Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Down

Author Topic: canon ?  (Read 45130 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12871
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2014, 08:22:03 am »

I have indeed noticed an even slightly faster focusing speed with the 300/400mm f2.8 on the D810 when using the vertical grip and D4s batteries. Regardless, the vertical grip is often simply mandatory when shooting with those lenses on a monopod.

Cheers,
Bernard

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2014, 11:33:15 am »

I have indeed noticed an even slightly faster focusing speed with the 300/400mm f2.8 on the D810 when using the vertical grip and D4s batteries. Regardless, the vertical grip is often simply mandatory when shooting with those lenses on a monopod.
Cheers,
Bernard

I think you'd notice even faster focus with a D4. The grips (AFAIK all brands) provide more capacity but at the same voltage provided by a single battery. The larger packs in cameras like the D4 and 1DX provide several extra volts, increasing the power available to move large optical mechanisms quickly.
Logged
- Dean

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: canon ?
« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2014, 01:03:40 pm »

Canon's 1DX has an 11 V battery, 7D2 and 5D3 and 6D have 7 V battery.  Yes, the 1DX is the preferred pro sports and wildlife camera partly because it really can push those 400 f/2.8 supertele lens focusing elements faster than the 7 V battery-operated cameras can. That being said, the old and simple design of the 400 f/5.6 means that the focusing element assembly is light enough that even 7 V is good enough for blazing focus speed.
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2014, 03:33:23 pm »

... the old and simple design of the 400 f/5.6 means that the focusing element assembly is light enough that even 7 V is good enough for blazing focus speed.

That lens also has great optical quality, and unlike the others it's hand holdable and a real bargain.
Logged
- Dean

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2621
Re: canon ?
« Reply #24 on: December 20, 2014, 12:59:11 am »

I think you'd notice even faster focus with a D4. The grips (AFAIK all brands) provide more capacity but at the same voltage provided by a single battery. The larger packs in cameras like the D4 and 1DX provide several extra volts, increasing the power available to move large optical mechanisms quickly.

You get slightly faster time to first focus with heavy glass, but no better tracking. This is because tracking involves slower movements anyway, whereas initial focus requires jumping to one specific point.

Regardless, this is a potential area of improvement for all OEM grips. At the moment, all a grip offers is increased capacity (it takes all of 2 seconds to change a battery anyway) and extra size and weight which is good for some people with big, clumsy hands, but worse than useless for someone like me who has no trouble with gripless cameras and hates the extra bulk and weight. An OEM grip offers nothing over a third-party grip. But if they can increase the voltage, either by running two batteries in series or using a different battery, and offer faster AF, then they may actually be useful on dedicated wildlife trips.
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: canon ?
« Reply #25 on: December 22, 2014, 07:38:14 am »

I think it does matter to "some people" it depends what your needs are and type of shooting.

What I always hated about digital was the blown highlights and poor dynamic range (in the early days) things have come on an awful lot DR matters to me and I don't just shoot landscapes, for that reason I won't invest in Canon owned a few cameras used a lot but the sad reality is even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR it's just the way it is they have not moved forward. I'd say even my Fuji X10 would outdo a Canon DSLR for DR too

Of course there are a lot of factors Canon have a massive system, tons of s/h bodies and lenses but image wise for me nope they don't really meet the mark.
Canon used to have the best sensors, now they have the worst everyone outdoes them Fuji's X-Trans, Sony made sensors they wipe the floor with Canon. Why suffer bad DR becaue the company won't invest in technology or use other makers sensors?

You can have all the features in the world but what comes out of the can counts for more
Logged

Keith Reeder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
    • Capture The Moment
Re: canon ?
« Reply #26 on: December 22, 2014, 08:20:08 am »

even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR

I have literally no idea how to respond to that ridiculous comment without either calling into question your honesty or your competence, but it's BS of the very highest order.

If you can't get all of the DR you need out of a Canon - especially the more recent ones, like those in the 70D and 7D Mk II - then you don't need a better camera.

You need lessons.

Canon's sensors do not "lack" DR: some older Canon sensors are prone to more pattern noise in pushed low ISO shadows (which is not the same as less DR), but the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment; and they also have more than enough headroom at the top end of the histogram to allow for a more ETTR approach.

And beyond about 800 ISO - no DR difference anyway.

The biggest problem that Canon sensors have is people not understanding that their favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file; but rather than investigate the alternatives, let's just blame the sensor...

It ain't the sensor. It's the user...

 
Logged
Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: canon ?
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2014, 11:57:24 am »


. . . . but the sad reality is even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR it's just the way it is

Holy crap - or maybe just fine hyperbole?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2014, 12:16:03 pm by Glenn NK »
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15280
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: canon ?
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2014, 01:46:42 pm »

... the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment... favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file...

Care to support that with your own comparative testing? Or at least provide a link to someone else's?

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: canon ?
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2014, 02:25:51 pm »

The 400 f/5.6L, a "specialty" lens just as much as the 1x - 5x macro MPE-65 and the two wide angle TS lenses, is one of the reasons I chose Canon, and for my needs (hand held birding photos) it functions brilliantly. Current camera and this lens weigh 2.1 kg (would be 2.4 kg with 7D2). Next jump in quality would need ~$15,000.00 for FF body and 500 mm F/4L IS II lens.

The thought about trying different RAW converters is interesting. I have only tried Lr. I suppose that I could keep Lr as a cataloguing program and try DPP (free!), Capture One, photo ninja, DXO, etc RAW converters. As long as the "Trial" watermark isn't straight over the shadow to be lifted, I should be able to sample the competing converters for free.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #30 on: December 22, 2014, 03:20:16 pm »

I think it does matter to "some people" it depends what your needs are and type of shooting.

What I always hated about digital was the blown highlights and poor dynamic range (in the early days) things have come on an awful lot DR matters to me and I don't just shoot landscapes, for that reason I won't invest in Canon owned a few cameras used a lot but the sad reality is even the cheapest crop sensor DSLR I have spanks the rear end off any Canon for DR it's just the way it is they have not moved forward. I'd say even my Fuji X10 would outdo a Canon DSLR for DR too

In the early days of digital SLRs it was like shooting slide film with the added downside of shadow noise.  So you were balancing not only blowing highlights with blocking up shadows, but noisy shadows above the deep shadows.

Bottom Line is you can make great images with either a Nikon or Canon DSLR.  Some shots benefit from the better sensor subsytem of the Nikon while some benefit more from the functionality of the Canon. 

As a Nikon shooter there should be a 24MP variant of the D810 and a DX variant of the D810.  I won't touch the D5 end since I have never owned a model at the top end.  Not sure why the D750 ended up in the 'Enthusiast' line with the D610 instead of the professional line, but...
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2978
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2014, 04:53:13 pm »

The biggest problem that Canon sensors have is people not understanding that their favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file; but rather than investigate the alternatives, let's just blame the sensor...
I'd like to see some convincing evidence of this.
As a result of your post I've downloaded and spent a few hours trying out Photo Ninja on some challenging files, but haven't seen any significant improvement in DR recovery from PN than LR.
I could probably fill a long post about how poor the usability and speed of PN is, but that's another issue altogether.

I'd agree that dynamic range from Canon's is mostly sufficient already. There's a lot of rot talked about the importance of DR, but frankly a lot of time it's not a significant issue at all, it's just the currently fashionable aspect of photographic quality to chase after.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: canon ?
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2014, 05:08:13 pm »

I'd agree that dynamic range from Canon's is mostly sufficient already. There's a lot of rot talked about the importance of DR, but frankly a lot of time it's not a significant issue at all, it's just the currently fashionable aspect of photographic quality to chase after.

I will point out there is a whole area of photography called HDR that arose specifically due to the inability to capture Dynamic Range in a single image.

The first thing I shot after testing the D810 was a military funeral.  A cold, windy day with absolutely no clouds, bright sunlight, 1pm.  They put an opaque canopy up with wind walls on the back and one side due to the wind.  Widow was sitting at the edge of the canopy with half her face in bright sunlight and the other half and the rest of the family in deep shade.  The D810 has the best DR of any DSLR on the market right now and I could have used 4 more stops easy.

So you are correct, there are lots of time DR is not an issue except for Sunrise, Sunset, Night Scapes, sun/shade, lights in the frame, exposure misses...
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15280
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: canon ?
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2014, 05:29:25 pm »

... As a result of your post I've downloaded and spent a few hours trying out Photo Ninja on some challenging files, but haven't seen any significant improvement in DR recovery from PN than LR...

The same here, except I tried the latest Canon's DPP. Definitely no improvement, and possibly even slightly worse than LR. I was looking specifically for noise in underexposed areas. I so wished Keith were right, alas...

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12871
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2014, 07:03:35 pm »

Canon's sensors do not "lack" DR: some older Canon sensors are prone to more pattern noise in pushed low ISO shadows (which is not the same as less DR), but the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment; and they also have more than enough headroom at the top end of the histogram to allow for a more ETTR approach.

And beyond about 800 ISO - no DR difference anyway.

You stressing the lack of DR difference above 800 ISO means you at least acknowledge the difference of DR at lower ISO?

If there is a difference at lower ISO but no lack on Canon side, does it mean that other cameras have more than enough DR?

That is at least one statment most here will clearly disagree with, Canon user or not. There are many scenes of photographic interest where light is such that even 2 more stops on top of the class leading D810 would still bring more value. Yes, there are scenes where a point & shoot will have plenty of DR but I'd rather not have my equipment dictate what I can photograph comfortably. Although I liked the look of slides, I loved knowing that I could use negatives when needed.

If you recall, many MFDB users have been spending tens of thousands of US$ for years mostly to get better DR, yet the latest Sony sensors are ahead of these MF wonders and the gap with Canon FF is significantly larger than the gap ever was between 35mm and the backs.

The way I look at it, Canon's inability to compete credibly on this metric, and the denial of some Canon users, is hurting all photographers by slowing down progress. That's a bit annoying.

Had Canon not released a 3.8kg 400mm f2.8, my Nikon would still weight 5kg. I don't think any Nikon user ever claimed that the obvious superiority of the Canon wasn't real, even if it was possible to take amazing images with the excellent Nikon 400mm f2.8 VR.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 09:33:41 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

jrayupchurch

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: canon ?
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2014, 08:40:30 pm »

I switched from a Leica R 6 film camera to Canon 20D in 2004. The quality was unbelievable compared to my scanned film files. The time and money savings made it a no brainer to shoot only digital. When the Canon 5D 2 first came out I purchased one and can only say what a lemon. Focus was terrible and all too often when I was on a shoot the camera just wouldnít work. Sent it back to Canon 2 times never really fixed the problem. I was so angry with Canon I would have switched brands. At that time no one made a 35mm DSLR that could touch Canons image quality. After a couple of years of frustrations I purchased a second 5D 2 and it has worked perfectly for years. I now use the 5D 3 and itís a much better camera than the model 2.
 To reduce my hiking weight this year I purchased the Fuji X-T1 and 18-55 lens .Testing the Canon 5D 3 and Fuji side by side. The Canon is sharper and the Fuji does have a larger DR. The one thing I notice is how much better the color pallet of the Fuji compares to the Canon 5D 3 on most photos. I donít need as much time to correct the Fuji photos in Lightroom. I have no plans to switch to Fuji as my main Camera. I have too many L lenses that Fuji canít compete with at this time. I hope that Canon would increase its DR more than resolution. I think this will improve image quality more than MP count but want complain if they did both.

JRay Upchurch
Logged

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2978
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: canon ?
« Reply #36 on: December 23, 2014, 04:50:27 am »

I will point out there is a whole area of photography called HDR that arose specifically due to the inability to capture Dynamic Range in a single image.
Really ?, you think the people using HDR are doing it to carefully capture a full range of tones their cameras can't handle ?
Do a search on Flickr for HDR https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HDR look at the absolute horrors that search finds. Almost all the results use HDR as a gimmick effect, highly saturated colours, over sharpened, very contrasty, so the irony is that they are showing less of the original scene's tonality.

Sure, some folk do need to capture extreme ranges of luminance and manage to bring pull the data together in a realistic way, but it's a real exception to what HDR has come to mean. Even then a lot of compressed tonal range images simply look wrong and unnatural.
Logged

allegretto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: canon ?
« Reply #37 on: December 23, 2014, 07:01:50 am »

in order to kept real, the 6D is superior to the 5-series in most, if not all important ways. Just shy on build quality.

Still, it's no 810.

the A7R is more like it, but a troubled design. I don't think Nikon got and exclusive on the 36 MPx chip. I think Sony thought it would be limited in its popularity. When they saw the sales figures they pooped their drawers and quickly came out with the A7R. It shows all the flaws of an under tested design.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2621
Re: canon ?
« Reply #38 on: December 23, 2014, 09:28:19 am »

Really ?, you think the people using HDR are doing it to carefully capture a full range of tones their cameras can't handle ?
Do a search on Flickr for HDR https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=HDR look at the absolute horrors that search finds. Almost all the results use HDR as a gimmick effect, highly saturated colours, over sharpened, very contrasty, so the irony is that they are showing less of the original scene's tonality.

Sure, some folk do need to capture extreme ranges of luminance and manage to bring pull the data together in a realistic way, but it's a real exception to what HDR has come to mean. Even then a lot of compressed tonal range images simply look wrong and unnatural.

That's not HDR. That's just bad tone-mapping.

Which is just as possible without HDR software or multiple images.

As a matter of fact. using a graduated ND filter also gives you HDR. It just limits you to a straight, linear zone of transition.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 482
Re: canon ?
« Reply #39 on: December 23, 2014, 10:16:02 am »

I have literally no idea how to respond to that ridiculous comment without either calling into question your honesty or your competence, but it's BS of the very highest order.

If you can't get all of the DR you need out of a Canon - especially the more recent ones, like those in the 70D and 7D Mk II - then you don't need a better camera.

You need lessons.

Canon's sensors do not "lack" DR: some older Canon sensors are prone to more pattern noise in pushed low ISO shadows (which is not the same as less DR), but the latest Canon crop sensors are essentially FPN free (completely so, if you use DPP), allowing for multiple-stop shadow adjustments without detriment; and they also have more than enough headroom at the top end of the histogram to allow for a more ETTR approach.

And beyond about 800 ISO - no DR difference anyway.

The biggest problem that Canon sensors have is people not understanding that their favourite converters are the problem: Lightroom for example, is not in the same league as (say) Photo Ninja at maximising the available DR in a Canon file; but rather than investigate the alternatives, let's just blame the sensor...

It ain't the sensor. It's the user...

 

My My... such rudeness.

Various review and test sites do seem to be saying that Canon lack behind the competition for DR (I suppose they could all be wrong, fanboys or using the wrong converters?) although that brief statement in itself is too broad and needs to be qualified but I'm not going to even attempt to do that here. Anyone with an open mind wishing to read on can Google or otherwise research themselves.

The thing with men and camera gear or any other gear for that matter is criticising gear is almost like questioning their manhood and the hyperbole gets out of hand very quickly. IMVHO that's a shame.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11   Go Up