27 Oct

Posted at 19:35h in Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

Sigma has released a firmware update for the Canon Mount Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 (both contemporary and sport). You can update the lens using the Sigma USB Dock (I think I had purchased mine for around $75).

 

This firmware update will improve the autofocus accuracy when used with the Sigma Tele Converter TC-1401. It is also expected that the firmware update will improve the autofocus, and decrease the operating sound, when shooting movies using Live View.

 

You can download the firmware from Sigma’s site and use your Sigma Dock to update your lens.

 

If you have any questions on this firmware update contact Terri Shaddick at [email protected].


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

20 Oct

Posted at 18:44h in 1DX Mark II, Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

I have had my Canon EOS 1D X Mark II for about 4 months now, and in that time I have been really busy travelling and really putting the camera to the test, under my “normal” shooting conditions. If it’s not obvious from my images, I focus mostly on wildlife photography, and am often shooting hand-held, sometimes from a zodiac, like on the Marine Mammals and Great Bear Rainforest trips. I often find myself shooting in low-light conditions, from the mid-day overcast in the Great Bear Rainforest, or shooting early morning before the sun is up in the Fishing Grizzlies of the Taku. Overall, I will say that I am extremely happy with the camera, and have not had one second of buyers remorse, even with he hefty price tag of the camera.

 

Being an owner of the Canon EOS 1D X, my main concern was whether it was enough of an upgrade over my current camera for the price, and I have heard other 1DX owners ask the same question (it’s not like we are talking a $500 upgrade).

 

So after four months of testing it under my shooting conditions, here are the main things I have noticed (compared to the 1D X):

– Auto-focus is improved
– ISO performance is better
– More frames per second
– Overall better dynamic & tonal range

 

Autofocus Improvement:
One of the reasons why you would choose to get a flagship camera, like the 1D X Mark II, over the other cameras in the line up is to get a “faster camera”. But fast to me isn’t just defined as the frames per second, it is also defined as the speed of the autofocus. But the question I had before owning this camera is how much faster is the autofocus over the 1D X, especially given that both cameras have a 61-point AF system.

 

According to the specifications that were available prior to the camera being released, even though both cameras have a 61-point AF system, you would expect that it would have improved autofocus over the 1D X, because Canon improved the RGB+IR sensor from 100,000 pixels to 360,000 pixels, which is a very

Breathtaking Breach

Breathtaking Breach

large improvement. This is the sensor which is used for autofocus, you would expect that it could focus over three times faster or better.

 

I will say that it is definitely faster, is it three times faster, I don’t really think so, but still faster. It’s hard to quantify how it’s “faster” because it’s not like if is something that you can really measure. However, when you are faced with the quick action of a Humpback Whale breaching, or a bird flying sporadically, it feels like the 1D X Mark II acquires focus quicker. This “feeling” that it was better was re-enforced as I have reviewed images from my recent trips, and having less culling to do, especially with action shots.

 

Another benefit of the improved sensor is the ability to focus in lower light with a one-stop improvement on AF to EV -3 over the 1D X. While this is an improvement over the predecessor, the question is whether you are going to be in the scenario where you will actually notice the difference and get a useable image (given ISO and shutter speed restrictions). It should be noted that the EV -3 is only on single shot mode and centre point focusing, which isn’t often a scenario I find myself in. However, even when not shooting at EV -3, I have found that shooting while it is darker, I am able to get focused on the subject quite a bit quicker than I am with the 1DX.

 

Another feature that is now available on the 1D X Mark II is that all AF points are f/8 compatible. This means that I was able to add a 1.4x III extender to my 100-400 or a 2x extender to my 500mm lens and not be limited to the centre AF point, and I was actually pretty surprised by the results. The Lunge Feeding

Lunge Feeding

Lunge Feeding

image that was photographed during the Marine Mammals trip was actually photographed using the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM + 1.4x III extender taken at a focal length of 560mm f/9 ISO 2000. I am waiting to get a loan of the 200-400 from Canon in order to compare the image quality of these two lenses, especially when the extenders are used.  Also the Loving Life image of a sea otter was photographed at 1000mm using the 500mm with the 2x extender. While I can’t say that I will always be using these f/8 extender options, I think in certain scenarios it will increase my focal range options, especially when travelling and limited by weight and the number of lenses that can be brought on the trip.

 

Overall, I am extremely impressed with the speed and consistency of the auto focus, and the ability to add extenders, takes the camera up a notch from its predecessor.

 

Look for my future blog post that address all things Canon Auto-focus, not just specific to the 1D X Mark II, but across the camera bodies from 7D Mark II and up.

 

ISO Performance Improved:
With the Canon 1D X, I often hesitated to take it much over ISO 6400, and it wasn’t just because the noise, but I often found that the loss of color

Rooting in the Rain

Rooting in the Rain

and the loss of details was often so much that it made processing the image quite difficult.

 

On my first day in the Great Bear Rainforest, I stuck with ISO 6400 with the 1D X Mark II. When reviewing the images I noticed quite quickly how much detail and color was in the images, and how manageable the noise in the images were. I immediately bumped my auto ISO limit up to ISO 12800 on the 1D X Mark II, and I was not sorry by that decision. Looking at images from the Great Bear Rainforest at ISO 12800 using the 1D X Mark II are very useable images, and I think in some scenes they are even better detail and color as what was available on 1D X images at ISO 6400.

 

Not only was this Rooting in the Rain shot at ISO 12,800 with the 1D X Mark II, it was photographed in the pouring rain. I was extremely impressed with the detail on the face of the Grizzly Cub, along with the color that was still in the image.

 

More Frames per Second:
This heading speaks for itself, and I’ve discussed this on my blog previously. The 1D X Mark II boasts up to 16 frames per second (if using Live View) and 14 frames per second of continuous shooting. This is compared to the 12 frames per second of the 1D X. While it was easy to determine based on specs that the camera was faster, what was harder to determine was how this camera would buffer versus the predecessor.

 

With the increased megapixels, from 18 to 20, I expected to see an increased file size, so I was concerned how the increased file size would impact the buffer as well.  With the 1D X under my normal shooting conditions, and shooting RAW images,I could get approximately 35 shots before the camera started to buffer out. With the 1D X Mark II, Canon introduced the CFAST card slot (in addition to the standard CF slot), with this I am now able to get over 100 RAW images before the camera buffers. On my recents trips this has meant that I was able to catch a breaching whale, or a bubble-netting humpback whale, without being selective or having to worry (or even think) about the buffer of the camera. It certainly made photographing next to Nikon shooters less nauseating 😃.

 

Overall Better Dynamic & Tonal Range:
The improved dynamic range of this camera could have been was partially discussed in the ISO improvement section, however I think it is enough of an improvement that it requires a heading of its own. Tonal Range is defined as the range of tones in an image between black and whites. Whereas, the dynamic range is defined as the blacks and whites within the image, and the better the sensor, the better the camera’s ability to capture both the shadows and highlights within a single image, without blowing out the highlights or creating a black blob of the blacks in the images. While some graphs I have seen show that the 1D X Mark II is either in-line or slightly below the 1D X for the tonal range and dynamic range at high ISO, my findings have been different (maybe the dynamic range on my 1D X wasn’t what it should have been).

 

The Great Bear Rainforest was the perfect opportunity to assess the dynamic range of the 1D X Mark II, because we had the opportunity to photograph both black bears and sprit (white) bears on this years trip. I am finding that images require less white balance and color adjustments on the 1D X Mark II compared

Sidelong Glance

Sidelong Glance

to those images of the predecessor, and I also find that images are coming out looking more as “seen in the field” with the 1D X Mark II. While I don’t do the same systematic testing as done by some of the popular sites, my thoughts are based on images that I have produced with both cameras, while shooting in my “real world shooting conditions” and not tested in a studio with consistent light and off a tripod.

 

Conclusion:

I have purchased many pieces of equipment over the years, some of which I immediately regretted (for example the 5D Mark II), but this certainly isn’t one of those. I have been nothing but happy with the performance of the camera, and have noticed a significant improvement on the “in the field” use, and the image quality of the images I capture with the 1D X Mark II versus those I have captured with the 1D X (which is still an outstanding camera). Whether you decide to upgrade to the 1D X Mark II or the 1D X, I don’t think you will be disappointed in the performance of ether cameras.

I have had my Canon EOS 1D X Mark II for about 4 months now, and in that time I have been really busy travelling and really putting the camera to the test, under my “normal” shooting conditions. If it’s not obvious from my images, I focus mostly on wildlife photography, and am often shooting hand-held, sometimes from a zodiac, like on the Marine Mammals and Great Bear Rainforest trips. I often find myself shooting in low-light conditions, from the mid-day overcast in the Great Bear Rainforest, or shooting early morning before the sun is up in the Fishing Grizzlies of the Taku. Overall, I will say that I am extremely happy with the camera, and have not had one second of buyers remorse, even with he hefty price tag of the camera.

 

Being an owner of the Canon EOS 1D X, my main concern was whether it was enough of an upgrade over my current camera for the price, and I have heard other 1DX owners ask the same question (it’s not like we are talking a $500 upgrade).

 

So after four months of testing it under my shooting conditions, here are the main things I have noticed (compared to the 1D X):

– Auto-focus is improved
– ISO performance is better
– More frames per second
– Overall better dynamic & tonal range

 

Autofocus Improvement:
One of the reasons why you would choose to get a flagship camera, like the 1D X Mark II, over the other cameras in the line up is to get a “faster camera”. But fast to me isn’t just defined as the frames per second, it is also defined as the speed of the autofocus. But the question I had before owning this camera is how much faster is the autofocus over the 1D X, especially given that both cameras have a 61-point AF system.

 

According to the specifications that were available prior to the camera being released, even though both cameras have a 61-point AF system, you would expect that it would have improved autofocus over the 1D X, because Canon improved the RGB+IR sensor from 100,000 pixels to 360,000 pixels, which is a very

Breathtaking Breach

Breathtaking Breach

large improvement. This is the sensor which is used for autofocus, you would expect that it could focus over three times faster or better.

 

I will say that it is definitely faster, is it three times faster, I don’t really think so, but still faster. It’s hard to quantify how it’s “faster” because it’s not like if is something that you can really measure. However, when you are faced with the quick action of a Humpback Whale breaching, or a bird flying sporadically, it feels like the 1D X Mark II acquires focus quicker. This “feeling” that it was better was re-enforced as I have reviewed images from my recent trips, and having less culling to do, especially with action shots.

 

Another benefit of the improved sensor is the ability to focus in lower light with a one-stop improvement on AF to EV -3 over the 1D X. While this is an improvement over the predecessor, the question is whether you are going to be in the scenario where you will actually notice the difference and get a useable image (given ISO and shutter speed restrictions). It should be noted that the EV -3 is only on single shot mode and centre point focusing, which isn’t often a scenario I find myself in. However, even when not shooting at EV -3, I have found that shooting while it is darker, I am able to get focused on the subject quite a bit quicker than I am with the 1DX.

 

Another feature that is now available on the 1D X Mark II is that all AF points are f/8 compatible. This means that I was able to add a 1.4x III extender to my 100-400 or a 2x extender to my 500mm lens and not be limited to the centre AF point, and I was actually pretty surprised by the results. The Lunge Feeding

Lunge Feeding

Lunge Feeding

image that was photographed during the Marine Mammals trip was actually photographed using the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM + 1.4x III extender taken at a focal length of 560mm f/9 ISO 2000. I am waiting to get a loan of the 200-400 from Canon in order to compare the image quality of these two lenses, especially when the extenders are used.  Also the Loving Life image of a sea otter was photographed at 1000mm using the 500mm with the 2x extender. While I can’t say that I will always be using these f/8 extender options, I think in certain scenarios it will increase my focal range options, especially when travelling and limited by weight and the number of lenses that can be brought on the trip.

 

Overall, I am extremely impressed with the speed and consistency of the auto focus, and the ability to add extenders, takes the camera up a notch from its predecessor.

 

Look for my future blog post that address all things Canon Auto-focus, not just specific to the 1D X Mark II, but across the camera bodies from 7D Mark II and up.

 

ISO Performance Improved:
With the Canon 1D X, I often hesitated to take it much over ISO 6400, and it wasn’t just because the noise, but I often found that the loss of color

Rooting in the Rain

Rooting in the Rain

and the loss of details was often so much that it made processing the image quite difficult.

 

On my first day in the Great Bear Rainforest, I stuck with ISO 6400 with the 1D X Mark II. When reviewing the images I noticed quite quickly how much detail and color was in the images, and how manageable the noise in the images were. I immediately bumped my auto ISO limit up to ISO 12800 on the 1D X Mark II, and I was not sorry by that decision. Looking at images from the Great Bear Rainforest at ISO 12800 using the 1D X Mark II are very useable images, and I think in some scenes they are even better detail and color as what was available on 1D X images at ISO 6400.

 

Not only was this Rooting in the Rain shot at ISO 12,800 with the 1D X Mark II, it was photographed in the pouring rain. I was extremely impressed with the detail on the face of the Grizzly Cub, along with the color that was still in the image.

 

More Frames per Second:
This heading speaks for itself, and I’ve discussed this on my blog previously. The 1D X Mark II boasts up to 16 frames per second (if using Live View) and 14 frames per second of continuous shooting. This is compared to the 12 frames per second of the 1D X. While it was easy to determine based on specs that the camera was faster, what was harder to determine was how this camera would buffer versus the predecessor.

 

With the increased megapixels, from 18 to 20, I expected to see an increased file size, so I was concerned how the increased file size would impact the buffer as well.  With the 1D X under my normal shooting conditions, and shooting RAW images,I could get approximately 35 shots before the camera started to buffer out. With the 1D X Mark II, Canon introduced the CFAST card slot (in addition to the standard CF slot), with this I am now able to get over 100 RAW images before the camera buffers. On my recents trips this has meant that I was able to catch a breaching whale, or a bubble-netting humpback whale, without being selective or having to worry (or even think) about the buffer of the camera. It certainly made photographing next to Nikon shooters less nauseating 😃.

 

Overall Better Dynamic & Tonal Range:
The improved dynamic range of this camera could have been was partially discussed in the ISO improvement section, however I think it is enough of an improvement that it requires a heading of its own. Tonal Range is defined as the range of tones in an image between black and whites. Whereas, the dynamic range is defined as the blacks and whites within the image, and the better the sensor, the better the camera’s ability to capture both the shadows and highlights within a single image, without blowing out the highlights or creating a black blob of the blacks in the images. While some graphs I have seen show that the 1D X Mark II is either in-line or slightly below the 1D X for the tonal range and dynamic range at high ISO, my findings have been different (maybe the dynamic range on my 1D X wasn’t what it should have been).

 

The Great Bear Rainforest was the perfect opportunity to assess the dynamic range of the 1D X Mark II, because we had the opportunity to photograph both black bears and sprit (white) bears on this years trip. I am finding that images require less white balance and color adjustments on the 1D X Mark II compared

Sidelong Glance

Sidelong Glance

to those images of the predecessor, and I also find that images are coming out looking more as “seen in the field” with the 1D X Mark II. While I don’t do the same systematic testing as done by some of the popular sites, my thoughts are based on images that I have produced with both cameras, while shooting in my “real world shooting conditions” and not tested in a studio with consistent light and off a tripod.

 

Conclusion:

I have purchased many pieces of equipment over the years, some of which I immediately regretted (for example the 5D Mark II), but this certainly isn’t one of those. I have been nothing but happy with the performance of the camera, and have noticed a significant improvement on the “in the field” use, and the image quality of the images I capture with the 1D X Mark II versus those I have captured with the 1D X (which is still an outstanding camera). Whether you decide to upgrade to the 1D X Mark II or the 1D X, I don’t think you will be disappointed in the performance of ether cameras.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

20 Sep

Posted at 17:51h in 5D Mark IV, Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

Adobe Lightroom CC has now added support for the 5D Mark IV raw files, so it is now possible to catalogue, review, and process images using Adobe Lightroom CC that were taken with the 5D Mark IV. This means I will now get the opportunity to do a more complete comparison, especially on ISO performance, of the 5D Mark IV compared to the 5D Mark III.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

16 Sep

Posted at 17:39h in 5D Mark IV, Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

I had a few days of overlap after getting my new 5D Mark IV, and before I handed off the 5D Mark III to its new (grateful) owner. My goal for those few days was to gather as many test shots as I could, and to shoot the cameras side-by-side so I could get a feel for the differences. The main differences that I’m focused on (or affected by) are the ISO performance, and resulting dynamic range at the higher ISO, and the autofocus. As the vast majority of my shooting is of wildlife, and often under low light conditions, those were the two things that will have the biggest impact on determining whether this camera will make a permanent home in my camera bag.

 

The only problem so far is that Lightroom does not yet support the camera, and I find the Canon proprietary software to be slow for file review, and editing. So at this point I have looked at very few images, and these are just a gut feel based on some of the images I have looked at.121a1107_b

 

Although hard to show in images, I found the autofocus on the 5D Mark IV to be quite a bit quicker at initial focus acquisition then the predecessor, even when the case settings were the same for both cameras. I was shooting both birds in flight, and Pikas (as pictured in this post) and I found the 5D Mark IV did a better job at getting that focus quickly, therefore you could actually track the subject, as opposed to spending all your time with it just trying to get focus.

 

For the ISO performance and dynamic range at the higher ISO, so far my findings are similar to that of the 1DX Mark II, the noise tends to be more manageable at the higher ISOs, plus you have way more detail and dynamic range to work with.

 

I will continue to test the camera out, especially on my upcoming trip to the Great Bear Rainforest, and keep posting results of my findings & thoughts.

I had a few days of overlap after getting my new 5D Mark IV, and before I handed off the 5D Mark III to its new (grateful) owner. My goal for those few days was to gather as many test shots as I could, and to shoot the cameras side-by-side so I could get a feel for the differences. The main differences that I’m focused on (or affected by) are the ISO performance, and resulting dynamic range at the higher ISO, and the autofocus. As the vast majority of my shooting is of wildlife, and often under low light conditions, those were the two things that will have the biggest impact on determining whether this camera will make a permanent home in my camera bag.

 

The only problem so far is that Lightroom does not yet support the camera, and I find the Canon proprietary software to be slow for file review, and editing. So at this point I have looked at very few images, and these are just a gut feel based on some of the images I have looked at.121a1107_b

 

Although hard to show in images, I found the autofocus on the 5D Mark IV to be quite a bit quicker at initial focus acquisition then the predecessor, even when the case settings were the same for both cameras. I was shooting both birds in flight, and Pikas (as pictured in this post) and I found the 5D Mark IV did a better job at getting that focus quickly, therefore you could actually track the subject, as opposed to spending all your time with it just trying to get focus.

 

For the ISO performance and dynamic range at the higher ISO, so far my findings are similar to that of the 1DX Mark II, the noise tends to be more manageable at the higher ISOs, plus you have way more detail and dynamic range to work with.

 

I will continue to test the camera out, especially on my upcoming trip to the Great Bear Rainforest, and keep posting results of my findings & thoughts.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

12 Sep

Posted at 14:43h in 5D Mark IV, Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

At the end of last week I went and picked up a 5D Mark IV – I almost can’t believe it myself.

 

I have had a chance to get out with it a bit over the weekend, and did some comparisons with the 5D Mark III. The first thing I noticed when switching between the two cameras was the that autofocus does acquire focus quite a bit quicker on the 5D Mark IV than the 5D Mark III. This is likely attributed to the new sensor and possibly an improved algorithm (taken from the improved autofocus on the 1DX Mark II).

 

The burst size and frames per second has also improved compared to the 5D Mark III, getting a burst of about 20 images (in raw format), and 7 frames per second.

 

I’m still waiting for Lightroom and Capture One Pro to support the raw files for the 5D Mark IV, so I haven’t done much reviewing or editing of the images. So stay tuned into future blog posts for images and detailed thoughts including the ISO/noise performance of the camera.

 

I’m looking forward to bringing both this and the 1DX Mark II to the Great Bear Rainforest at the end of next week to test them out in my normal shooting conditions.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

05 Sep

Posted at 17:06h in Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124
I have finally had the opportunity to put the Canon 1D X Mark II through the wringer, and have had the chance to test it in my “normal shooting conditions”. I have already made a few comments about the camera in other posts, but thought I would consolidate all my thoughts into one post. I will follow-up my initial thoughts with some specific blog posts testing each of the areas that I have noted below. (All comparisons noted below were made in comparison to the 1DX).

 

Thought 1 – Improved Image Quality at High ISO
The very first post I made about the 1DX Mark II (after the post that I finally had one in my hands) was that I was impressed with the ISO performance of the camera. Well after working in more low-light/high ISO scenarios, I still stand by that.

 

ISO 12,800

Grizzly photographed with Canon 1DX Mark II at ISO 12800

There are two things that I have noticed with high ISO images (by high ISO I am referring to images above ISO 5000):
1 – Noise is more manageable noise than with the 1DX,
2 – The dynamic range and detail that is still retained in these images.

 

I found that with the 1DX that once you got it over ISO 6400, even if you could manage the noise, I often didn’t have the details left in the image to produce an image with a sharp eye, or where you could see the dimples on the bear’s nose. And if I somehow managed to save all the detail, I had very little dynamic range to work with, and the image looked very flat. However I am finding with the 1DX Mark II that I am able to have both higher dynamic range, and still have the detail to recover in these images.

 

Thought 2 – Improved Autofocus
I don’t know how I can accurately test this and relay in a blog post (in terms of images) but I have found after shooting every bird in flight that I saw over the two trips that initial AF acquisition is significantly faster on the 1DX Mark II than the 1DX. I had the two cameras set up identically (in terms of AF parameters via the Cases), and each time it seemed like the 1DX Mark II was noticeably faster at getting focus.

 

Again, not really sure how I can prove this, other then to say, trust me…or get your hands on one and try it for yourself.

 

The reason for this faster initial focus acquisition is likely the combination of improved algorithmic along with the increased sensor size to 360,000 pixels.

 

I also found that the 1DX Mark II, held focus longer then the 1DX (without slipping off, or losing focus of the subject). I plan to gather some birds in flight images to show a sequence shot with the 1dx and then those with the 1dx mark II, including those out of focus. While reviewing images I was beginning to be able to guess which camera the birds were shot with based on the number of shots that were out of focus without checking the metadata.

 

Thought 3 – All AF Points at f/8:
I guess you could say that this is part of the improved Autofocus, however I think this is worth having it’s own section because I think this is a huge improvement. As opposed to the 1DX which only had f/8 focus at the center point (after firmware update), the 1DX Mark II has the ability to focus at all points

 

Sea Otter - Photographed @ 1000mm

Sea Otter – Photographed @ 1000mm (500 f/4L IS II USM + 2x Extender)

at f/8. This means I had the ability to use combinations such as the 500mm f/4L IS and a 2.0x extender, or the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and the 1.4x extender, and I was SUPER impressed with the results.

 

I tested both these combinations on my recent Marine Mammals trips, and was thoroughly impressed with the results. Especially when you think about the number of focal lengths you can cover with only two lenses. I can basically cover everywhere from 100mm-1000mm, and using the 100-400 with the 1.4x extender gives me the equivalent focal length of the 200-400 f/4 without the weight (and price tag). With the 1DX I had tried 1000mm (500mm f/4 + 2x extender), but I was never really happy with the images. They were more of ID shots, and maybe good at web-size versus the images that I took with the 1DX Mark II.

 

As much as I really liked the results of the above two mentioned combinations, I will admit that I did have an increased number of images with soft focus then just using those lenses without the extenders. Also, as impressed as I was with the results, it’s not going to be something I use all the time because I don’t want every photo I have to be at f/8 (or more realistically f/11). However I can see times when it will work really well, or provide an opportunity to get in tighter with something when you have already taken all the shots at the native focal range, or when shooting an animal that just doesn’t want to get close, like wolves in Yellowstone.

 

I am going to do more testing on this, and specifically comparing to the 1DX.

 

Thought 4 – Improved Frames per Second and Buffer
The final improvement that I think it’s important to highlight, and I found particularly useful during my last trip, is the increased frames per second, however, more importantly is the increased number of shots before the camera started to buffer. With the CFAST cards I was able to get over 100 shots (in RAW format) before the camera started to buffer. When using the CF cards I was able to get about 50 shots before the camera started to buffer. This is compared to about 35 shots that I was able to get with the 1DX. I would say most of the time this isn’t an issue, because when do you really need that many shots, however, when you have a serial breacher Humpback Whale (as we did during the last Marine Mammals trip), it was very nice to not have to “manage the camera” and take shots selectively to ensure you don’t buffer out, and end up stuck when the action peaks.

 

I will be continuing to test all the of these things over the next few months, and will post updates to the above including more images showing some of the differences.
I have finally had the opportunity to put the Canon 1D X Mark II through the wringer, and have had the chance to test it in my “normal shooting conditions”. I have already made a few comments about the camera in other posts, but thought I would consolidate all my thoughts into one post. I will follow-up my initial thoughts with some specific blog posts testing each of the areas that I have noted below. (All comparisons noted below were made in comparison to the 1DX).

 

Thought 1 – Improved Image Quality at High ISO
The very first post I made about the 1DX Mark II (after the post that I finally had one in my hands) was that I was impressed with the ISO performance of the camera. Well after working in more low-light/high ISO scenarios, I still stand by that.

 

ISO 12,800

Grizzly photographed with Canon 1DX Mark II at ISO 12800

There are two things that I have noticed with high ISO images (by high ISO I am referring to images above ISO 5000):
1 – Noise is more manageable noise than with the 1DX,
2 – The dynamic range and detail that is still retained in these images.

 

I found that with the 1DX that once you got it over ISO 6400, even if you could manage the noise, I often didn’t have the details left in the image to produce an image with a sharp eye, or where you could see the dimples on the bear’s nose. And if I somehow managed to save all the detail, I had very little dynamic range to work with, and the image looked very flat. However I am finding with the 1DX Mark II that I am able to have both higher dynamic range, and still have the detail to recover in these images.

 

Thought 2 – Improved Autofocus
I don’t know how I can accurately test this and relay in a blog post (in terms of images) but I have found after shooting every bird in flight that I saw over the two trips that initial AF acquisition is significantly faster on the 1DX Mark II than the 1DX. I had the two cameras set up identically (in terms of AF parameters via the Cases), and each time it seemed like the 1DX Mark II was noticeably faster at getting focus.

 

Again, not really sure how I can prove this, other then to say, trust me…or get your hands on one and try it for yourself.

 

The reason for this faster initial focus acquisition is likely the combination of improved algorithmic along with the increased sensor size to 360,000 pixels.

 

I also found that the 1DX Mark II, held focus longer then the 1DX (without slipping off, or losing focus of the subject). I plan to gather some birds in flight images to show a sequence shot with the 1dx and then those with the 1dx mark II, including those out of focus. While reviewing images I was beginning to be able to guess which camera the birds were shot with based on the number of shots that were out of focus without checking the metadata.

 

Thought 3 – All AF Points at f/8:
I guess you could say that this is part of the improved Autofocus, however I think this is worth having it’s own section because I think this is a huge improvement. As opposed to the 1DX which only had f/8 focus at the center point (after firmware update), the 1DX Mark II has the ability to focus at all points

 

Sea Otter - Photographed @ 1000mm

Sea Otter – Photographed @ 1000mm (500 f/4L IS II USM + 2x Extender)

at f/8. This means I had the ability to use combinations such as the 500mm f/4L IS and a 2.0x extender, or the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and the 1.4x extender, and I was SUPER impressed with the results.

 

I tested both these combinations on my recent Marine Mammals trips, and was thoroughly impressed with the results. Especially when you think about the number of focal lengths you can cover with only two lenses. I can basically cover everywhere from 100mm-1000mm, and using the 100-400 with the 1.4x extender gives me the equivalent focal length of the 200-400 f/4 without the weight (and price tag). With the 1DX I had tried 1000mm (500mm f/4 + 2x extender), but I was never really happy with the images. They were more of ID shots, and maybe good at web-size versus the images that I took with the 1DX Mark II.

 

As much as I really liked the results of the above two mentioned combinations, I will admit that I did have an increased number of images with soft focus then just using those lenses without the extenders. Also, as impressed as I was with the results, it’s not going to be something I use all the time because I don’t want every photo I have to be at f/8 (or more realistically f/11). However I can see times when it will work really well, or provide an opportunity to get in tighter with something when you have already taken all the shots at the native focal range, or when shooting an animal that just doesn’t want to get close, like wolves in Yellowstone.

 

I am going to do more testing on this, and specifically comparing to the 1DX.

 

Thought 4 – Improved Frames per Second and Buffer
The final improvement that I think it’s important to highlight, and I found particularly useful during my last trip, is the increased frames per second, however, more importantly is the increased number of shots before the camera started to buffer. With the CFAST cards I was able to get over 100 shots (in RAW format) before the camera started to buffer. When using the CF cards I was able to get about 50 shots before the camera started to buffer. This is compared to about 35 shots that I was able to get with the 1DX. I would say most of the time this isn’t an issue, because when do you really need that many shots, however, when you have a serial breacher Humpback Whale (as we did during the last Marine Mammals trip), it was very nice to not have to “manage the camera” and take shots selectively to ensure you don’t buffer out, and end up stuck when the action peaks.

 

I will be continuing to test all the of these things over the next few months, and will post updates to the above including more images showing some of the differences.

Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

25 Aug

Posted at 21:34h in Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

It probably won’t come as a surprise to many people that Canon has officially announced their 5D Mark IV, which replaces the 5D Mark III. In Canada they are priced around $4,499, and in the US around $3,499, with an estimated shipping date of mid-September. Initially when I was reading the rumors about the 5D Mark IV, I was thinking that I was going to pass on this body, and instead keep my 1DX as my backup full frame camera to the 1DX Mark II. Maybe it’s my need to consume, but part of me is considering actually purchasing the 5D Mark IV, and selling the 1dx.

 

Here are some of the features that have piqued my interest:

Megapixels:

The 5D Mark IV comes with a 30.4MP full frame CMOS Sensor. I’m very glad that some of the initial rumors of the camera being close to 50MP didn’t come true, because I think it would have really limited the use of the camera (especially with Canon already having 50MP options in the 5DSR). This is a 8MP over its predecessor, and a 10MP improvement over the 1DX Mark II…remember the days when you were only buying cameras with 8-10MP, now was are seeing that as the MP increase.

 

My only hesitation of having a 30MP sensor will be how it fares with hand-holding. I do over 90% of my photography hand-held, and sometimes from very unstable places (such as boats), I am concerned about how having this many MP will impact image sharpness.

 

However having two cameras with different megapixel counts would be an advantage.

 

AF System:

The 5D Mark IV comes with an improved 61-Point High Density Reticular AF system with 41 cross-points. On paper this was the same specifications for the 5D Mark III and the 1DX, however seeing how much of an improvement the 1DX Mark II was over the 1DX, I’m optimistic that the 5D Mark IV will also see an improvement over the 5D Mark III.

 

Additionally, all the AF points are f/8 points, meaning that you can stack a 2x Extender on a 500mm f/4 lens and still have full use of all the AF points. Obviously if you are not a big user of extenders, then this may not seem like that great of a feature. However, I love the flexibility of using extenders on my lenses, and so far I have really been loving this feature on the 1DX Mark II.

 

RGB+IR Sensor:

The 5D Mark IV has been upgraded to a 150,000 pixel RGB+IR light sensor (an improvement over then 100,000 its predecessor). The increased pixels in the sensor should increase AF performance as well as metering performance, and therefore should lead to faster AF, and better metering of the scenes.

 

Other Features:

The camera also has a few other features that I consider less important, such as 4k video with continuous AF (which I haven’t even tried on my 1dx Mark II, yet), and built-in wifi and GPS, and it also comes with a touchscreen. While lots of users would probably put a lot of value in some of these features, they aren’t going to make my buy decision for me.

 

There are a few things that I think are lacking from the 5D Mark IV

 

Memory Cards & Batteries:

I don’t know why Canon is going to continue to force me to carry around three different types of memory cards, which also involves carrying around different card readers. The 5D Mark IV comes with a dual slot, one for CF and one for SD, which is consistent with the 5D Mark III, however I was hoping it would have a CFAST slot to make it more consistent with the 1DX Mark II.

 

Given the increase in megapixels, as well as the increased frames per second, this camera NOT having a CFAST slot may really impact on the buffering of the camera. Therefore the increased frames per second might just lead the camera to buffer faster. This was the problem I have had with both the 5D Mark III and the 1DX, it wasn’t that I wasn’t getting enough shots each second, it was that they could only go for a few seconds before buffering and slowing down. That’s why I’m really surprised/disappointed that Canon wouldn’t use the CFAST cards instead of CF, since their flagship body is already using them.

 

The batteries are the same as the 5D Mark III, however I wish that when you added a battery grip it would change it so you can use the battery from the 1DX/Mark II. Also, the battery grip of the 5D Mark III is not compatible with the 5D Mark IV, so while you can use your existing batteries, you will need to buy a different grip.

 

Frames Per Second:

One of my only complaints about the 5D Mark III was that it was slow, compared to the other cameras in my collection, such as the 1DX Mark II, 1DX, and the 7D Mark II. And so for Canon to only upgrade the 5D Mark IV to 7 fps from 6 seems like they could have added at least one more and I would have been happier…and I’m sure others would have been as well. If I actually think about it, there are very few scenarios when 7 or even 6 would be insufficient, but the breaching Humpback Whale that I saw in BC last week would have been a challenge if I had my 5D Mark III in my hands, and probably not much better if I had the 5D Mark IV.

 

After reading all the things I like about the camera, and the list of relatively minor dislikes I have with the specs, you are probably wondering why my mind isn’t made up about it already. The reason is that it’s always hard to translate what’s on paper to how it performs in the field under the shooting conditions that I’m presented with.

 

Specifically of concern is the ISO performance as a large portion of my shooting is done in low-light settings, such as the Great Bear Rainforest in BC, or photographing owls in Alberta before the sunset, so ISO performance is one of the most critical features of a camera for me (hence my initial gut reaction of keeping the 1DX).

 

Secondly, I wonder how a camera with 30 MP will perform while not on a tripod, given that I do the vast majority of my shooting hand-held.

 

Thirdly, whether the increased MP will have an impact on the buffer, and make the camera less desirable for high-action shooting.

 

Overall, based on what I’m reading, I think this camera is a improvement over it’s predecessor, and provides a great full-frame option to users that don’t want to fork our $8k for the 1DX Mark II. However, the one thing I don’t know based on reading the specs is whether it is enough of an improvement over the 5D Mark III for people to upgrade with the $4299 price tag, or whether you would be better off buying a used 1DX for around the same price.

 

It will remain to be seen whether I end up adding one to my stock of cameras permanently, however I will get my hands on one as soon as I can to do some testing in comparison with the other cameras I have.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

07 Jul

Posted at 10:16h in Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

Today Canon released EOS-1D X Mark II Firmware Version 1.0.2.  This firmware is supposed to address the problem where images were corrupting when using the SanDisk CFast Cards – see my post from June 29th below.  Specifically this update:

1. Incorporates countermeasures for a phenomenon in which the bottom part of still images recorded to SanDisk CFast cards become corrupted.
2. Enhances communication reliability between the camera and CFast cards.

 

Hopefully this corrects the problem for everyone that had been dealing with it. Luckily my camera worked just fine with CFAST cards, and I didn’t have any corrupt images, but I have already updated my camera.  The firmware update takes about 10 minutes, or less.

 

You can get the firmware update (and the instructions on how to update) from Canon Canada or Canon USA.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

29 Jun

Posted at 09:39h in Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

Canon has released a product advisory related to the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and users experiencing corrupted images when using it with SanDisk CFAST Cards.

 

The summary of the problem is that for still images (not video) the bottom part of images may be corrupted, and the problem is being reported for both RAW and JPEG.  The release only specifies that this is being experienced when using the SanDisk CFAST cards – nothing has been noted about other brands.  However, part of me wonders if more people are using SanDisk CFAST cards, since they were given out (at least in Canada) when you purchased a 1D X Mark II, so I’m curious whether this problem could be experienced with ALL CFAST cards.

 

The effected images are images that are taken immediately before the camera is turned off (by switching off, auto power off, or removing battery or memory card).

 

How can you make sure your images don’t get corrupted?

Easy answer is – don’t use SanDisk CFAST cards until the firmware is released in early July.  However they are so much faster than the other option, Compact Flash, so as a workaround Canon also recommends that you take an extra shot (or up to 8 if you are shooting JPEG) before you power off the camera.

 

I have both SanDisk and Lexar CFAST cards, and have not experienced this problem myself, and even tried to replicate the problem after reading this release.  I did not have image corruption even after turning the camera off, but obviously enough people have for Canon to issue this release.  And in the meantime I will use my Lexar CFAST cards.

 

To get the full release, visit Canon here.  And stay tuned for the new firmware release.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104

15 Jun

Posted at 12:33h in Cameras & Gear
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share/templates/social-share.php on line 124

I am still getting used to my new piece of equipment (the Canon 1DX Mark II), and haven’t had as much time to spend working with it as I had hoped I would. But I will say that the dynamic range, especially at “high ISO” (which I will define at ISO 6400 and above) is actually quite amazing compared to what I am used to with the Canon 1DX, which was quite good.

 

A75I0362_1dxmII_ISO12800

Canon 1DX Mark II – ISO 12,800

The first thing I wanted to test when I picked this camera up was the ISO performance in low light. Unfortunately I couldn’t find a cool subject to photograph so this ground squirrel had to do. But given that it was close to 8pm in a area with a bit of shade, it suited my purposes of testing to get a rough (and quick) idea of how the camera would perform in lower light.

 

I was blown away when I looked at this image, taken at ISO 12,800 (Taken with Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM at f/8, 1/1000). This image has been processed using multiple variants in Capture One Pro (including noise reduction), however the results show you what you can do with this camera when in low light situations and get the most out of it using post processing.

 

What surprised me the most was the color detail that was still present in the image at this ISO and the amount of detail still in the image, especially around the mouth and eye, which is where I found the 1dx was really lacking at these high ISOs.

 

I hope to soon put it head-to-head with the Canon 1DX, and if I’m lucky against the Nikon D5.

I am still getting used to my new piece of equipment (the Canon 1DX Mark II), and haven’t had as much time to spend working with it as I had hoped I would. But I will say that the dynamic range, especially at “high ISO” (which I will define at ISO 6400 and above) is actually quite amazing compared to what I am used to with the Canon 1DX, which was quite good.

 

A75I0362_1dxmII_ISO12800

Canon 1DX Mark II – ISO 12,800

The first thing I wanted to test when I picked this camera up was the ISO performance in low light. Unfortunately I couldn’t find a cool subject to photograph so this ground squirrel had to do. But given that it was close to 8pm in a area with a bit of shade, it suited my purposes of testing to get a rough (and quick) idea of how the camera would perform in lower light.

 

I was blown away when I looked at this image, taken at ISO 12,800 (Taken with Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM at f/8, 1/1000). This image has been processed using multiple variants in Capture One Pro (including noise reduction), however the results show you what you can do with this camera when in low light situations and get the most out of it using post processing.

 

What surprised me the most was the color detail that was still present in the image at this ISO and the amount of detail still in the image, especially around the mouth and eye, which is where I found the 1dx was really lacking at these high ISOs.

 

I hope to soon put it head-to-head with the Canon 1DX, and if I’m lucky against the Nikon D5.


Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/bridge-core/modules/shortcodes/shortcode-elements/_social-share-list/templates/social-share-list.php on line 104