|
evil_bunnY posted:For resolution marginal score improvements are barely perceptible (where really sensor size and MP counts usually tells you enough), but DR improvements over the years are very, very tangible. Yep, that's what's making me consider changing from my 7D to a d800 instead of a 5DIII. It's hard for me to get excited about spending $700 more on a 5DIII with 3 EV worse dynamic range. Clipping is one of the main things that bugs me when shooting, and I do feel like I'd notice that additional leeway.
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:I guess basically I'm asking, how much does the 6D lack of left hand buttons and lack of 80000 focal points affect real world still life shooters? I rented on this past weekend as well to compare to my 7D. Great camera except the autofocus is a disaster compared to my 7D. Tried to shoot birds in flight and it was almost impossible. Indoors, or for landscape shots it was perfectly fine. I shoot a lot of birds though so it convinced me to spring for the 5D3. Oh and I did like the controls layout just fine. Buttons on the right is no big deal. I may even prefer it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
BeanTaco posted:I shoot birds with my 7D and use almost exclusively the centre point which is the same type as that on the 6D You are a better man than I am for sure. I use a 100-400 and I must not have the skills. I start zoomed out to 100 to acquire focus / find the bird as it flies by, then snap zoom in to track it through the shot I want to take. If I only had the center point I don't know how I'd be able to get it to focus. Edit: VVVVVVV BeanTaco posted:Well you're tracking the bird with it in the centre of the frame right? Unless you're taking pictures of something like swallows (in which case using all the points probably won't help much either) then it really shouldn't be a problem. Like I said, I couldn't make it happen shooting over the weekend with the birds I was trying to shoot. Never had a problem with my 7D, but almost complete failure with the 6D. As an example of what I was trying to do, see the duck shots in this gallery. I was in the same location, shooting the same ducks in the same conditions, with the same lens. It could very well be my technique, don't get me wrong, but I've shot a lot of birds there and I couldn't get the shots with the 6D that I routinely got with the 7D. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Like the other guys said, there's a difference in pixel pitch between a full frame and a crop, generally. Usually the reason that someone would want a 7D over, say, a 5DII for birds/wildlife is that the crop has a lot more pixels/mm which, in theory, will give a higher level of detail over a smaller section of the frame. More pixels on subject, better feather detail. In practice, there's barely a difference because noise becomes an issue really quickly and a full frame will handle noise much better, even cropped down. I specifically tested this with a rented 5DIII and my 7D. I shoot birds for fun using a 100-400 mm lens. I didn't want to spend more on a longer lens, but I did want the FF camera for other non-bird shooting. I set up on a tripod and shot birds on my bird feeder from the same distance, at the same focal length and aperture, using both the 5DIII and 7D. When I blow up the 5DIII center of the frame to match the subject-size of the 7D image the apparent sharpness is the same. Put another way, the 5DIII cropped image had less pixels than the full 7D image, but those FF pixels were sharper, and could support cropping better. I was satisfied that by switching from my 7D to a 5DIII I wouldn't be giving up anything noticeable in my bird shooting. This is not to contest the fact that if I had been able to reframe the image so that the bird filled the frame on the FF camera, it would look better than on the crop. But for some types of shooting you can't reframe the image (1:1 macro where you can't get more than 1:1, and bird photography where you can't get closer without buying $6k in glass).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
I'm planning a month long family vacation to Hawaii and I'm thinking about picking up an ultrawide lens. I want to shoot:
Relevant gear: I shoot a 5DIII, and the widest glass I currently have is a 24-105. When I shot crop I had a Tamron 11-16 and found that I didn't use it much. I do want to have something in my kit for the astro pics and occasional landscape use. I'm thinking about the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. It's cheap and allegedly super sharp. It's as cheap to buy as renting a nicer lens for a month. I'm also considering a canon 17-40 f/4. Given that I'm not that into wide angle shooting I'd prefer to buy something under $1000, or rent something for under $250 just for the trip. The Zeiss 18 mm seem well liked, and is reasonably priced to rent for a month. Is there anything else people think I should be considering?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
deck posted:The Rokinon 14 is sharp for the price. Other than KRock, the reviews I've read have said that it's a remarkably sharp lens. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=1 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Samyang/14mm-F2.8-IF-ED-MC-Aspherical-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__795 Of course I completely believe that they could have quality control issues and have bad copies out there though, especially at this price point. I also agree with rcman, in that I assume that the distortion can be fully corrected in post. Has anyone found that not to be the case?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Fedora Brandisher posted:I have a full frame dlsr and I want to pick up a somewhat affordable wide angle lens for it, what lens should I get? I've been looking at the 17-40mm f4, would I be better off getting a prime? I might be able to get my hands on a second hand 24mm TS lens for a very reasonable price and landscape photography is something I'd like to try more of. I'm shopping for a wide angle as well, and I've more or less decided that the 17-40 is my choice. The 24 TS has an outstanding reputation though.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Looks like canon just announced a couple of new wide angle lenses. EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM lens, $1199 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM, $299 Of course the new f/4 lens has IS, and of course it costs twice as much. Hopefully it fixes some of the corner performance issues with the older designs. I just bought a refurb 17-40 from canon for $570 a couple of days ago. I'm not sure I'd have sprung for this new model, but I'd have held off until I saw reviews for sure. edit: MTF charts here. Looks like they did fix the terrible full frame corner performance. Graniteman fucked around with this message at 14:59 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:I'm planning on a big purchase later this summer and have settled on two lens I know I will get a lot of use out of, the MP-E 65mm and the 100mm f/2.8L IS. Just to confirm, you know that the MP-E has a minimum magnification of 1:1 right? It can't be focused on anything farther than about 5 inches away. It's a bad rear end tool for macro but it's very special purpose. Another option that a general walk around may be the new 24-70 f/4. It has a surprisingly high max magnification. Like 1:0.45 as I recall.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Tricerapowerbottom posted:Yes, I'm an amateur entomologist and am buying the 65 specifically for stacked macro shots. The 100mm would be more for in situ bug shots, and then portraits, etc. Gotcha. I was reading your post to say you wanted to buy one big ticket item, which you wanted to cover macro + candid + portrait, and you listed the MP-E! If you are talking about two lenses, then the MP-E is best-in-class for field macro. I rented one last month and I'm thinking about buying one shortly. For bench studio stacking you could get similar quality results a lot cheaper using microscope objectives (we've talked about setups in the macro thread, which I know you post in). That's my current setup and it works great, but it's completely not portable, and not as flexible for various magnifications. For a walkaround lens I would just get a Tamron 15-50 f/2.8 as the good, less expensive option. The canon 17-55 is the more expensive, deluxe option. The trade off is always pure technical image quality and max aperture (prime lens) versus flexibility (zoom). If you are only getting one lens then you probably would do best with the zoom.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
caberham posted:For a while my 5d3 couldn't focus with the shutter button because of stupid custom function. If that stupid custom function was to enable back button focus you may want to try to get used to it. Many people feel that's a better way to operate a camera. Setting the focus is a separate operation conceptually from setting exposure and triggering the shutter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:God help you if you give your camera to someone else to take a picture of you though. Just spin the dial to the green square and tell them to just push the shutter button.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
50mm would be pretty long for a walkaround lens on APS-C. It's ideal for a portrait lens though. If you want impressive pictures of cats and children with blurred backgrounds you will get them from that lens on a crop sensor. For that price I'd just get a better standard zoom than the 18-55. The tamron 17-50 is in the gear thread title for a reason, so look at that. If you want a prime, the canon 24 f/2.8 pancake may be good for a "moderate wide angle" similar to the field of view on a cameraphone. I don't think there are any good fast primes in the 35mm range you'd want for a standard prime though. Maybe I'm forgetting something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Checking out flickr's 'explore by camera' feature Many people who take their photography "seriously" deliberately upload down-sized images to flickr to help combat people stealing their work. It happens a lot that pro photographers' work gets used without permission in billboards, signs, ads, etc. Sometimes they even leave the author copyright image on it! So, it's often recommended to just not upload a billboard-printable image to flickr. That also supports your later claim in court that you have the original, since you have a higher res file (or a raw file) which nobody else has. This fits into and overall caveat about looking at the flickr "explore by camera" feature. Most of what you are seeing there is actually differentiating by photographer skill level, not by equipment. When you look at images at web resolution it would be pretty hard to tell an photo taken under studio lights using an iphone from a hassleblad. That's not to say there are no differences, but that those differences don't show up much on flickr. What I think you see is just that pros (and serious amatereurs) are attracted to certain types of camera. In your example, I think the image resolution difference is just that people shooting an older full frame camera are more likely to be "taking themselves seriously" and not uploading full resolution images, while people shooting the sony will include more casual shooters who don't care about that stuff. Not to say there aren't great shooters using the sony, or people who take it seriously with the sony. But at this point I think people shooting a 5D2 are generally a different type of shooter than someone with an a6000, and they will take different types of pictures and treat them differently online.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:If they let the 5D3 have exposure compensation in manual mode, they'd probably cannibalize even more from the 1DX. Am I misunderstanding something? My 5D3 seems to have exposure compensation in manual mode. I set the camera to manual, set aperture and shutter. Then I press the ISO button on top of the camera, and scroll the top wheel left to A (auto ISO). Then I can scroll the back wheel to set exposure compensation. Maybe it's not intuitive, but it does work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
windex posted:
Yep, you're right. I was seeing the tick mark move and didn't notice the flash icon. I was just looking at the top LCD. On the Q screen it's obviously FEC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:
I really think you're mistaken about this noise being due to amplification. I think it's well understood to be related to signal to noise changes as pixels get smaller. For equivalent FOV (50mm FF, 33mm crop), at equivalent F-ratio (e.g. f/2 on both), the light intensity reaching the sensor is identical in both cases (light per square mm of sensor surface area). That's just a fact. There is less total light reaching the sensor in the crop body, but that's not relevant. That's just what makes it a crop (cropping out the center of the FF sensor). The noise differences between FF and crop are because the crop sensors typically have much smaller sensor elements (pixels). Light per square mm of sensor is the same, but there are typically more pixels per square mm on a crop sensor (a 24 MP crop sensor has smaller pixel elements than a 24 MP full frame sensor). This still doesn't mean the crop sensor has more amplification. It does mean that there is less light gathered per pixel on a crop sensor (same light per mm^2, more pixels per mm^2, = less light per pixel), which means that signal to noise ratio is worse (signal = photon count per pixel, noise = electrical noise common to all sensors of a given technology generation). See this link for a good explanation. The signal to noise and constant light per mm^2 is illustrated in figure 1. http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/ So the noise you see in a crop sensor is because of signal to noise ratio decreases when the pixels get smaller. That's not amplification. This is all totally irrelevant to taking pictures, and the net is that smaller cameras with smaller pixels take noisier images, but whatever. Internet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:Graniteman: If that were the case, the Metabones Speed Booster would be magic. I think we are saying the same thing, but you are calling it amplification and I'm calling it SNR. You are right that it's just photons per pixel. I just disagree that it's got anything to do with the lens aperture. If you put the same smaller pixels in a full frame camera you'd get the same noise. Is a 24 MP full frame camera doing more amplification than a 20 MP full frame camera? By your argument the answer is yes, but that doesn't seem like a useful distinction. The SNR scales with the ratio of pixel pitches between sensors. That's true across all sensor sizes, regardless of lens sizes or crop factors of the sensor total area. Do check that link that I posted as it's quite detailed, written by a PhD astronomer who's designed imaging systems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:If the R5 and R6 work similarly to the R, they can be charged by USB-C, but they can't be on simultaneously, and the battery won't charge while the camera is powered on. Hacking it to use continuous power is actually difficult and a huge pain in the rear end. Last I checked, you have to get a dummy battery that plugs into an AC adapter, and all of the ones currently available are low quality garbage that is almost guaranteed to toast your $4000 camera since you're plugging it directly into a wall outlet. I don't own an R5 but have been looking at getting one. What I've read is that it does support using the camera over USB power, but you need a high spec USB PD charger. The manual for the R5 says the canon USB charger will power the camera. It's not clear what spec PD you need to power the camera, but since the canon one can do it, probably a third party can. Maybe you need something rated to power a laptop. https://cam.start.canon/id/C003/manual/html/UG-09_Reference_0030.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
Is Canon actually shipping any R5s? I’m looking to get one, but the last time I looked into it last fall, there had only been two shipments (the original in Summer, and another in like September). I’m signed up for stock notifications from B&H, but I’m never getting notified. Are they shipping slowly, or not at all?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:It's been high demand low supply since launch, covid etc. A lot of products have been like that, with limited stock and high demand, but a slow trickle of inventory. But from what I’ve read, there were literally zero additional R5 shipments between June and late October. I’m wondering if there have been any shipments since late October.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:I know CanonPriceWatch or CanonRumors have been announcing periodic in-stock alerts since the new year, but they must get snapped up really quickly. Nice, had never heard of cpricewatch, checked them, and the R5 was in stock at Adorama, so I bought one. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the perspective. No you are correct but maybe underestimating how high your ISO needs to be. It can be the difference between ISO 4000 and 8000. Or you set your ISO to the highest you can tolerate and then get a stop faster shutter, which will let you capture shots that would have been blurred from subject motion otherwise. The best test might be to go to the venue (or one like it) and see what camera settings you want to use. See if a stop of shutter or ISO is important to you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2022 20:07
|
|