Posts

nc0b · Dec 2, 2013

Here is my experience within the 70-300mm range. My first purchase was a used 70-300 IS (non-L) lens. It took excellent small perched bird pictures, usually racked to to 300mm. Its down side was the dramatic extension as it zoomed out (potentially sucking in dust), and it rotated as it focused, neither of which I liked. I then got the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, which is a fantastic lens. It doesn't extend, it doesn't rotate, it takes great pictures wide open, and the AF is very fast. Later I traded my 70-300mm plus $500 for a 70-200mm f/4 IS. I have to stop the f/4 lens down to f/5.6 to get the kind of sharpness of the f/2.8 wide open. The IS in the f/2.8 is much quieter, and the AF is noticeably faster than the f/4 lens. If I am walking fewer than 5 miles, I don't mind the weight of the f/2.8. Shooting indoors with existing light, the f/2.8 wins every time. I have both the 1.4X III and the 2.0X III teleconverters, and the 1.4X works well on both L lenses, is small and doesn't weigh much. Birds in flight (BIF) focus speed degrades noticeably with the 1.4X, while the 2X is basically useless if you lose the frame and the focus get confused on the sky. If shooting static shots, both extenders work well, of course the 2X only works on the f/2.8 lens. For BIF my choice is the 400mm f/5.6 and my 6D. This is the only combination that has worked for me, taking pictures of hawks and eagles as they take off from a perch. (Other bodies I own and have tried for BIF are a 5D Classic, 40D and 60D.) If shooting more general (larger) wildlife, the 60D, 70-200mm f/2.8 & 1.4X TC are fine, and have about the same reach as the 6D and 400mm f/5.6. If outdoors in good light the f/4 zoom is a good walk around lens, particularly on a full-frame body. I have never used the 70-300 L, but I don't plan to buy any more variable f/stop lenses. Often my 15-85mm f/4.0-5.6 is racked out to 85mm and is too slow (or too much ISO noise) indoors. Optically the 15-85mm is just fine outdoors with good light. It generally stays on my 40D. All these comments assume we are not discussing cost, just the pros and cons of each lens.

jrista · Dec 2, 2013

Traktor said:
jrista said:

AF is extremely important in studio photography as well, though. I can't imagine any studio camera, 5Ds III or 1Ds X, not getting Canon's top of the line AF system.

Click to expand...

If thats the case then why do a lot of studios use Medium Format systems with average AF systems?
Don't get me wrong, I am not an expert on studio work but I would have thought an improved version of the highly praised 19 point system from the 7D will destroy any of the current Medium Format AF systems and be more than good enough? Happy for people in the know to point out studio exaqmples where this AF system would not be good enough.
If someone absolutely has to have the 61 point system with a high res sensor then presumably Canon would make them fork out the 7-9 grand for the hypothetical 1DXs.

I just hope there is room in the 2014 lineup for what the 5D2 was in 2009: high resolution at the expense of speed, at a (then) reasonable price. I like Canon cameras, I am used to the GUI, they fit nicely in my hand and the controls all feel right - but it looks as though a Sony A7R with an adapter may be the thing to tide me over.

In my peripheral experience with studio photography, you generally only need center point focus. You don't generally do off-centered compositions or anything like that. While the design of medium format AF systems may seem mediocre, they are very good at what they do. Similarly, the 61pt AF system has a vertical strip of five of the industries most powerful and accurate AF points, which would be a huge boon to studio work (especially in a 40-50 megapixel body).

I don't think the grand total number of AF points don't matter all that much for a studio camera, however those five ultra precision points would be pretty awesome. That said...why develop a new AF sensor with just those five, when you already have on that is ready to go, and has all the manufacturing lined up?

Boyer U. Klum-Cey · Dec 2, 2013

I'm getting to olde to carry my bigg boy stuff very farr. But, armed only with an 5 day olde SL1, the kit autofocus STM, a 50mm 1.2, and an agin S95, the keeper stills/video from a 10 day stay in swinginn Vegas exceeded my lame standards by a Ho lot. The SL1 is now my travel body!

rpt · Dec 2, 2013

J.R. said:
ten years from now ... who cares, just go out there and shoot with what is available, today!

As Don Haines has it in his signature ... The best camera is the one in your hands

+1

jrista · Dec 2, 2013

jebrady03 said:
I'm ready for QPAF (Quad Pixel).
HDR plus AF.
it seems like a natural evolution to me

I'm not sure DPAF or a hypothetical evolution to QPAF is really a means to achieving HDR. Remember, ML had to cut resolution in half in order to achieve its makeshift approach, not because they did not have dual pixels...but because they had to use both the per-pixel amps as well as a secondary downstream amp. Doesn't matter how many times you dice up a pixel...if you have to use the downstream amplifier to achieve ML's style of "HDR", then diced pixels won't help.

Additionally, HDR implies 32-bit float data storage. Current camera ADCs are still limited to 14 bits int. Canon already has 12 stops of DR...seems a bit extreme to use such a convoluted approach to improving that by a mere two stops, when their problem actually lies in the ADCs themselves. Canon could take a far simpler approach...increase the parallelism of the ADCs, and move them closer to the pixels, to reduce the amount of noise they introduce into the signal. That's what everyone else is doing, and it is quite effective.

Assuming Canon was able to use QPAF to do some form of HDR...unless they increase the bit depth of the ADC, it isn't really going to be HDR. You would still be limited to 14 stops of DR, albeit achieved via a rather convoluted apprach that could be more costly and less effective than simply modernizing their read pipeline architecture. To get true HDR, Canon would need to use 32-bit ADC, and use floats rather than ints. At the very least, to improve DR by a meaningful degree, they would need to move to 16-bit integer ADC, however that wouldn't necessarily be "HDR".

RustyTheGeek · Dec 2, 2013

Nothing wrong with SmugMug but I wouldn't know.

I've used Zenfolio for years and consistently been happy with them.

If you decide to switch to Zenfolio, here's my referral code for a discount.

Referral Code: 6KC-FPW-PWR

Rusty

notoriouslightning · Dec 1, 2013

The 70-200 2.8 is II is on the way and will be delivered on friday. Thanks everyone for your input.

wickidwombat · Dec 1, 2013

mStevens said:
I purchased a refurbished 7D from Adorama. I am having second thoughts :-\ and may cancel the order and purchase a new 70D. Please advise on your experience in purchasing refurbished cameras.

The reason I purchased it was because I currently use a 40D for girls soccer and I hate it. It has really bad image quality (10MP) when I crop in on my shots.

I can't wait any longer for the 7DII. My daughter is a junior and will only play soccer for another year. I have no need for a crop frame beyond that. So my choices are to buy a cheap refurbished 7D or buy a new 70D.

Personally i would have gone for the 70D over a 7D it has more new features like wifi and tilty flippy touch screen

sagittariansrock · Dec 1, 2013

sunnyVan said:
I sold mine recently and I'm waiting for the 30 days to expire. My lens works fantastically but people can invent any reason for return and I wouldn't want to deal with that. Unfortunately ebay charges too much fee now and I have switched to amazon as my primary trading site.

Amazon is good for the buyer, but scary for new sellers since dishonest buyers can take advantage of the policy. In fact, if an A-Z claim is made and approved, they don't even need to return the item AND will get the refund. I once sold a 50D on Amazon and that was a nail-biting 30 days after the transaction. Never again- only Craigslist for me, even if I have to sell it cheaper.

sagittariansrock · Dec 1, 2013

Ruined said:
This is part of the reason I am wary buying refurb lenses from Canon. If they send back obviously broken stuff from repair and say it is "in spec," there is a good chance they would sell same said broken stuff in their refurb store as according to them it would be "in spec"...

Well this part of your reasoning is unfounded, in that case. They use rigorous specs and testing (http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/CusaMiscPageView?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10051&file=refurbished/refurb.html), I have never had any issue with refurb lenses, the same 1 year warranty applies, and this particular lens was bought in a store. Many even say buying refurb is safer since these have undergone rigorous testing.

candc · Dec 1, 2013

sorry ef-s 60, you are on the price watch page after all, there is a separate page for macro lenses. maybe that is why you get forgotten about so much, when you get compared to your big brother then you just don't seem to measure up. but if people would see you for all your other qualities and how useful you are on an aps-c body then you would get the credit you deserve.

Dec 1, 2013

I don't think so. I'd say the reductions would be cumulative only down to the minimum power on the flash itself (1/128th). The xenon flash tubes only have one power level - on. When you vary flash output, you're not changing the flash intensity, you're changing the duration. I doubt the transmitter can make the flash circuitry operate faster than its design parameters (for comparison, a 580/600 flash at 1/128 power has a duration of faster than 1/30,000 s).

But you have the setup, right? Just point one flash set to 1/128 at a white wall in a dark room, and dial down power on the transmitter without changing flash settings to see if it gets dimmer (or bump the ISO up one stop for each stop of power drop on the transmitter, and see if it remains constant).

Dec 1, 2013

Re: 5Dm3 Not Recognizing 100mm 2.8 Macro as f2.8?

U-Type said:
I guess it's cause the macro has built in extension tubes for achieving 1:1 magnification? Thus the bellows factor causes it to be registered as a f5.6?

Maybe…although both the 100mm macro lenses (L and non-L) achieve 1:1, but they're treated as different groups. So possibly a combination of bellows factor and some empirical performance testing by Canon...

East Wind Photography · Nov 30, 2013

Latest news as of 30 minutes ago is that ISON is nearly gone now. It's already faded to less than magnitude 6 and the nucleus has all but disappeared. Yeah, we've heard that before...but I think this time it's for real. If anything is left, Hubble will image it in a week or so. All that's left is dust.

Maybe with a bit of luck, we will get an increase in the number of meteors starting January 12th...However even that is looking pretty bleak at this point.

jrista · Nov 30, 2013

Loren E said:
jrista said:

Loren E said:

You said "The Dual pixel does not hinder AF performance" and then said "Let me repeat it, Dual Pixel does not hinder the ISO"....did my confusion arise because you meant to say ISO performance instead of AF performance in your first post?

And hasn't the Nikon D7100 been tested to be close to 2 stops better at high ISO than the 7d? I didn't do any side by side comparisons but definitely felt like my level of satisfaction with ISO 6400 on the D7100 was similar to that felt with ISO 1600 on the 7D...at least in terms of where I felt I wanted to cap my high ISO usage for the respective bodies....maybe to be fair 1600 on the 7D is more like 4000 on the D7100 than 6400.

Click to expand...

There is perceptually better and actually better. There is most definitely a psychological component to thinking that the D7100 is "two stops" better at high ISO. From a technical standpoint, it probably isn't possible to actually get truly two stops better, since stops are a power of two, and ISO performance is dependent upon Q.E. and pixel area. The 7D has larger pixels (4.16µm vs. 3.91µm), which is it's benefit, where as the D7100 has more Q.E. (but certainly not enough to literally be two stops better.) The D7100 has 11% better Q.E. than the 7D (52% vs. 41%). In terms of pixel area, the 7D pixels are 13% larger. Technologically, the D7100 has a better sensor with a better architecture, which also probably gives it an edge when it comes to high ISO (primarily, it has a higher SNR, which means that at every ISO, it has a larger usable signal). Overall, from a literal, physical, technical standpoint, the difference between these two sensors is fairly small, and while the D7100, thanks to its excellent SNR, does better, it isn't anywhere close to two stops (i.e. the 7D at ISO 6400 has a saturation point of 536 vs. the D7100 at ISO 6400 which has a saturation point of 541...almost negligible.)

To truly have a full two stops better noise performance, where the amount of noise at ISO 6400 is the same as the amount of noise at ISO 1600, you either need to reduce megapixel count by a factor of two (pixels that are four times greater area...i.e. a pixel pitch of 7.82µm)...or you need to increase quantum efficiency by two orders of magnitude. The 7D has a Q.E. of 41%. Twice the efficiency is 82%. Twice that is 164%. Well, it's impossible to gather more photons than exist, so you can't have more than 100% Q.E. (and achieving that usually requires rather bulky cooling equipment that would render such a camera immobile.)

From a perceptual standpoint...softer detail appears to suffer more from noise. The 7D has an AA filter, where as the D7100 does not. The D7100 is going to have much sharper detail due to having more acutance. THIS is its true strong point when it comes to ISO performance, and probably the key reason why it "feels" as though it has less noise. Detail is sharper with the D7100, so noise doesn't appear to be as prevalent, even though it is roughly the same as the 7D. There is a tradeoff for this...more aliasing and moire. General aliasing can be delt with to a degree with downsampling, moire can be very difficult to deal with (there are some tools, however most simply reduce color moire and mitigate monochrome moire, but none can actually eliminate it.)

If you don't shoot subjects that have repeating patterns or clean edges that might result in aliasing, then the D7100 is certainly an amazing camera, and its sharper detail will certainly result in perceptually less noise.

The 70D is still using the same general sensor design and architecture as the 7D, so it is doubtful much of its weaknesses have been resolved. I get the feeling that the 70D is sharper, which will go a long way to mitigating how noisy it "feels". It has a larger signal, however again thanks to Canon's read-noisy archaic sensor+ADC architecture, it still isn't as good as the D7100 (26726e- vs. 29236e- FWC.) The 70D also still uses an AA filter, which is going to soften detail around nyquist...and while that eliminates (or greatly reduces) aliasing, the lower acutance will still make it "feel" as though it is noisier...dual pixel architecture or not.

Click to expand...

Really informative post, very interesting about the affect of an AA filter on noise perception. I wonder if Canon will begin going the Nikon route and moving AA filters.

Honestly, I hope they don't remove them. Maybe slightly weaken them, but aliasing and moire are really no better than noise, and in some respects worse...they are harder to deal with in post. Noise is pretty easy to remove, and a moderate amount of removal can greatly reduce noise without hurting image detail. There are no real effective ways to fix aliased edges or remove moire. An AA filter is the only real way to ensure that around nyquist, what the sensor resolves is "realistic". I think Canon could find a happy medium, between weakening the AA filter a bit so it blurs less, but not eliminate it entirely.

photonius · Nov 30, 2013

Mt Spokane Photography said:
Don Haines said:

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Canon prides themselves on making sensors in house, and that is unlikely to change. They are expanding production. Its cheaper that way. Producing a large DSLR sensor is different from producing the tiny computer chips that Intel makes.

Canon also produces the equipment to manufacture sensors and computer chips, so they can custom make their own equipment, they just have not yet decided to go to a new process, but it is said to be imminent.

Canon is making money while others are losing mostly because they are conservative and only make changes when there is a handsome payback. They are in the process of switching to 100% robotic camera assembly, so we can be certain that they believe that there will be a big payback. A new sensor packaging design has already been developed and is used in the SL1. Its probably robotic friendly and soon all Canon cameras will use it.

Click to expand...

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that Canon had already gone to newer and finer technology for it's p/s sensors.... To me, that indicates that the move is already underway.

Does anyone know what technology is used in the fabrication of the 70D sensor? I would have guessed that the radical change to dual-pixel would have been the logical time to change processes.....

Click to expand...

So far all I hear is Rumors, they might in fact have changed already, but someone like chipworks usually catches it. Since they did not put out a article on it, I expect it is the same technology, but no one is saying.

hmm, seems chipworks did do a report on August.
canon's sensor is LC1290A CMOS

https://www.chipworks.com/TOC/Canon_LC1290A_EOS_70D_CIS_IPR-1308-801_TOC.pdf

16'000 US$ for the full report but they don't allow data release yet :-\ maybe they will publish an own summary report eventually

Dylan777 · Nov 30, 2013

I visit CR daily(10-20 times a day). I have seen 100ish similar questions - many members end up selling crop body after getting FF (5D, 6D, 5D II, 5D III, 1D X). The IQ of FF will blow the t4i away. Your t4i will stay in the bag and collect dust. Same thing with 24-105 owners, after getting 24-70 II.

To save you time and money, sell all the crop gear as fast as you can. Use that money toward to future L lenses. 17-55 & 10-22 are wonderful lenses for crop, but they still can't match with L lenses - from IQ to build quality.

verysimplejason · Nov 29, 2013

Marsu42 said:
BPLOL said:

The 6D has a delay that you can notice when using full button presses to take the shot. And that's compared to my XTi. I don't know if that is what you are experiencing. More info: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52069474

Click to expand...

Thanks for the notification, I didn't realize this before which means that I focus/recompose for 99,9% of my shots.

I'd like to add that the "superimposed display" is a bit futile on the 6d anyway as most people will use the center point only, meaning the is no need to see which af point(s) have locked on, and in tracking it doesn't indicate the points anyway. So for most of us it's sufficient to see when the camera has af lock by the green dot in the vf.

I didn't experience any of these. I'm using BBF.

Mt Spokane Photography · Nov 29, 2013

I'll wait until I have the filter in my hands tomorrow morning, and then order a holder. I was planning to get a 82mm adapter ring which would work for my 16-35L and 24-70L, I assume I could step down to 77mm or smaller for my other lenses. I see Foto Diox has a low cost 100mm filter adapter as well, now that I'm looking at them. I'd prefer a brass adapter ring, but I'm not sure if it exists in 82mm or if I could afford it..

I recognized the Big Stopper when it popped up on Craigslist a couple of hours ago due to this thread that I've been following. The guy owns a local Nursery and I'm meeting him there tomorrow.
http://spokane.craigslist.org/pho/4220012210.html

I've finally decided to part with a bunch of little used lenses, so I have about 8K worth of lenses up for sale. I don't know how I managed to horde that much. I'm keeping too much as it is, and need to sell more.

pwp · Nov 29, 2013

AmbientLight said:
Wouldn't a driver gets fined excessively for wearing such a cap, because it keeps the driver occupied with lots of things other than driving?
In many countries people do get into real trouble for actions like eating pizza, being on the phone, using SMS, writing e-mails, checking a calendar and drinking all at the same time as someone is driving.

Pretty soon we'll be able to do whatever we like while in the car...because the car will be driving itself. Quite likely within the lifetimes of those self-proclaimed old bald guys posting in this thread, we won't even be allowed to drive our cars. The benefits of this will be huge. We'll be mobile until we're 110+, navigation will be handled as will parking and so on. We'll be free to wear any kind of glass, Sony wig, or unforeseen enhancements and best of all, we'll be able to safely take photos out of the drivers side window in fast moving heavy traffic. Bring it on.

-pw

WPJ · Nov 29, 2013

neuroanatomist said:
dgatwood said:

You'll notice I said "for a given focal length". To be completely precise, I should have said, "for a given focal length, maximum aperture, and minimum focusing distance". You can't really compare apples to oranges.

That said, making the lens smaller and lighter is just one possible option, obtained by using a similar number of elements and a similar design. Alternatively, instead of making the lens smaller and lighter, you could instead choose to provide a larger maximum aperture, add macro capabilities, or correct for CA and other artifacts more completely (which is arguably more critical when you're dealing with the higher pixel density on crop bodies). Either way, there's still a benefit over the full-frame glass.

Click to expand...

but your not,comparing similar lenses, toss the 25-105, or you can't say that because the 24-105 is way better at 60mm than the 17-55 considering it won't go there.

and for the 17-55 vs the 17-40, that's f2.8vsf4, I would naturally expect the f2.8 to be better.

lets talk apples to apples, but really there is non.

my point is that there is nothing wrong with using,L glass on a crop

Perhaps...but the point seems rather moot for the original discussion concerning EF-S primes, since there's only one. Also, I wasn't questioning that an EF-S lens could be smaller and lighter than the same focal length/aperture in an EF lens, but rather your figure of 'two-thirds' the size.

WPJ said:

Any L lens will perform just as good is not better on a crop as you won't get as much of the soft corners people always complain about.

Click to expand...

I disagree. First, you have to take the sensor into account - you'll get better IQ out of the combination of L-lens and FF sensor than that lens on APS-C, even considering the soft corners of an UWA zoom. Second, an L-lens on crop won't necessarily outperform an EF-S lens - for example, the EF-S 17-55mm is better than both the 17-40L and 24-105L on the same crop body.

WPJ · Nov 29, 2013

hey I I was able to get a pretrigger and a standard cable dirt cheap, I wanted to be able to remote fire a camera, I have noticed one thing in my testing so far, if I am on high speed or low speed continuous every lick on the flextt1 results in 2 or 3 actuations on the remote camera.

just wondering if others have seen this or not

thanks

RichM · Nov 29, 2013

Stopped by the local camera shop, only planning to pick up a Black Rapid Sport which I saw on sale, and found a used Canon BG-E7 grip for my 7d for $100. I had been debating picking a new one up at $160, so I thought it was good deal on Black Friday.

Eldar · Nov 29, 2013

If that does´t work, you should consider something else. Stamp collection, knitting .. or something

J.R. · Nov 29, 2013

Thanks for the replies.

So basically its neither here nor there ... :-\ I guess I'll wait and get the 300mm first.

I don't want to end up with seller's remorse. Used 100-400 pop up for resale in India infrequently and if I sell it now and need it again, I'll probably have to get a new one

Posts

Posts

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics