cases I will want the person and his house + car + cat in the same shot...

Perhaps overambitous. And perhaps there is no book. Just simple har work and looking at others for inspiration?

You know, there is no particular reason they have to make a mirroless camera thin/small. There are more advantages to mirrorless then simply 'thinner'.

There are already 'mirrorless' MF cameras that are pretty thick, and FF machine vision cameras that are essentially tethered mirrorless cameras.

I think if Canon tried to enter the 'smaller & cheaper' mirrorless market, well, plenty of other companies are already there, and I doubt they would try to dip into the MF market,... but FF? That would be something no one else is doing and if they filled it with enough other 'pro' features they could potentially really sell mid-range people on this class of camera since, at this point, the only arguments for DSLRs pretty much come down to 'optical viewfinder' and 'tradition'.. one of those will probably go away as small LCDs get better (a real boon for low light photography or other times where you actually want to see what the senor sees) and the other is just silly.

for me. very. I can't belive canon sells a 2K+ 24-70 without IS. that's just ridiculous. Even the 70-200 has IS and they are just a few hundred bucks appart.

canon blew it.

smirkypants said:

Aside from the 16-35/2.8 II, what does the 82mm filter fit?

Click to expand...

The new 24-70mm f/2.8L II as mentioned, and also the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. Since I have both the 16-35L II and the TS-E 24L II, having 82mm filters makes sense (and I'm prepared for the 24-70L II ).

dilbert said:

psolberg said:

, the reason this is a landscape dream camera is because each landscape is unique. if you shoot landsapes, you know you often wait for the light to be perfect, the weather to be perfect, and the mood to be perfect. And if you shoot landscaes, you know this rarely happens. When it does, trust me, you want to capture all 36 million sucker pixels for posterity because that momment will never repeat itself.

So while I don't have much need for 36MP most of the time, I fully understand that if you spend thousands if not tens of thousands in glass, and getting to the location, you want to get all the detail you want. Take for instance a trip to antartica. You'll pay nearly 20K after it is all said and done. Do you want to walk away with 36MP or 20MP per file? though so...

Click to expand...

Gee, if that was the case, I'd go out and buy an MFDB because 36MP from Nikon is just not enough.

I'm pretty sure that I could take better pictures with an iPhone than you could with a D800.

Click to expand...

that's not the point I was making. yes I know you can even buy a 30K medium format camera and do whatever you want with it. But if you're spending 3K on landscapes and that's your budget, the D800 looks defitively to be the winner because of the sheer value of those 36million pixies.

and no need to get insulting with your comments. although I doubt you can

yes and no.
I mean, it's true that with 36mp you will not get perfect pics every time you got perfect pics with 21mp
but it's also true that with 36mp it is still possible to get better pics than with 21mp, in some situations.

Click to expand...

absolutely agree. sorry but I hate to break it to everybody here but at low ISO, you can't beat that extra detail. Studio and Landscape shooters will benefit more. Just get over it. even at mid ISO, resampling down will help a lot as it does with the 5DII, which is is not as good as the D700 noise wise, downsampling helps.....and at high ISO, well yeah, lower MP wins. But thinking about what you need to do if you were to shoot action at high ISO with the D800 is like thinking about what you need to do to go off roading with a sports car...

personaly if I had a D800 (which won't happen) I'd use it in such a way to maximize its purpose. shooting sports ain't it.

LetTheRightLensIn said:

Kernuak said:

Personally, for landscapes, I'd rather walk away with a 21MP file, than a 36MP file that exhibits noticeable corner softness. Just as a 36MP camera will show more detail, it will also show up the deficiencies of technique and lens image quality. A file with bad corner softness simply won't be accepted by the major agencies and trust me, some of them are pretty picky.

Click to expand...

Adding more MP can't make things softer, you won't have any less corner detail than if it had 12MP, at worst, you'd merely have the same and at best, noticeably more so what does it hurt?

Click to expand...

exactly my thoughts. while it is true that you will see that your lenses are indeed better at the center, you'll still RESOLVE more in both the center and the edges even if edge detail is behind center detail compared to low MP counts. you're still resolving more! Besides, 36MP isn't all that high for full frame. there are much denser sensors out there. IMO if you spend all these thousands on lenses...why would you NOT want to push them? Kind of defeats the purpose.

If you were the perfect landscape photographer who waits for the perfect time, perfect weather, perfect mood to take the perfect shot from the perfect location, you won't need a camera because that time will never come.
If you decide to take a camera along just in case it does come, you won't be happy with a FF camera, even with 36 MP, you'll be going Large Format.

is it a landscape photographers dream? not even close - even a hasselblad with all of its dynamic range wouldn't be enough.

Click to expand...

you clearly missunderstand my figure of speech. yeah I know perfect never comes. That's not my point. I'm refering to the tons of work and expenses that go into a shot. why settle for less than you can get? and yes I know there are better cameras. but let's keep it in perspective. 3K for a D800 is really sweet compared to a hasselblad and if you can't afford that hassleblad or mamiya, who cares? You're just not going to shoot? The point being, if you're going to shoot at that price point, may as well get all that detail because it only happens once. Once you captured it that's it. That's what I meant by dream camera because it has a really good bang for the buck.

if you're Peter Lik, ok well, then not so much of a dream camera. 8)

I think the point being made is that why switch to Noink when the lens are not up to it

Click to expand...

that's higly debateable. looks at the canon 7D. higher pixel density than the D800. lenses not ok? bogus. they are just fine. this isn't 50MP we're talking about. Their glass is not only up to the task but quite ok actually. Looking at the 14-24 vs 14mm L, 24-70 and 70-200 vs canon equivalents, I can tell you that skill will hold more peopel back than glass when they switch to either system.

my advice is buy the sigma 85 f1.4 and dont worry about the 70-200 at all for weddings
yes the 70-200 is a fantastic lens.

to shoot a wedding I would be happy with only the following gear
1D APS-H sensor with 16-35f2.8
used 1Dmk3 say $1800 + 16-35 say $1400
5dmk2 with sigma 85 f1.4
5dmk2 $2000 ish, sigma $900
2 x 580ex2 flashes
2 x yongnuo external battery packs
the 2 flashes and battery packs about $1000 for all

since you have the 24-70 f2.8 probably keep that on FF
and pick up another FF body for the sigma 85 used 5Dmk2 maybe

cfargo said:

Stu_bert said:

V8Beast said:

Kahuna said:

Very valid point and would be forced to agree with you. I am a mere hobbyist at best so my photography is a money pit.

Click to expand...

It certainly wasn't meant to be a criticism in any way. There's just no way I'd put up with the hassle and cost of switching systems unless I was chasing some money at the end of a tunnel. If you're shooting for fun, how much does Brand X's marginal advantage in tech specs really affect how much you enjoy your shooting experience?

Click to expand...

If I do a safari by myself, it costs about £3K for 2 weeks including flights. If I nip across the pond to the States it costs me marginally less, maybe £2.5K. I would say most of the trips I do, perhaps 2 or if I am lucky 3 in a year end up costing me the wrong side of £6K.

For me, photography is a great way to see the world, visit new places, experience different cultures and capture as much as I can on camera. A lot of the places I have seen to date, I doubt I will ever get the chance to go back to. Given the investment it requires to get there, when I visit, I want to capture in the best quality I can. I picked up 2nd hand 1Ds MK III as I was not able to "drive" the 500mm f/4 reliably with either the 40D or 5D (although I know others have/do). I've used a 7D with said lens, but always prefer the 1Ds pictures.

The new D800 and D4 both can do AF at F/8.0. And it's a feature I would not like to lose. There are things that I like about both cameras, but the same is true of Canon. And of course I would be stunned if Canon did not release a camera that could do AF at f/8.

Plus, if I am to look on a 5 year view, many of my lenses may not stand up to the "scrutiny" of higher MP bodies, be that Nikon or Canon. I figure that if I change glass, then I want it to last at least 3 future generations of body. Right now, I am looking at adding the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8. But in the <24mm range then Nikon has the best lens by far in the 14-24mm. So if the only lens I don't think I would change right now is the 500mm, does it make sense to stick with Canon - especially if I will replace most of my Canon glass over the next 18 months? Right now, I cannot tell. Nor will I consider changing until the end of this year based on what both have released, and even then it would be a gradual change probably running 2 systems in parallel.

That's less than ideal, but if I believe (and I don't yet) Nikon will be a better solution for me longer term, then I will absolutely swap. You're right, I do not need to make a living from it, but I do want to get the best pictures...

Much to research this year, especially around Nikon glass and how well it compares to Canon, from w/a all the way up to the big primes.

Click to expand...

Plus the fact that with Nikon's decision to make you send your camera in to one of a small handfull of service centers to get somthing as simple as a battery cover replaced, I wouldn't use Nikon if they were giving them away. Support the company that supports you and your right to get is serviced where you want, Buy Canon!!!

Click to expand...

To be honest, never had to deal with Nikon in the UK. My experience with Canon is mixed. Through CPS is largely good. Prior to that, not so good. But either way I have had to pay handsomely each time....

- One of the posts broke on the IS unit - which holds it in place. They have to replace the whole IS unit.
- I dropped an L lens (70-300) from no more than 2 ft onto relatively soft ground, broke the focusing. I'd argue that's not really "build like a tank quality!"
- On the 1Ds, the AA filter cannot be replaced separately from the sensor. So the tiny scratch on it, can't be seen, but if I wanted it replaced then that's a few hundred notes...
- Every lens calibration - £30 - although I think they do both bodies
- Try and fix the softness on a 100-400mm (they've tried 3 times and still won't admit it's a lemon!)

The upside is that the Canon repair centre is an hour by car, as frankly there's no way I would use any courier / postal system, based on costs of insurance and complete distrust in their quality of handling.

I can't tell you about Nikon and how they make their kit, but some of the "design" decisions Canon make are dubious in terms of fairness to the customer. Reminds me somewhat of car manufacturers. Which is kind of appropriate as Honda has just tripled my service bill with the "this needs replacement after 2 years" if you want to keep a full service history

neuroanatomist said:

The cheap polarizing filters are a great value. It's like getting two filters in one - not only do you get a polarizing effect, you also get a great soft focus effect

Click to expand...

I am using a 25 year old cheap Hoya (Hama in Germany) polarizer, and it works just fine for eliminating water reflection with no sharpness loss on my (very sharp) macro lens. I am not using it as a sky effect filter, but for a few select shots - and I'd be very hesitant to shell out lots of money for a "premium" filter. A lens protection clear filter that stays on is another matter.

ejenner said:

The biggest difference I've seen (without doing pixel-peeping test shots) is with flare.

Click to expand...

+1 for that - but there's no flare if you're not shooting towards the sky or directly against a sun reflection.

Oh, interesting. Will have to take a mental note of this when my lens arrive

bornshooter said:

i have a hoya pro 1d on my 70-200 f2.8 L mk2 and a b&w on my 24-70 f2.8 L shooting long exposuers at night causes both filters to give massive flare or reflection issues remove them all is fine... im considering removing filters all together as it cant be good putting cheap glass in front of your expensive lens its only ever going to degrade the quality of your image so your best buying a cheap lens i think im only going to put my filters on if in bad rain dusty environments nightclubs etc what do yous think?

Click to expand...

**UPDATE: Well, I think my worry that Canon would move away from ES primes towards EF-S appears to have been unfounded. Thank goodness!

avian said:

what was the shutter timing?
could it be that the light measurement system is sometimes partly blokked by the mirror movement?

Click to expand...

The correct exposed where 1/400 and the over exposed where 1/200 sometimes 1/160
I would suggest the mirror movement is not blokking the measurement system.

With 5 FPS the exposure is correct all the time.
Seems to be an issue with the high burst 10 FPS

Re: Canon EF 500 & 600 f/4L IS II in May

i wonder how many people can afford these.

how many pictures of birds do you need to sell to make a profit counting the heavy costs of these lenses?

birdman said:

But the longer I hold onto my 5dII and D7000, the more their value will plummet.

Click to expand...

That really depends on a few things. The d7000 will devalue, but the mkii might not. I am one of those 7D users that almost jumped to FF when the prices went down on the mkii, but decided to wait for more mkiii info - so now the prices have gone right back up to $2500 new. Now there's talk that the new camera will be 5d like, but ahead of the 5dmkii - and that the mkii line would just continue -----if thats the case the only reason your mkii will devalue is through more shutter actuation's. the actual value will remain unaturally high becase the market will have been fixed so that the mkii is the only FF option under 3K USD

jrista said:

I'm a big fan of my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM lens. Its served me quite well, and better than the 400mm f/5.6 lenses I've tried from friends or other fellow photographers met out in the field. The only real detractor, however, is the aperture range...f/4.5 to f/5.6 is a bit limiting, from an AF standpoint, and from the standpoint of using a teleconverter. I'd love to have a relatively affordable telephoto zoom lens that I could slap a 1.4x TC on to get 140-560mm f/5.6, something cheaper than the new 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM.

Is a 100-400m f/4 a plausibility, for a "reasonable" cost around $3500 or so? Would it be a lens anyone else even cared about, or is that just a focal range and price that doesn't serve anyone's needs? Personally, I'd find 560/5.6 to be far more useful for general bird photography, without having to lug around a heavy 500mm or 600m L.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Even a bare 400 f4 prime would bite you for much more than 3500. The 200 f2 goes for around 5000. The 300 2.8 mkI went for around 5000. So... It would probably go for over 5000...

I'd expect a 5DII replacement to come in at about £2700 based on the introductory pricing of the original 5D and the 5DII.

The 4K C-DSLR, if it's based on the 1Dx (As it appears to be) I'd expect in 1DX teritory, say £5-6K

This topic has been moved to Lenses.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3505.0

This has always bugged me a bit. At Christmas time the price drops down to $2,000 was two companies in the US trying to get business. They did not go on sale at most places. I checked a lot of retailers, online places, brick & mortar places and they all set around $2,400 with no reductions. I do understand they dropped in Canada, too, but for the most part, it was two places battling with each other.

unfocused said:

Maybe we aren't hearing much about the T4i because there isn't one on the horizon?

I'm trying to think what is missing from the current model that would likely be added. How has Canon lost the "edge" against the competition? I admit I don't study camera models that closely, but in looking at the T3i, I'm trying to figure out what they should add to it.

Just because the Rebels have been on a certain cycle in the past doesn't mean Canon has to stick to that same cycle in the future. Remember, the technology is maturing. We're not likely to see the big leaps over the coming years that we've seen in the past.

Click to expand...

Valid point, but the Rebel line has never been about technology. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Rebels are some of the better selling DSLR cameras in the market. So this is about volume. A refresh every year makes perfect business sense, not technological sense per say.

Some other factors that may have contributed to the delay in release are the environmental factors from last year (earthquake and flooding). Also, as aforementioned, pushing the release to the holiday season and having features "trickle down" (as opposed to trickle up) from higher end models makes sense. It's all speculation!

That is interesting, at 1:28 the taped camera has the old 24-70L and what seems to be a follow focus (or something else that's just laying on the table), but the mode dial is the newer "push button" type.

Sure it's available for 5D MkII as well, but you never know...

Thanks for the info.

Beautor said:

maybe check out the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non-VC (no IS). While it does lack the image stabilization it is a very sharp lens with a fast aperture for an unbeatable price.

Click to expand...

Another vote for Tamron 17-50/2.8. I own this lens and like it a lot.

As for hotlights, they're okay-ish for posed photos. But they can't beat a bounced hotshoe flash for general shooting.