Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 6D  (Read 13600 times)
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1133



« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2012, 02:16:24 AM »
ReplyReply

-raw histogram capabilities in the field
that you can do w/ eye-fi
Logged
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2012, 02:28:05 AM »
ReplyReply

As pointed out from a known rumors source site, D600 cameras already reached a number of retailers.
Trying not to sound biased, it's hard for me to see any good future for the 6D.
I mean, a lor of Canon user will prefer this to the Nikon model (or the ones from many other manufacturers) because of the lenses they own.
Beside that the 6D, IMHO, is worse on a lot of photographic key aspects. That's a shame.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751


« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2012, 05:56:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like Canon's trademark shadow banding is still there: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/

Except, this time, it's horizontal bands rather than vertical.

Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2012, 06:17:17 AM »
ReplyReply

why can't people expose their images properly? these screengrabs are from a 5dIII processed in capture1. the normal shot with black levels in single figures and the exposure and brightness sliders at the maximum boost.
why would you ever need to do that?

(i can never get these attachments to work Huh )
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2012, 06:20:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I dont see the 6D being popular among professional sports photographers.

I would love to be able to use the gui/open apps model of my smart-phone to control my DSLR. Sadly, as my phone has no USB host capability, AFAIK that is not conveniently possible today.

If the wifi is used as a "USB-replacement", and todays USB drivers for windows/mac are supplemented by Wifi equivalents for Android/iOS/..., I see many use-cases.
-Remote live-view (no need for articulating lcd screen)
-Time-lapse/improved exposure bracketing
-raw histogram capabilities in the field
-micro-focus adjustment tools/aids

+ all of the consumer-friendly "upload my images to facebook"-type functionality.

-h

I didn't say "this" camera would be used by sports photographers.  I said wifi was a useful feature and then went on to explain how it could be useful, particularly if Canon continued to include it in future cameras (i.e., ones that sports shooters might use).  

The improved bracketing/timelapse (e.g. bulb ramping) functionality would only be available if it were built into the app.  I don't believe; however, that some of those functionalities are accessible wirelessly but that a hard connection is needed to get into the 'guts' of the camera, especially for things like bulb ramping and bracketing.
Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751


« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2012, 06:55:44 AM »
ReplyReply

why can't people expose their images properly? these screengrabs are from a 5dIII processed in capture1. the normal shot with black levels in single figures and the exposure and brightness sliders at the maximum boost.
why would you ever need to do that?

(i can never get these attachments to work Huh )

You can properly expose a scene and still end up with very deep shadows. Happens most often when shooting landscapes, since you are often dealing with high dynamic range scenes and have no way to control the lighting (i.e. fill flash).

For instance, this 6D sample shot: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/downloads/02.jpg

Looks properly exposed, but there are still deep shadows.
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2012, 08:22:55 AM »
ReplyReply

i am aware of that but shadows are shadows, after working as a photographer for 20 years and using all kinds of digital cameras big and small i still have never had to lift near blacks that much that banding is visible.
 it was there in the 5D II if you went looking for it but in normal use never apparent, if it was then i would have failed to deliver top quality images to the client because of severe underexposure.
 i appreciate scenes with many stops of dynamic range cannot be reproduced without exposure blending or HDR and shoot accordingly but IMHO boosting shadows 2 stops in post means you have failed to expose properly.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2012, 08:28:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to illustrate with the two attached images.  In the first, the hair looks a bit underexposed but not a lot.  In the second, the shadows and hair are way overexposed.  What's the purpose of the exercise? 
Logged
RobbieV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2012, 08:49:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Do you think Canon would post a photo with boosted shadows in such a manner by accident (I don't mean to sound condescending)? Are they trying to show how their banding has improved in a photo where shadows have been boosted this much?

My guess would be that it's intentional.
Logged
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 18, 2012, 09:20:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to illustrate with the two attached images.  In the first, the hair looks a bit underexposed but not a lot.  In the second, the shadows and hair are way overexposed.  What's the purpose of the exercise? 

i'm trying to illustrate the fact that pixel peeping at banding in massively boosted shadow areas is for measurebators not photographers, and using the fact that the banding exists (even though it's not visible in normal use) is pointless and only good for trying to win points in some imaginary 'my camera brand is better than yours' game that gets played out in DPreview forums.

it's a trait that is becoming increasingly evident on LuLa too Undecided

as for being "underexposed" were you on the shoot? do you know what ex prime ministers wife that hair belongs too? no i doubt you do. FYI it's perfectly exposed thanks.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2012, 09:27:42 AM »
ReplyReply


as for being "underexposed" were you on the shoot? do you know what ex prime ministers wife that hair belongs too? no i doubt you do. FYI it's perfectly exposed thanks.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.  I said "looks a bit".  From that small crop, that's what it 'looks' like.  Without seeing the entire image it's not possible to be certain.  And I really don't give a flying fadoo who it is, to be honest. 

Logged
shadowblade
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751


« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2012, 10:50:23 AM »
ReplyReply

i am aware of that but shadows are shadows, after working as a photographer for 20 years and using all kinds of digital cameras big and small i still have never had to lift near blacks that much that banding is visible.
 it was there in the 5D II if you went looking for it but in normal use never apparent, if it was then i would have failed to deliver top quality images to the client because of severe underexposure.
 i appreciate scenes with many stops of dynamic range cannot be reproduced without exposure blending or HDR and shoot accordingly but IMHO boosting shadows 2 stops in post means you have failed to expose properly.


I can think of lots of situations. Essentially, any situation where you're dealing with a high dynamic range, the transition zone is not reasonably straight (i.e. a GND filter wouldn't work), fill flash isn't possible (i.e. any landscape) and movement precludes multiple-exposure techniques (e.g. a light breeze causing flowers or leaves to flutter). For instance, I struggled with this one:



It was only by chance that two of the hundreds of paired exposures I took matched up, and I was able to blend the exposures to produce the final image.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6310


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2012, 01:32:49 PM »
ReplyReply

... IMHO boosting shadows 2 stops in post means you have failed to expose properly.

Are there still people out there who think that ignorant statements like this are worth debating?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2012, 01:51:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Are there still people out there who think that ignorant statements like this are worth debating?


+1

Agreed. Getting the most from your gear means pushing the envelope.  Boosting shadows is one of the places you eek out more performance. I have certainly wanted to boost shadows until banding is evident, but I find that point and back off until things look good again.  If a new camera increases my latitude to boost shadows, that tells me I have a wider exposure range to work with. Yippee. 

There is an undeserved disdain out there for so-called "measurebators."  While there are people who take this stuff to extremes, we know that the famous Nikon D800 has measurably better exposure range at base ISOs...much better than competition.  Without quantifying this attribute, we would argue endlessly about the validity...

...
...
oh....
...
...
Wait, I guess we still do argue endlessly about the validity of measured data and perceived goodness.  Well, I would argue for balance.  I don't automatically discount that value of measurement and analysis, even occasionally at the pixel level if it will help me understand and exploit the broader limits of my camera and post processing.   
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
MrSmith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 922



WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 18, 2012, 02:52:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Well if I have to reach for the exposure/brightness slider (for more than a 1/3) then something has gone amiss somewhere with either how I have read the scene, making an exposure or understanding what is reproducable from that file. I guess that's from years of using a spot meter, a modified zone system and and doing my own developing.
Don't get me wrong the techy approach and pictures of brick walls and the info you can glean from them can prove useful but I find the best way to find out what is and isn't possible with your chosen equipment is to shoot jobs with it.

Can't say I agree with pushing the envelope (exposure) means you are getting the most from your gear, for me that's an aesthetic measure or a happy client who pays well not if i can push the shadows 2 stops and not see any banding.
Logged
Publius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2012, 04:01:48 PM »
ReplyReply

As pointed out from a known rumors source site, D600 cameras already reached a number of retailers.
Trying not to sound biased, it's hard for me to see any good future for the 6D.
I mean, a lor of Canon user will prefer this to the Nikon model (or the ones from many other manufacturers) because of the lenses they own.
Beside that the 6D, IMHO, is worse on a lot of photographic key aspects. That's a shame.
I don't think Canon is looking for 5D users to move to the 6D.
Perhaps a Rebel owner wanting a full frame, would move in this direction.
You have to do a lot of traveling to make the GPS feature pay off.
More likely a Canon film shooter with lots of lenses finally deciding to go digital - most of them hated the cropped sensors at the entry level prices.
It may also be a means to get some market in the non-Canon and non-Nikon world to convert to Canon.

Personally, I decided the 5D Mk II was my better choice for full frame.
Logged
Bernard ODonovan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2012, 06:03:33 PM »
ReplyReply


All the samples are up now:

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/

Lots of detail in this example (from a zoom lens too):

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos6d/downloads/03.jpg

Digic 5 Plus on 20.2 Megapixels and a tweaked low light AF system. Good reports on the AF so far, quite snappy and fast... A real life improvement and better than all Canons to date...

Given the sensor performance of the 5D3 and 1DX this could be a great all rounder for detail and low light work with AF to match... FTM when it matters...

Small light for full frame and some really useful new features...  Smiley

Canon are being diplomatic saying less than 60ms shutter release lag... The 5D3 is approx 59ms. You can bet this thing is faster but they do not want to admit it after given it a great low light AF too... Must not upset existing Customers too much...  Grin

Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1076


« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2012, 07:04:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I can think of one segment that might go for the FF with GPS - hikers!

I think that those with a good FF camera aren't the target for the 6D. People like me are the target - I own a single DSLR, the 60D , admire 5D2 (and other FF) IQ, would consider getting a second body in FF format, have a mixture of EF-S and EF lenses, with the EF lenses being L lenses that I don't want to "leave behind" in a brand switch to Nikon. Now, would I bother with the 6D? or just get a 5D2, which on IQ seems to be on a par with the 5D3 but lacks some of the features. The 6D and 5D2 seem to be at the same price point, approximately 2,000.00 body only.
Logged
Bernard ODonovan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #58 on: September 20, 2012, 07:28:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I can think of one segment that might go for the FF with GPS - hikers!

I think that those with a good FF camera aren't the target for the 6D. People like me are the target - I own a single DSLR, the 60D , admire 5D2 (and other FF) IQ, would consider getting a second body in FF format, have a mixture of EF-S and EF lenses, with the EF lenses being L lenses that I don't want to "leave behind" in a brand switch to Nikon. Now, would I bother with the 6D? or just get a 5D2, which on IQ seems to be on a par with the 5D3 but lacks some of the features. The 6D and 5D2 seem to be at the same price point, approximately 2,000.00 body only.

Here is what a Canon rep said:

''Well obviously, we didn't design it for the sports and wildlife photographers. But we did design it for the portrait photographer who wants to shoot in natural light, who wants to be able to use the natural highlights of shooting in dusky and indoor conditions without the need for having external light. It's also for the landscape photographer who wants to be able to just shoot and travel all day with a camera to get where he wants to be, to get his shot. And because given the weight of it, at 770 grams, it's a nice, lightweight body. So really, it's targeted to a variety of user bases but ultimately, it's the photographer who wants to travel light and move quickly but still not compromise on image quality.''
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2012, 08:58:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is what a Canon rep said:

''Well obviously, we didn't design it for the sports and wildlife photographers. But we did design it for the portrait photographer who wants to shoot in natural light, who wants to be able to use the natural highlights of shooting in dusky and indoor conditions without the need for having external light. It's also for the landscape photographer who wants to be able to just shoot and travel all day with a camera to get where he wants to be, to get his shot. And because given the weight of it, at 770 grams, it's a nice, lightweight body. So really, it's targeted to a variety of user bases but ultimately, it's the photographer who wants to travel light and move quickly but still not compromise on image quality.''

That's me.  I will wait to see if the IQ is competitive.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad