Canon 5D Mark III

Canon has a new full frame camera and it seems like a great cross between the 7D, 5D II and 1Dx.

• Canon Professional Network has some great info about the new camera.
• DP Review, as always, has some great information too.
• As does Rob Galbraith, but it is more of the same.
• Canon Rumors did a good job of keeping us all informed before the camera was official too. 
• For those that wanted a new video camera with "pro" video features...this article does a good job expelling what you got instead. 

I am excited for this camera and have one, with a grip on order...I can hardly wait for the end of March.

There seems to be a lot of disappointment out there with this camera though. I might be missing something, but what did we all want the 1Ds replacement to be? The 5DII was really just a 1DsIII light and when the 1Dx said it was the "New Flagship" that meant that the 1DsIII needed to be replaced.

My list for the 1DsIII replacement was:

• Drop the weight...check
• Get better AF...(assumably) check
• Get more AF coverage...check
• Get better/more high ISO shooting...check
• Get to 6+ fps...check
• Get to 6,000pix on the long end, but not much more...(close - 5760 x 3840)
• Shoot 1080P with usable features to replace tradition cameras...check (real audio/exposure control and legitimate timecode/monitoring)
• Get internal HDR and Timelapse...we got the HDR half of it
• Get a real GPS option...check (I have experienced the poor reception and battery life of built in versions)
• Get a better screen...check
• Dual multi-selectors...check (if you add the grip)
• Keep dual cards (After the D3x-1Dx I wanted it to stay CF and SD)...check
• Keep a good/consistent Battery...check (same as my 5DII and 7Ds)

It took almost 5 years, but we went from the 1DsIII TO 5D III:

• 5616 x 3744 TO 5760 x 3840 (I really did want to match the D3x at 6048 x 4032, but not much more)
• 100 - 1600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 3200 TO Auto, 100 - 25600 in 1/3 stops, plus 50, 51200, 102400
• Less than perfect 45p AF TO 61p AF (with spot AF :)
• 230,000 screen dots TO 1,040,000
• 5 fps TO 6 fps (the 1DsII was only 4fps and the 1Ds was only 3fps)
• Exposure compensation of ±3 EV TO ±5 EV

I used the 1DsII then the 1DsIII, sold mine and have been waiting for the next sense the 5DII proved to be close for landscapes and the occasional portrait. I did want to hit 6,000 pix, but if 5,760 is going to give me better quality it is close enough. I would have happily taken 7-8fps, but I wanted at least 6fps and I would not give up resolution to have more speed. I did want internal time-lapse shooting, but that is a firmware thing that could be added easily. It looks like I got everything else that I wanted/needed.

I have a 5D III and grip on order, and will use it heavily. It is almost exactly what I have wanted for big mile days when I take only one camera and should be a slight improvement for my landscape photography (over the 1DsIII and 5DII, but they did not need much improvement).

I am sure Canon will eventually deliver a 30-50MP, slow, camera for those of you who want that, but I don't think that I would have bought the camera if it could only shoot 4fps in full quality 14-bit RAW, even at 50MP. When I need insane file size for landscapes I use my T/S lens' like a large format camera. I don't think I have ever had a client as for more resolution, ever. I also don't believe current lenses and diffraction limits of optics will make folks happy when they shoot a 45MP camera much past f/8.

For those that wanted "serious" video features, that is the C300 and whatever else they bring out below it in that line. I don't need to produce music videos, TV shows, feature films or even commercials. I am just looking for a high quality way to record footage while I am in the field to shoot stills.

I am happy with what Canon made for us who choose to purchase one, and I hope that those of you who are not happy will soon get a camera that will do what you need in the field.

Happy analyzing, but really you should get out and do some shooting ;)

Ask Dave, June 29th - Two lenses

Ask Dave, June 29th (part 2)
I get tons of questions each week, I respond as quickly as possible, and I might just answer them here too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

Question:
From... Countless friends/students/strangers/customers
If you could only have one, non professional, camera and two lenses what would you have?

Answer:
Are you saying you are going to take away the lenses that I have?

I will assume that I can also not have any one lens over say $2,000 and that I must stick with the brand of the camera I selected. In part 1 I selected the Nikon D700, so I need to look at Nikon lenses... Well that only leaves me with 7 Nikon lenses that have VR, are under $2,000, and will fit onto the D700's FX (full frame sensor). I like the idea of versatility and have always heard good things about the 24-120/4.0 VR, so that is my first choice. Second is hard because the 80-400 is junk, the 300/4.0 needs VR, they don't sell a 70-200/4.0, and they don't really have much else. The 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II is just over the limit (and I was well under the limit with the 24-120, so can we let it slide?). I would then commence "saving" for some TCs.

In Canon it would be the 17-40/4.0L and the 70-200/4.0L IS (odd loose the IS and those were my first two "L" lenses).

If I could have only one Canon lens to do everything I would get the 28-300L IS, and in Nikon I think I would stick with the 24-120VR because I have not heard good things about the Nikon 28-300VR; but maybe it would be okay.

I really wish I could put Canon glass on that D700 in this hypothetical situation :)

Ask Dave, June 29th - One camera

Ask Dave, June 29th (part 1)
I get tons of questions each week, I respond as quickly as possible, and I might just answer them here too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

Sorry for the delay... I honestly thought this had posted while I was on my trip to the American Prairie Reserve; but it had not :(

Question:
From... Countless friends/students/strangers/customers
If you could only have one, non professional, camera and two lenses what would you have?

Answer:
Are you saying you are going to take away the cameras that I have? :)

Seriously that is a very difficult question... If I could only have one, non professional, camera (I'll assume that means no Canon 1 series or Nikon D3 series) what would I have? I have long told folks that it would be the Nikon D700 (shocker I know). Here is my reasoning:

• Well built (great sealing)
• Full frame
• Fast frame rate (I would need the MB-D10 Multi-power Battery Pack to get 8fps)
• Fast focus
• Great low light shooting
• Just enough resolution (for most applications)

I assume that if I only get one camera, I am no longer a working professional; but I also assume that I still want to be able to shoot a bit of everything. Something like the Canon 7D (a camera that I love) would be faster, have more pixels on my subject, has good focus, and is relatively well built; but it cannot handle high ISO shooting like a full frame camera. The Canon 5D II (a camera that I love too) has amazing resolution, great low light shooting; but it has a crippling slow frame rate, relatively poor autofocus, and is not as well build (think weather sealing).

To work professionally with only one camera I think you really need a Canon 1D IV or a Nikon D3s, alternatively you could just have a Canon 7D and 5D II (you cover all of your bases that way).

Am I thinking of switching to Nikon... NO!

I have tons of respect for the Nikon D700, even if the camera is old and in need of a refresh, it is still a great jack of all trades.

Do you want to know the lenses I would choose? Tune in for part two then.

Thanks

Ask Dave, June 17th - Canon 2.0TC III

Ask Dave, June 17th
I get tons of questions each week, I respond as quickly as possible, and I might just answer them here too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

Question:
From... Brad and plenty of other folks
Do you ever really use your Canon 2.0TC III and is it any good?

Answer:
I get to be lazy this week, as I have already posted a blog post about this very subject:
http://blog.shumwayphotography.com/2011/01/70-20028l-is-ii-20-tc-iii.html

If you have more questions after the post... send them my way.

Thanks

Ask Dave, June 3rd - What to Buy

Ask Dave, June 3rd
I get tons of questions each week, I respond as quickly as possible, and I might just answer them here too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

Question:
From... A participant in one of my lectures for the Photographic Institute of the Yellowstone
When should I upgrade cameras and what should I buy first?

Answer:
AS SOON AS YOU CAN!
If you can afford an upgrade, and you can justify it... then you should do it. I am not a big fan of debt, especially credit card debt, so I normally suggest some saving first; but that is just my bias. If you are starting a photography business maybe you should try to get a business loan rather than putting the gear on your credit card, just a thought.
I cannot begin to tell you how many amazing things I photographed with film, before digital, or with shorter/darker lenses before the 300/2.8L IS and 500/4.0L IS became part of my arsenal. At the time I wished I had better equipment, and now I look at those images and wish that I had sprung for better gear sooner.

That said gear does not make the photographer, nor will simply owning/using better gear make you better. I have countless friends who have rented gear for their "big trip" and come home with images worse than what they could/would have created with the "normal" gear. If you don't know how to use it, it will not help you create better images, so you need to have gear that matches your ability.
If you just want better "stuff" to get better images, buy a nice tripod and use it always (you will spend $500-1500+).

As for what you should buy first... If you have bought into a brand like Canon or Nikon then you have started off in a brand that will really let you grow. If you have a Sony/Pentax/Olympus/etc. you might want to think about switching to Canon/Nikon. Inside of Canon and Nikon any camera body, that will focus the lens options you would consider, is a great place to start. Camera bodies depreciate rapidly, while lenses (lately) have proven to appreciate, so I tell folks to "invest" in glass. The other way to think about it is that your vision can be perfect (20/20); but if you are looking through dark fuzzy glasses things will never look quite right :)

Specifically speaking cameras and lenses that I have high regard for are:

• Canon 7D (for sports and wildlife)
• Canon 5DII (for portraits and landscapes)
• Nikon D7000 (for sports and wildlife)
• Nikon D700 (for portraits and landscapes)
• The Nikon 3100/5100 are also capable cameras; but they cannot focus some of the Nikor lenses (a downfall as I see it).
• The Canon Rebel line is full of great options; but I like cameras that have some weather resistance and a metal body (they do focus all of the Canon lenses).
• The Canon 1DsIII and 1DIV are great cameras; but not starter cameras, and may be a bit inflated in price (same with the Nikon D3s and D3x).

In lenses there is lots of differentiation based on what you want to shoot, and how much you want to spend; but some popular focal lengths are:

• The 70-200 is most everyones work horse lens and if you spring for a f/2.8 version you can use 1.4TCs and 2.0TCs to make it more telephoto, as well as extension tubes to make it a macro (my 70-200/2.8L IS II is my workhorse, and the 70-200/4.0L was my first "L" lens, and I still use it to this day)
• The 24-70 is the second most common lens range and for portrait/landscape folks it might even be higher on the list. (I suggest making it a f/2.8 version for sports/events)
• A wide angle like the Nikor 14-24 or Canon 16-35/17-40 are great to have to offer a wide perspective (this is a lens that for landscapes you don't need it to be super fast; but if you shoot events you do want a f/2.8 version)
• Next folks look at super telephoto lenses, and the price can be super too. I am a firm believer in having a super telephoto that you can travel/hike with. I loved the 300/2.8 for its mix of speed/size/weight. I think the 500/4.0 is the most popular for its reach and still manageable size/weight. With Canon shaving weight from their new super telephoto offering lenses like the 400/2.8 and 600/4.0 become more tempting (and I have the new 400/2.8 on order :)
• After that it becomes time to look at specialty lenses. I love tilt/shift lenses while others love fish eye or macro lenses... to each their own.

Remember at the end of the day the gear you have will not make you a better photographer, nor will professional gear make you a professional, and you can't create images sitting behind your computer while you look at gear online ;)

Some Studio Fun...

Orange water splashes as a marble is dropped in. Captured with a Canon 7D and 70-200/2.8L IS II set in manual mode at f/22, ISO200, and 5 seconds. Four strobes manually triggered to stop the motion (Three Einstein 640s and a Canon 580EX II controlled with PocketWizard TT5s).

THE TOP SECRET GALLERY IS HERE

As suggested above the gallery is not something you can find without the link, so make the jump and enjoy. I am not a studio photographer; but I did build a new studio for Rocky Mountain College, and last night I did some shooting and teaching. I know these shots are cliché; but I had fun and my student did some solid learning, and was able to create cool images for his final project. (I'll link to his photos too, when he has them online)

If you have questions about the process, just ask.
ENJOY

Ask Dave, April 3rd - Star Trails

Ask Dave, April 3rd
'Ask Dave' week eight… I get tons of questions each week, I respond as quickly as possible, and this is week number eight of answering them here too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

Question:
From too many folks to name...
How do you photograph star trails?

SORRY IN ADVANCE FOR ALL OF THE 'VOICE' CHANGES.

Answer:
How to photograph star trails...
First you need a clear night in a place where you can see stars; but I assume you knew that ;)

Typically I suggest using lunar charts to shoot around a new moon, and or when the moon will be underfoot at night (set before you start and rise after you finish). It is dark enough about one to two hours after sunset and before sunrise; but there is often lots of air traffic until 11pm, so if you are near flight routes you might want to wait until after 11pm. (most agree that 1:00a-4:30a has virtually no air traffic)

Two ways to think about composing the star trails in your shot are:

• To place Polaris (the North star) in your frame, where all of the other stars with appear to circle around it (assuming you are in the northern hemisphere). I normally place Polaris in my shot when shooting wide angle shots.
• To keep Polaris (the North star) out of your frame, this will create arcs, and not complete circles. Any composition facing north will yield arcs in the northern hemisphere. Typically I do not shoot south in the northern hemisphere because the "arcs" become more like straight lines and are not very nice. When shooting more telephoto shots I avoid placing Polaris in the frame, and use the "arcs" in my composition. (When I say; "North"/"South" I mean north/south of a theoretical line between East and West.)

How to you find Polaris? Easy, first you need an iPhone or other smart phone with a star finder app, then you look it up :) (Star Walk rocks) Or you can do it the old fashioned way; find the Big Dipper (Ursa Major) follow in a line up from the outside edge of the pan to the first big star (that is it). When you are scouting use your compass and assume Polaris is North :) Remember that the further North you are, the higher in the sky Polaris will be.

Some other star notes:

• Stars move about 15° each hour, so if you can expose for 6 hours you would have stars going 1/4 of the way around Polaris (6 hours is hard to do in summer months, and batteries die too quickly in winter months to get a 6 hour exposure and a 6 hour noise reduction exposure).
• The higher your elevation the more stars you are likely to see.
• The best star viewing is 25-150 miles away from towns/cites (the more people the further you should be).

• The weather needs to allow views of the stars for the entire expose, if clouds break your view you will have breaks in the trails, also clouds tend to be collectors of light pollution. (if clouds break up your exposure it could look like this)
• Avoid moon light, as it will cut your maximum exposure time dramatically. A 1/4 moon opposite your field of view will limit you to about a 30min exposure before the land looks like it is sunlit.

Remember:

• You will be forced to use "B" aka. "Bulb" mode.
• RAW is the only way to go.
• The further away from town (light pollution) the better the star trails will look. (typically)
• Looking away from town (light pollution) is normally a good idea.
• Remove camera straps and anything else that will blow in the wind.
• Turn off your cameras/lens' image stabilization.
• Normally it is a great idea to turn on your cameras long exposure noise reduction.
• Shooting lenses wide open can show more vignetting and other aberrations.
• It is easier to start experimenting with wider angle lenses 17-35mm.

An issue in photographing star trails is dealing with focus in the dark. NO, you should not just turn your camera to infinity, that is a very common thought; but not a correct one (most of the time). What you really want to do is focus your lens at its hyperfocal point for the aperture value you are going to be shooting at. Wide angles are much easier, for example, my 17mm on a full frame camera at f/4.0 focused at 8 feet will, for a normal print size, makes everything from 4 feet through infinity appear to be in focus. Alternatively at 300mm at f/22 requires focus at 450 feet to have everything from 225 feet through infinity appear to be in focus, for a normal print. (You can always focus further away than the lenses hyperfocal point and everything from half of that distance through infinity will appear in focus, for a normal print). I normally set up the camera before the sun sets, so I can set everything with plenty of daylight to aid in focusing.

Things you need/should have:

• A tripod and remote shutter release are required.
• The remote must be lockable or an Intervalometer
• Intervalometer remotes can be pre programed allowing you to sleep in peace without worry about sleeping through the alarm to tell you to release your locking remote. (a computer or similar device can also work as an Intervalometer).
• A bubble level will make your life much easier.
• Live view on your camera will help you get the focus set properly.
• Mirror lockup is not a must. (with exposures this long it really does not matter)
• A headlamp, hat, gloves, warm boots/coat/pants, snacks, basically all the things you need to spend time outside in the "cold" night.
• I am assuming you have a camera and lens that you can control, and know how to use. If you do not know how to use your camera in the warm, well light, indoors, then you will not be able to use it in the cold, dark, outdoors.

Now for getting the exposure correct…

• I typically do some quick head math; but it is not hard math, so don't worry:
• 4hr - 2hr - 1hr - 30min - 15min - 8min - 4min - 2min - .1min - 30sec
• ISO50 - ISO100 - ISO200 - ISO400 - ISO800 - ISO1600 - ISO3200 - ISO6400 - ISO12,800 - ISO25,600
• Those are all one stop apart.
• If I do a 30sec exposure at ISO25,600 it will be just about the same as a 4hr exposure at ISO50. Do you see what I did?
• Think about everything in stops, so you can then play around to find the exposure you need without having to do crazy long exposures, as tests.
• This is an example of my high ISO test to get a proper exposure, and the two hour 'real' exposure is the shot at the top of this post.
• Your aperture should be set based on the needed depth of field (or hyperfocal) settings and how many stars you want to see, if you can't test the full spread you need with ISO you can also move the lens in full stop increments.
• Remember a 4 hour exposure to an 8 hour exposure is only one stop, so if you miss by an hour or two you might only miss by a half stop (or so)… not the end of the world with digital files.
• Honestly if you are going to miss, you should miss to the side of overexposure, one full stop is easy to save in post; but one stop under will not work as well for most situations/compositions.
• I really like two to three hour exposures (with wide angles); both because of how my camera handles it, and the resulting 30-45° arch that the circling stars make around Polaris. When I shoot more telephoto images (not at Polaris) I really like the one hour realm.
• I like to use flashlights to paint light in on my foreground subjects; but using foreground elements as simple silhouettes can be very cool too.
• Once you have this mastered try to shoot a foreground subject that is light by strobes, and then turn your focus to the stars and let the 1+ hour exposure continue to bring in your star trails. Note… It helps to cover your lens (blacked out) when changing your focus (trust me).

I am sure that I missed something, so as you have questions, just ask.

I believe in shooting the star trails in a single exposure; but you can also do lots of individual exposures and put them together with Achim Schaller's freeware StarTrails program, or Chris Schur's Star Trail Action inside of Photoshop to make a single image that is the equivalent of a single long exposure. One big plus is that you can avoid the issues that you run into with long exposure noise reduction; but some agencies, competitions, magazines, and art buyers do not accept multiple exposure composites, so the choice is yours. Most folks keep their short exposures under 10min; but well over the point that the stars actually blur/move.

Ask Dave, February 28th

Once again I have decided to do a weekly blog post called 'Ask Dave.' I get tons of questions each week, and I always respond as quickly as possible; but I have decided that it is about time to also share the answers with all of you too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

'Ask Dave' week number two.
Question:
From Britney... Where do you take your cameras and lenses to get them cleaned?

Answer:
Honestly, I do most small cleaning myself; but let me qualify that answer (please read all of this post). I send my cameras and lenses off to Canon Professional Services for a cleaning and checkup. (once a year for cameras and once every other year for lenses) For those of you who are not CPS/NPS members I would suggest that you send your cameras to the manufacturer for periodic cleanings and checkups. (most camera shops send your gear out to the manufacturer) I clean my camera's and lens' outsides weekly. (a clean outside helps promote a clean inside, and makes everything last longer) Sensor cleanings used to be done by me, a trained professional, almost monthly; but that was before cameras got built in sensor cleaning aids. Now if find that I only need to do cleanings, myself, once or twice a year, beyond the CPS clean and check.

Remember when shooting landscapes sensor dust becomes more apparent as we tend to stop down our lenses. I have used dirty sensors to shoot sports, portraits, and other "wide open" things and you would never be able to tell. Also, in my experience, full frame sensors have a tendency to collect and show dust more than cropped sensors. (that is simply my experience, remember that typically I shoot my landscapes with full frame sensors and sports/wildlife with cropped sensors)

What do I use for cleanings? I have tried lots of products; but at the end of the day I trust two to get the job done. For cleanings on trips (in the field) I use and trust Dust-Aid a dry cleaning solution that is fast, easy, effective, and is safe for in the field cleanings. I believe that with Dust-Aid you cannot make things worse, only better. (assuming you don't let more dust blow into your camera while you clean it) For those pre trip cleanings, at home, I use Sensor Swabs as they are "designed for cleaning CCD chips and other delicate or hard to reach optical and imaging surfaces, using Eclipse or E2 solution." This process is a "wet cleaning," and can affix dust to your sensor if not done properly. This is what most manufactures recommend, and do when you send your camera in for a cleaning.

A word of caution. I was trained by Best Buy's service center ages ago and have cleaned around 1,000 sensors, or more. I know what I am doing and I still: read instructions/manuals, watch new video tutorials, and practice before cleaning my cameras. I really believe that normal people can safely clean their own camera's sensor; but they need to be carful and read all instructions/manuals before they start messing around with the image sensor or anything inside of their cameras.

How do you know when your sensor needs a cleaning? That is a second question, and I'll wait for someone to ask it ;)

I buy my cleaning supplies from the NatureScapes.net store. (I highly recommend them; they are great people and they are always willing to help/chat/advise)

I use LensPens and Carl Zeiss Individually Packed Cloths for field cleaning lenses. At home I often simply use some warm breath and a lens cloth; once I blast and dirt/dust off of the lens. If I need to use liquid to clean a lens I use Eclipse Fluid. Canon's new lenses are coated to avoid oils and grime, so I can blast dust/dirt off and not worry about it.

Other important things to remember: replace your lens clothes often, keep them clean between uses, and once you get oils on a cloth how can you expect it to really clean anything?

On a side note, dust spots on the mirror/prism/focus screen drive me crazy, and cause lots of eye strain, for me. I use spent Sensor Swabs or blast them out as soon as I get a chance to. I shoot far too often, for far too long, to strain my eyes with particles in the viewfinder.

Happy Shooting

Ask Dave, February 21st

I have decided to do a weekly blog post called 'Ask Dave.' I get tons of questions each week, and I always respond as quickly as possible; but I have decided that it is about time to also share the answers with all of you too. If you have questions you can email me at Learn@DaveShumway.com.

Question:
From Rick... I did not think that the 17-40/4.0L performed very well with a full frame image sensor. Many of your images indicate otherwise. I assume that most of your landscape shots are with the lens stopped down to f11 or more. Does that account for the apparent good image quality? Also how large of a print are you able to get using this camera/lens combination? What other wide angle lenses do you use with the 5DII?

Answer:
I love my 17-40/4.0L on the 5DII. I used the 16-35/2.8L; but found that it did not have what it takes, Canon agreed and made the new 16-35/2.8L II at it was quite an improvement; but the 17-40 is still better especially when it comes to landscape performance. Take a look at Canon's published MTF charts to see what I mean about the difference in image quality, contrast, and bokeh. Another benefit of the 17-40 is that it takes the same size Polarizer and ND filters as my 70-200/2.8L IS II and 400/5.6L, also it weighs less than the 16-35/2.8L II, while costing much less.

As with most lenses you do need to pull off your UV filter when shooting landscapes to keep flare and chromatic aberrations down.

I also use my 24/3.5L T/S II and it is, by far, the best quality wide angle lens I have ever used for shooting landscapes. The 24/1.4L II is also great; but not even in the same league. The Zeiss wide angle prime lenses are amazing too. The only real problem with primes is when you are backpacking/hiking/biking/skiing a light weight zoom is the only way to go.

As for my settings if you look through the gallery from my month in the Canadian Rockies you can view all of my camera settings. Just click on the blue 'photo information' button and you will see that I spend lots of time shooting landscapes from f/9.0-f/16 and up to f/22 from time to time. From my experience the lens is at its best around f/11-f/13 on a full frame sensor camera and f/9.0-f/11 on a cropped sensor camera.

Print size from the 5DII and 17-40/4.0L... Well, I have covered double decker busses with the combination, I have had two and three page spreads in magazines, and do quite a bit of printing at 16X20 & 20X30. With all of that I have yet to have any issues with a lack of resolution/quality. All of that said I am looking forward to 30-40MP sensors and using more tilt/shift lenses in the future. The reason? From my experience tilt/shift lenses are the only wide angle lenses that show no chromatic aberrations, they also give control over the convergence of parallel lines, and 30-40MP will let me make very large crop/panoramas.

I have also used the 24-70/2.8L and 24-105/4.0L IS; but never found them ideal as primary landscape lenses. I also use my 70-200s for landscapes often, the f/4.0L is amazing, as is the new f/2.8L IS II; but the previous f/2.8Ls never gave me the results I wanted. Heck I also use my 400/5.6L, 300/2.8L IS, and 500/4.0L IS to shoot landscapes on both full frame and cropped sensor cameras.

Canon's new lens MTF charts...

You can find them at their source on each lenses individual page (i.e.)

I do not claim to be the creator of the content; but I did compile them onto a single page for easier reference.

Take a look, I'll let you draw your own conclusions from the charts.
I am wanting the 400/2.8L IS II more and more each time I look at them.

p.s. B&H now has the 400/2.8L IS II on their site at a price of $10,500.

Canon 200-400/4.0L IS

FULL PRESS RELEASE

Canon Inc. today announced the development of a new super-telephoto lens, the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM EXTENDER 1.4x, for use with all EOS SLR cameras, and is scheduled for launch in 2011.

Many of you know that I am first in line for Canon's new 400/2.8L IS II with my Pro dealer; but this lens might change everything. My hope for the new 400/2.8 was that with its improved quality it would become Canon's most versatile lens; but this guy could jump quickly ahead. It is a stop darker; but it is also a 200mm and without having to cary a 1.4TC III it is a 560/5.6 with the flip of a switch, when you need it, and presumably even lighter in weight. I have a few real questions that need answering before I give up my place in line for the 400/2.8L IS II; but now it is something that is really conceivable for me to do. The biggest questions can all be answered by looking at an MTF chart.

Canon has also finally announced the specifications for their new 500 and 600. FULL PRESS RELEASE The 500's MTF chart looks great, and the 600's looks like a respectible improvement from the old 600's; but does not look to be on the same level as the new 300/400/500. The other "big" improvement is that they loose 27% and 17% of their weight making the 500mm a 7lb lens and the 600mm an 8.6lb lens. Remember that the new 300mm comes in at 5.3lbs and the new 400mm comes in at 8.5lbs. Rumor puts the prices at $9,499 (500mm) and $11,999 (600mm) and suggests summer delivery that completes the Canon line with the new 300 and 400, expected to ship in late March, at $6,999 and $10,999.

On a side note, with that pricing and delivery I would guess the 200-400 to ship in late fall (December) at a price point around $8,000. I would love to be wrong and have it ship sooner and at a lower price; but...

Let's look at Nikon's current offerings (Lens - B&H Price/Nikon List):
600/4.0 VR - $10,2999.95/$10,299.95
400/2.8 VR - $8,999.95/$9,549.95
500/4.0 VR - $8,499.95/$8,579.95
200-400/4.0 VR II - $6,799.00/$6,999.95
200/2.0 VR II - $5,999.95/$5,999.95
300/2.8 VR II - $5,799.00/$5,899.95
70-200/2.8 VR II - $2,159/$2,399.95

Compared to Canon's current offerings (Lens - B&H Price/Canon List 'est.')
800/5.6 IS - $12,349/$11,999
600/4.8 IS II- NA/'$11,999'
600/4.0 IS - $8,800/$9,199
400/2.8 IS II - NA/'$10,999'
400/2.8 IS - $7,600/$7,999
500.4.0 IS II - NA/'$9,499'
500/4.0 IS - $6,700/$6,999
200-400/4.0 IS - '?'/'?'
400/4.0 DO - $6,145/$6,469.00
200/2.0 IS - $5,700/$5,999
300/2.8 IS II - NA/'$6,999'
300/2.8 IS - $4,635/$4,879
70-200/2.8 IS II - $2,374/$2,499

Canon's new 70-200/2.8L IS II & 2.0 TC III... good?

On a recent trip to Yellowstone I had the chance to do some real world testing of Canon's new 2X Telephoto Converter III.

The old 70-200/2.8L IS and 2.0 TC II was never something I would choose to use, as the quality was not good enough to trust on for real world use. The last time I really "used" my old 2.0 TC II was when shooting the 300/2.8L IS, Canon's sharpest lens to date, a lens that was more than good enough to loose some image quality, something the old 2.0 TC II was infamous fo. My testing/use of the new TC IIIs is only in its early stages; but I have added my new 2.0 TC III to my field bag, so it is going to be something I carry whenever I leave my vehicle, aka it will get plenty of use into the future.

Now for the 1:1 (aka 100%) crops. These are 1:1 crops from images that I processed in my normal way for display on my site, printing, and stock use. Let me paint the scene... A Ruffed Grouse was feeding within sight of the northern road in Yellowstone National Park. I parked at the nearest plowed pull out and had to decided what to hike back into the area with. The snow depth was thigh deep in the area and I have photographed this bird before, so I knew that it would likely approach very near me. I thus decided that this would be an ideal test of the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the new TC IIIs rather than luging the 500/4.0L IS out of the car. I carried and used my tripod as it was relatively dark, snowing and under a conifer forest canopy. I was shooting with the 7D at ISO400 at f/7.1 and 1/320th of a second for the second image, the first (tighter image) was captured at the same settings except that it was captured at 1/250th of a second (both were captured at 400mm). Please notice that I used the lens set to f/7.1 the entire time, as I have found that to be a good setting for the lens/camera, and for a pleasing depth of field for my subject at the working distance.

I took about 100 images of the grouse. Two were clearly out of focus, over 25 were lost to motion blur (many of the shots were at 1/100th of a second), some 50 were just off being "good enough," and 36 made it to my site. From my experience the two being out of focus says nothing about the quality of the lens nor the TC's ability to AF accurately (if it was 22 it would be a different story). As I was shooting I felt that the combination performed very well and to accuracy/speed levels beyond what I expected. The bird was moving consistently, so I was quite impressed with the combinations ability to keep up with my demands while using the Canon 7D's spot focus mode. Who really cares about the focus though, the old 2.0 TC II was not "bad" in terms of autofocus, right? Wrong the old 2.0 TC II, for me, often left much to be desired in terms of AF accuracy, speed was also less than suitable; but this new 2.0 TC III, in this situation, proved itself fast enough for trusted use and more than accurate enough to be considered, by me, "good."

"What about the thing that really matters," you ask? Image quality (aka sharpness, contrast, and bokeh) is a, if not the, big factor we look at when determining if a piece of gear is good enough for us to trust for regular use. Telephoto converters (extenders) are know thieves of image quality even when pared with the best of lenses, "can these new TCs be better or different?" In terms of bokeh I would call the TC suitable, with this image as my evidence, I need to do more specific test to see if I can give it a higher rating than that; but suitable for me is "good" for most. Contrast was surprising "good," for a TC, and on par with many prosumer telephoto zoom lenses, especially considering the fact that the TC was placed on a zoom lens and zoomed to its furthest reaches (I would put it on par, with my memory, of the 100-400L IS at 400mm). Sharpness... well we all have our own ways to judge that, I for one have default sharpening settings in Lightroom 3 that I apply to all of my images when I batch process, then load full size previews, and judge the image's sharpness at 1:1. After looking at these results I would call the combination of 70-200/2.8L IS II and 2.0 TC III "good" not "great" or "amazing;" but "good" is better than "suitable". I would not put it to the level of the lens bare; but within 10-15% of the lenses ability (for me the old 2.0 TC II was in the 20-30% range).

I am impressed with the image quality and can hardly wait to see what the 2.0TC III will look like when pared with a lens with image quality levels like the new 300/400. Many thought that Canon was not telling the truth when they published the MTF charts for the new 400/2.8L IS II when pared with the new TC IIIs; but to me it looks possible that these TCs can deliver at the level that they claim. I think the fact that I have added the Canon 2.0 TC III's weight of 325g (plus caps) to my shooting bag should be enough to prove my belief in this telephoto converter's ability to help extend the range of a given telephoto lens while retaining enough quality to prove itself as a useful tool even when paired with a zoom lens (although the 70-200/2.8L IS II is one of the best zoom lenses I have had the privilege of using, in terms of image quality). As always your milage may vary, and this is all simply my humble opinion, also note that, if you choose to open the image in its own window, you want to keep it at 100% or smaller (it is a file compressed to JPG for the web).

I have written about some of my other thoughts on the new TCs in the past; but... I did not get it on my blog??? odd... well here it is:

I have one of each of the new Canon TC IIIs and have only begun intitial testing; but here are some of my thoughts:

• One thing that will surprise TC II users is that these new TC IIIs cannot stack together. I am more bothered by this for storage purposes than for real world use; but still it would have been nice to know. (I can't find where Canon told us about this; but I could just be blind).


• The quality is significantly better in the 2.0 TC III, and the 1.4 TC III is slightly better than their predecessors.


• The AF speed (with the new 70-200/2.8L IS II) is quite fast when pared with the 1.4 TC III; but the 2.0 TC III almost seems slower, marginally, than the 2.0 TC II (I don't have my old one to really test it).


• When looking at the MTF charts of the new 300 & 400/2.8L IS IIs, when pared with TCs, it is clear that the new TCs retain more contrast, clarity/sharpness, better color and bokeh. My initial tests are showing much of the same thing (on the 70-200/2.8L IS II with 5DII and 7D).


• The build quality seems similar; but the seals seem like they are more substantial, and don't look like they will fall apart as quickly as the TC IIs. (the seal to the body)


• The body side of the TC IIIs now have 6 screws where the TC IIs only had 4, the TC IIs were prone to having screws come loose.


• The new white seems to smudge/get dirty less easily than the old white; but only field use will confirm that.


• The coating on the elements of the TC IIIs really do seem smudge resistant (at least from my current fingers).


• The new release button seems to operate more smoothly, and feels to lock better than the old ones. The new buttons also seem to be less likely to get bumped/released on accident.


• Canon claims an image quality improvement with all comparable lenses; but only version "II" lenses will see significant AF speed/accuracy and IS quality improvements. The optic formula is also specially designed to give the most significant image quality boost to II lenses. One of the white papers, from Canon, says the new II super telephotos; but when I called CPS they said all present and future "II" lenses comparable with the TC IIIs will show "significant improvements."

More to come... (as I have time to test)

New Canon Glass

First off I want to apologize for the extended silence on my blog. After spending a month in the Candian Rockies I came back to a full plate at work. I still have about 4000 images from my trip and two entire Yellowstone trips to edit and get online for all of you. I am working on it.

Now for the reason behind the post... Canon has lots of new glass and I wanted to share the news.

Canon's site with all of their glass, new and old, is here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

dpReview has all the news items from Canon, and other PMA announcements, online here:
http://www.dpreview.com/

The biggest news for me was the weight on the new 400/2.8L IS II (8.5lbs).
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_400mm_f_2_8_is_ii_usm
I am going to be taking a hard look at this lens and will likely sell my 500/4.0L IS to make the upgrade.

Sony develops E mount HD camcorder

From DPR:

Sony develops an Interchangeable Lens HD Camcorder

Sony announced today that it is developing a new type of AVCHD high definition camcorder which features key technologies powering the newly announced interchangeable lens digital camera, “NEX-5” and “NEX-3”.

The new camcorder will be equipped with the same “Exmor” APS HD CMOS sensor to be used in “NEX-5” and “NEX-3.” In addition, the camcorder will be compatible with “E Mount” interchangeable lenses developed for “NEX-5” and “NEX-3”, and also the wealth of “A Mount” interchangeable lenses from the existing “α” DSLR camera lineup via a mount adapter. By combining these features, Sony aims to market a camcorder capable of generating a variety of creative expressions in HD quality.

Sony plans to commercialize the new HD camcorder in fall 2010.

Now Canon needs to do the same.
Something that has relatively fast AF would be nice ;)

Home from Yellowstone... with video to share

THE VIDEO IS ONLINE HERE IN HD

I was in Yellowstone from February 26th - March 2nd. The photos will take me a while to edit; but I put together some of the video clips for those who might want to watch. I have removed the audio from the Otters as there was lots of shutter clicking going on while I was recording. The (spoiler alert) Wolf footage has the audio on all except the last clip as the sound is the best part.

The footage of the Otter/s was captured with the 7D and 500/4.0L IS while the Wolf footage was captured with the use of telephoto converters (2X and 1.4X). The Wolf was a long way off and the atmospheric distortion is very obvious. The distance adds a cool element of delay on the audio... you'll see.

Enjoy

Canon 5DII and 7D film SNL

NBC'S SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE SHOOTS OPENING TITLE SEQUENCE IN FULL 1080p HD VIDEO WITH CANON'S EOS DIGITAL SLR CAMERAS

The new season of NBC's Saturday Night Live debuted not only with an a new cast, but with a new look for the opening title sequence as the entire opening montage was shot using the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and the new EOS 7D digital SLR cameras. The concept behind the opening sequence was portraiture as the director and crew looked to capture "living" portraits of the city, the cast and the unique characters that make up the New York City nightlife.

The full press release is here.

EOS 5D Mark II's price just dropped $200

The Landscape camera whose price and image quality I have long loved just got an even better price. If you have been dragging your feet on the 5DII you may want to give it another look.

New 70-200/2.8L IS USM II

Canon this morning announced a new 70-200/2.8L IS II.

We have all been expecting this lens for some time and Canon has finally delivered. It focuses closer, focuses faster, has better optics, and features Canon's "next generation Optical Image Stabilization" 4 full stops of anti shake goodness. And thank the LORD it still uses the 77mm filter we have all collected so very many of.

The lens is set to ship in April of this year; but I have not been able to find a price yet (I assume it to be around $2.5k)

I have two other 70-200's so I guess this means I will have to sell mine and buy this new one soon :)
That means if you want my recently (December 2009) cleaned/tuned 70-200/2.8L IS or my 70-200/4.0L let me know.

7D Users Rejoice

Adobe now has full raw support for the 7D in both Lightroom and Bridge/PS.

I have updated; but not played yet.

Here is the link:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

DPR posts full 7D Review

I don't know why it is not all over the web yet; but DPR has posted their full review of the 7D.

I have been sharing my thoughts on the camera and it is nice to see some real tests that align with my thoughts.

The review is here

It is simple.. the 7D is the best APS-C camera to date :)

Enjoy