Jump to content
herbko

Canon EOS-1D Mark III announced

Recommended Posts

The 1D Mk X series cameras are overkill for underwater use -- no one needs 10fps underwater unless they're shooting action in available light!!

 

But with the improved low-light focusing sensitivity and supposedly low-noise high ISO settings this may be just the camera to get the most out of ambient light and filter photography. In particular, it may allow the use of somewhat longer focal length lenses to capture the action of fish behavior. I experimented with a 135mm F2 lens in January. Results weren't too good due to motion blur and too shallow depth of field but I wasn't clever enough to boost ISO (still had it set to 100). Because I did this on my last dive I couldn't see what ISO800 or 1600 would do to prevent motion blur and improve depth of field. I think it could work with a Canon 20D at shallow depth and, of course, a 5D or the new 1D Mark III should do a lot better.

 

Here is an example of a close-up of a longsnout seahorse shot with a magic filter at about 10-12m depth. I have to check the camera settings but probably shutter 1/120sec, aperture 2.8. This shot is still not really sharp and you do a lot better with flash but I think with a low-noise high-ISO camera and a bit more ambient light interesting opportunities exist.

 

post-5225-1172209413_thumb.jpg

 

Longsnout seahorse, Bari reef, Bonaire

JPEG straight from camera, no cropping or adjustments (just rotated 90 degrees and reduced resolution)

 

Bart

Edited by Glasseye Snapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I'm excited for the new 16-35 lens...

 

...The 1D Mk X series cameras are overkill for underwater use -- no one needs 10fps underwater unless they're shooting action in available light!!

 

Ditto both points.

 

I've got both a 16-35 and 17-40, and although they're both "good" lenses, I'd love a "great" wide angle zoom for FF!

 

I have a 1D MkIIN, and it's 8fps are great for topside action (e.g., moving cars, motorcycles, sports, etc.), but have little application underwater. As someone said, the 1D Mk X cameras are really designed for professional sports photographers. It will appeal to those who make their living shooting "on the margin" where even the slightest increase in FPS is of value. For the rest of us, the marginal utility (if you'll pardon the economics jargon) of an extra few fps just doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check out page 12 of the linked White Paper for the 1D MkIII - it shows an example of a bride in a white gown, and the increase in highlight detail is remarkable when Highlight Tone Priority is used.
I read that, but I also read the sentence about increased noise and you cannot have both. Stretching left data and compressing right data will deliver better highlights but generates a noiser image. You can do that in post now.

 

Because they don't talk about actual capture advances, I suspect HTP is really just a metadata tag generated by the camera software rather than a true expansion of the camera's capture ability. It's probably a very nice adjustment for the given example but white dress highlights doesn't quite replicate the drastic contrast of an underwater sunball/sunburst.

 

Please keep in mind that my comment was in response to suggestions that 14-bit would be of some cure to sunball/sunburst ills. And there doesn't seem to be anything in the available literature to indicate that blooming and then the resulting visible fringing have been mitigated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two problems related to photographing sunbursts in digital, one is blown highlights (due to low dynamic range) and the other is a bad gradation from highlights to shadows, eg. lines of sharp color difference instead of a smooth transition.
I understand why we get what we get, but here is my thinking: why would 14-bit processing eliminate or mitigate blooming and the resulting visible fringing? Or why better defined and gradated color fringing (which probably won't be the reality anyway) is an improvement. As we know better defined errors or failures are one of the pitfalls of digital capture.

 

I just notice that Canon has made no claim to the effect that the sensor has been enabled to bucket more charge. And that is what we are really looking for, at least those of us who do find sunballs/burst on current digital systems displeasing. I recognize that Herb, Paul and a few others disagreed with my earlier assertion that sunballs/bursts from current technology are bad (I may have said crap :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand why we get what we get, but here is my thinking: why would 14-bit processing eliminate or mitigate blooming and the resulting visible fringing? Or why better defined and gradated color fringing (which probably won't be the reality anyway) is an improvement. As we know better defined errors or failures are one of the pitfalls of digital capture.

 

I just notice that Canon has made no claim to the effect that the sensor has been enabled to bucket more charge. And that is what we are really looking for, at least those of us who do find sunballs/burst on current digital systems displeasing. I recognize that Herb, Paul and a few others disagreed with my earlier assertion that sunballs/bursts from current technology are bad (I may have said crap :) ).

 

 

It's often necessary to underexpose to keep from blowing out a sunball. The rest of the pic can be brought back up to a proper exposure at post processing. A low noise sensor gives you the good signal-to-noise necessary to push the underexposed water and subject a couple of stops and still not be noisy. The limit in the 5D in this process is not the noise of the sensor but quantization of the dark parts when brighten 2+ stops. Going from a 12-bit to a 14-bit A/D will make this quantization/banding problem much better.

 

In summary, it takes a high dynamic range sensor (large charge bucket and low noise) and fine quantization levels(more bits).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm excited for the new 16-35 lens.

 

The lens does look interesting. Disappointing that it's designed with an 82mm filter thread. That means a new set of filters for topside and if anyone wants to experiment with diopters.....I'm not sure if there are any out there. Maybe the lens performance will be so good we won't need diopters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's often necessary to underexpose to keep from blowing out a sunball. The rest of the pic can be brought back up to a proper exposure at post processing.
I don't have a lot of hard fast rules when shooting digital, but one of them is that I don't underexpose by 2 stops for the purpose of bringing it back up in post. Expanding thin (left) data just doesn't work. My preferences is to always compress thin data and stretch fat (right) data. Plus my suspicion is that 14-bit processing will accentuate the problems inherent in stretching thin data. It's going to let you really see how little data was applied for the lower levels.

 

I agree with you that coupling greater than 12-bit processing with a sufficiently hi dynamic range sensor is the holy grail for these really high contrast shots, but in the case of sunbalss I don't see any benefit from 14-bit processing alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That looks very promising! Although enabling it does constrain the ISO to 200+, which is not ideal for sunballs.

 

I'm excited for the new 16-35 lens. One of my friends has already promised to buy it, and I'll give it a test once he gets it (whenever it ships).

 

The 1D Mk X series cameras are overkill for underwater use -- no one needs 10fps underwater unless they're shooting action in available light!! But the new technology embedded in the camera is really exciting, and once it trickles out to the rest of their line I'm hopeful that we'll see marked improvements in image quality across the line-up.

 

Well I can think of at least 3 places where 10fps would be trés useful esp with a mustard filter :) But I'm not happy about the Li-Ion battery. It may save a few grams but environmentally and lifespan, it sucks.

At $3500 or less at street, it'll be interesting to say the least. I can imagine the 1DMk2N just dropping in value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have a lot of hard fast rules when shooting digital, but one of them is that I don't underexpose by 2 stops for the purpose of bringing it back up in post. Expanding thin (left) data just doesn't work. My preferences is to always compress thin data and stretch fat (right) data. Plus my suspicion is that 14-bit processing will accentuate the problems inherent in stretching thin data. It's going to let you really see how little data was applied for the lower levels.

 

I agree with you that coupling greater than 12-bit processing with a sufficiently hi dynamic range sensor is the holy grail for these really high contrast shots, but in the case of sunbalss I don't see any benefit from 14-bit processing alone.

 

14-bit A/D does no good if the sensor it's sampling does not have enough dynamic range. I thought that was clear from my last message. I think you developed your rule from using sensors with insufficient dynamic range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lens does look interesting. Disappointing that it's designed with an 82mm filter thread. That means a new set of filters for topside and if anyone wants to experiment with diopters.....I'm not sure if there are any out there. Maybe the lens performance will be so good we won't need diopters.

 

I'm actually glad the new 16-35 is a new filter size, and hope that means dramatic new design, rather than a subtle tweak of existing 16-35. I'm excited to try, for sure. Other thoughts:

 

1. Looking at the back I see it is substantially different (from robgalbraith.com). Seacam is making a MKIII housing, details to be determined shortly:

 

post-630-1172474674_thumb.jpg

 

2. The need for 10-frames per second comes up more often than I would have thought, and is nice to have. With the enhanced chip performance of new MKIII, this should be a very capable camera, even with the 1.3 crop.

 

post-630-1172474813_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14-bit A/D does no good if the sensor it's sampling does not have enough dynamic range. I thought that was clear from my last message.
Perhaps it wasn't you who said 14-bit will appreciably improve sunbursts. My apologies for the inaccurate cite.

 

I think you developed your rule from using sensors with insufficient dynamic range.
That specific rule or determination is the result of how the software applies the collected data. Your example of underexposing would be fine if the cameras applied data to lower levels using the same protocols they use for upper levels. And at the risk of stating the obvious: if the camera applies half of captured data to the highest exposure, half the remaining to the next highest, half the remaining to the next highest, and so on down the line it is clear that if we want to capture most image data at underexposed values we will not be working with anything close to clean or sufficient data. You just can't stretch that thin dirty data in post without ending up with very high levels of noise and other unpleasing results specific to digital capture. That's one of the problems with sunball shots, the sunball itself is using up so much of the total possible data that there is very little left for the more pleasing exposed areas of the image. Underexposing only exacerbates the problem.

 

But yes, it would be fair to conclude that many of my personal rules for digital capture are the result of the insufficient dr of cameras on the market as well as the data spread currently used. Your Canons and my Nikons are equally guilty of both. No current camera proportions data differently at this point in time, including the mkIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have a lot of hard fast rules when shooting digital, but one of them is that I don't underexpose by 2 stops for the purpose of bringing it back up in post. Expanding thin (left) data just doesn't work.

 

It doesn't work because there is very little information in the lower levels with a 12bit image, but this may change for the better with 14bit processing...

 

My preferences is to always compress thin data and stretch fat (right) data. Plus my suspicion is that 14-bit processing will accentuate the problems inherent in stretching thin data. It's going to let you really see how little data was applied for the lower levels.

 

I am not sure I agree with that, check the attached figure. The lower levels will have more information (and less banding after post-processing) in a 14bit image. High levels will hold better too.

 

post-2512-1172513798_thumb.jpg

 

So, this is how I see it (correct me if I am wrong): looking at the table above, say you expose the sun area correctly (exposure zone 1) and want to bring detail back to an area that was 4 stops underexposed. With the 12bit images you will have 256 levels available, with the 14bit image you will have 1024. The 14bit image will look better after post-processing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, this is how I see it (correct me if I am wrong): looking at the table above, say you expose the sun area correctly (exposure zone 1) and want to bring detail back to an area that was 4 stops underexposed. With the 12bit images you will have 256 levels available, with the 14bit image you will have 1024. The 14bit image will look better after post-processing, right?

 

Nice chart. That's what I've been trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should look much better at 1600 and 3200...
That already looks ridiculously good for 6400...yes, a fair amount of chroma noise, but the preserved detail in the scale on the right is excellent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
looking at the table above, say you expose the sun area correctly (exposure zone 1) and want to bring detail back to an area that was 4 stops underexposed. With the 12bit images you will have 256 levels available, with the 14bit image you will have 1024. The 14bit image will look better after post-processing, right?
Dirty data, whether it's the result of sensor blooming on the high end or underexposing on the low end remains the same. 14-bit processing just places a greater scrutiny (levels/gradation) on it. This is analogous to what happened when we used 10, 12 and 16 mp cameras with lenses designed when 4, 6 and 8 mp cameras were the hi-end. Suddenly what we once couldn't see now came into a sharp focus, and some of it we didn't like much. It changed how we shot and changed what lens we shot with. Example: 12-24mm nik behind a dome.

 

14-bit.......essentially, in the case of sunballs, it will heighten the evidence of fringing on the high end as well as the evidence of noise on the low end. Plus it will preclude using underexposure as a workaround for the same two issues.

 

Better processing will require cleaner capture data if the proportional distributions remain the same (Canon has not indicated they have changed). Sunballs or the popular workarounds when shooting sunballs do not deliver cleaner data. I cannot see how greater scrutiny on dirty data makes the image better. I can see how 14-bit and higher processing will make us shoot in a way that minimizes what we now consider acceptable. I can also see why it is better. I just don't believe it will make certain shoots improve without first being captured on a sensor with higher dr. Sunballs is one of those image types.

 

I won't bore anyone with further comments on this subject ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the lenses we've been using were designed for film cameras. I don't see what the lens resolution and distortions have to do with the discussion on dynamic range and sunballs.

 

Better dynamic range than what? Have you used a Canon 5D? As I mentioned earlier, I think the 5D images are limited by the 12-bit A/D. It would look better with more quantization levels at the dark end. Canon claims to have preserved that with the reduction in the size of the photosites. Of course this claim can't be verified until the cameras are out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I mention early, I think the 5D images are limited by the 12-bit A/D. It would look better with more quantization levels at the dark end. Canon claims to have preserved that with the reduction in the size of the photosites. Of course this claim can't be verified until the cameras are out.

 

If you check the photographic test results at 5D Dpreview you find that the noise levels bottom out at 1 bit level for low ISO. This strongly suggests that you are correct. For low ISO images, the camera is limited by the 12-bit ADC. Assuming that the 1DMarkIII is similar, it will benefit by the 14-bit ADC.

 

That being said, my 5D shows patterned noise in the shadows that its certainly not random. I don't know if I just got a bad copy, but I have seen other comments to this effect on various forums. My guess is that it is probably due to some sort of pickup on the video amplifiers. It shows up as rows and columns that are lighter or darker than their neighbors. I think I am going to borrow a friend's 5D to do some comparative tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the lenses we've been using were designed for film cameras. I don't see what the lens resolution and distortions have to do with the discussion on dynamic range and sunballs.
;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you notice the AF button on the camera back? post-630-1172562217_thumb.jpg

 

The button to the right of the viewfinder is AF-on, This will achieve the same functuality as Custom Function 4-1, that is, removing AF from shutter release and applyng separately to that button. Very useful for many applications, not the least of which is shoooting the 100mm macro with combination of AF and MF or locking WA focus on a particular part of the frame without need of compose/shift.

 

Before MKIII it took several steps (buttons and dials) and reading small menu items to make the shift to CF-4-1. Now it is a single click from a dedicated button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they've not included an auto-composition feature either.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

I have seen a lot of the information and tech specs online in the recent months. So some of the discussions above are nothing new to me. But to say that I was eagerly waiting for the Mark III release is an understatement... Like Pavlovs Dog I am drooling puddles big enough to dive in to get my hands on it and get it underwater. Any improvements on a Pro Camera will have some chasing that extra edge in producing an image that captures your imagination and to ask yourself... How did he/She do that!. Now if I can only buy one :D

 

Cheers!

 

Terry Moore

www.liquidmotionproductions.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lens does look interesting. Disappointing that it's designed with an 82mm filter thread. That means a new set of filters ...

 

I am still waiting on my Heliopan circular polarizer for this lens.

Just picked up a Heliopan UV filter but had to wait almost three weeks for it.

Now on my 5th week for the polarizer....

 

I'm in India and hope to test drive the lens topside tomorrow.

 

BTW, zoom gears are all new too and the lens is so seriously back-ordered some manufacturers can't even get hold of one to measure. I made a DIY gear in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...