Canon EOS-1D X and 6D Impressions

January 13, 2013 by

Many thanks to Canon Hungary for kindly supplying test cameras for our project!

From time to time a bunch of cameras arrive at my desk for measurements and software compatibility testing. This is a double-fun exercise: besides learning a lot about cameras I have the opportunity to try out and photograph with almost all of them. Among the recent group borrowed from Canon Hungary, there was two cameras I was eager to try out: the EOS-1D X and the EOS 6D. Fortunately the testing period included a weekend, so I had a little more time to go out and play with both, and to compare them with my 5D Mark III and 1D Mark II (which I still have because it can’t be sold at any sensible price).

First and foremost: I would be hard pressed if I had to choose between the 1DX, 5D3 and 6D based solely on image quality. All three are capable of producing great images. You can’t go wrong with any of these. You can also find several reviews on the web doing all the pixel-peeping. So I will concentrate on handling and usability – both playing an important role in my camera selection.

In General

I have been an EOS-1 user for almost a decade, and I immediately felt home with the 1D X. Sure, it is bigger and bulkier than recent models, but at 1550g it’s still 20g lighter than the 1D Mark II. For me this weight dictates the use of the E1 hand strap.

It seems that only the 1-series Canons are designed for people having a nose. Having anything than a small and flat nose is a recipe for discomfort and greased LCD on all non-1 Canons. The 1D X being thicker reduces the distance the viewfinder protrudes from the body, so it’s slightly less convenient than previous models. In comparison: the 5D Mark III is bearable, but the 6D is awful: I can’t see the entire image in the finder without risking to break my nose…

Switching between the 1DX and the 5D3 is effortless: I was able to instinctively find all the controls as they were where they should be. Not so with the 6D. I found the omission of the joystick, the inconvenient selection dial and mixing picture taking controls with playback controls so much frustrating to use that I put down the camera just after half an hour and decided against buying one, despite holding it still feels good. I understand that it’s a sacrifice one has to make for reduced size/weight/price, but I’m rather carrying/paying more for something that’s a joy to use. If I desperately need a cheap/light backup camera then I might buy one, but at the moment I don’t feel that need.

The CF compartment door on the 1D X I tested was loose and emitted a squeaking noise every time I squeezed the body – and you have to squeeze it to be able to pick it up. I don’t know if it’s a problem with this given demo unit, but it’s not something that I experienced with previous 1s and definitely not something I would accept on a $6800 camera. Even the 5D3’s CF door was better.

Features I Miss

Although the 5D3 and the 1DX are from the same mold, there are a couple of pretty useful 1-series features I miss on the 5D3: eyepiece shutter (the 5D3’s plastic thing is a joke), the ability to save the whole camera configuration to a card and load it later, and the ability to lock up the mirror for several shots (which is pretty useful if you do brackets).

On the other hand, the RATE button introduced on the 5D3 and the truly silent shutter of both the 5D3 and the 6D (the silent shutter on the 1DX is pretty useless) are features that could find a home the 1DX.

Things That Need to be Done Fast

All four cameras were pretty responsive, but I was especially interested in a few things. The first was buffer clear time. Lots of people talk about the buffer capacity, but I found the time needed to write all images to disk more important. Even a smaller buffer with faster clearing could be useful. In this comparison the 1D2 lost by huge margin: using a 16GB SanDisk Extreme Pro card it was capable of taking 19 shots (on average) in a burst and it took 15 seconds to clear the buffer. During the last decade it proved to be inadequate more than a couple of times. The 5D3, with a 32G Lexar Pro 1000x card was able to capture 37 images before starting to slow down and the buffer cleared in mere 2.5 seconds! The 1DX was able to capture 58 shots in a 12 fps burst, and wrote them to the same 32GB Lexar Pro 1000x card in 7 seconds. Even the 6D was better than the 1D2: it took 21 frames and wrote them in 8 seconds to a 32GB SanDisk Extreme Pro SD card. In terms of fast capture and fast card writing both the 1DX and the 5D3 are wonderful.

I was interested in how fast these cameras drive a long telephoto (without and with teleconverters). I made no numerical comparisons, just how fast they felt. Surprisingly the 1D2 was the candidate for the fastest lens drive medal, but it has to correct what it did in a second round several times. Maybe its NiMH batteries could provide more power to the lens? The 1DX drove the 500mm f/4L IS quickly and precisely, even with teleconverters attached, so the aforementioned medal went to the 1DX. Lens drive is not where the 5D3 AF system shines. However, my experience shows that its AF system is far better than the 1D2 for tracking birds – even if it drives lenses noticeably slower than its big brother. Here the 6D pleasantly surprised me: lens drive was faster than the 5D3’s! So I sincerely hope that Canon would be able to squeeze out a 6D-equivalent lens drive from the 5D3 with its upcoming firmware update.

The last thing I tried was low light focusing – with the center point only. The 6D is the clear winner here – it was able to focus on features I was barely seeing! The 5D3 took second place, with a bit of hesitation (read: several seconds) before grabbing focus at the same spot where the 6D focused instantly. The 1DX hesitated even more, but was able to grab focus, but the 1D2 was unable to achieve focus in any of my tests.

Conclusions

Let’s start with the easiest one: the 6D impressed me with its low light focusing ability and speedy focus drive, but it was not enough to outweigh its shortcomings in the handling department. So as I mentioned I decided to skip this body for now.

The old 1D Mark II held against the competition pretty well, despite its 9 years in service. I changed my mind about selling it: I would get less for it than a medium level Montblanc pen costs, but its still a pretty usable and capable camera – up to ISO 800. It stays until it dies.

And now the big question: 1DX or 5D3? I bought the 5D3 at the time when the 1DX had no f/8 focusing ability. Would Canon introduce the 1DX with this feature I would end up with that camera, no question about it. But the 5D3 will get that feature in April, so again a tie. Now I see four decision factors:

  • Action-stopping ability (high fps, focus tracking and focus drive). It you need this go with the 1D X.
  • Size/weight. I would take my 5D3 to a vacation paired with my beloved light primes without any hesitation. Would not even think about that with the 1D X (been there, done that with the 1D2 – not again).
  • You get 22% more pixels with the 5D3, which is important for landscapes/architecture. I will do some print comparison between the 1DX/5D3 files in the coming weeks to see how much they differ at 40×60 cm print size.
  • And, of course, price. At $6800 I feel the 1DX a bit overpriced. At the vicinity of $5000 it would be an instant get for many people I believe.

Nowadays I do more landscape and architecture photography than birding, so the 5D Mark III serves me well. Metering and the quality of its files are well above previous generations. The only advantage of the 1DX from my point of view is its action-stopping ability. In all other aspects the 5D3 is a better choice. Should I feel the need for more than 6 fps and slightly faster focus I will grab one.

Oh yes, one way to avoid the above decision is to own them both :)

  ☕ ☕ ☕

Did you enjoy this post? Consider buying me a coffee if so.

Filed Under: Photo Equipment Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Red Veil in 5D3/1DX Viewfinder

January 12, 2013 by

This still annoys the hell out of me. I briefly mentioned the viewfinder illumination issue in my initial 5D Mark III impressions post. Today I shot with an 1D X (more on the camera in a later post), which has the exact same problem. OK, this is not surprising as the two cameras share (almost) the same auto-focus system.

To quickly sum it up: when anything (AF point or grid line) is illuminated in the 5D3/1DX viewfinder, then the entire screen glows in red. This is especially distracting if you have the grid lines turned on (which will produce a whole-screen red flash every time the AF system locks). The following picture shows what you see in the finder in complete darkness while selecting the focus point (body cap on). You’ll get the same amount of red light for AF confirmation.

1D X viewfinder with center AF point selected

A red veil over the finder image is clearly visible in usual conditions I shoot in, such as during golden and blue hours (but surprisingly the same amount of illumination is not enough to show anything in bright sunlight making the situation even more frustrating).

I like grid lines but hate to see them flashing, so I decided to swap out the ground glass in the 1DX with my Ec-D (gridded) screen from the trusty old 1D2. I thought that will cure the problem by avoiding grid line illumination. It wasn’t true success, as the red veil still remains when AF points are lit. Not s smack-you-in-the-face red flash, but still there and still distracting.

Just for comparison’s sake, here is a picture showing how the old-style Canon AF point illumination worked. Just the selected area was lit (actually there was a faint glow in other/unselected AF points, but my iPhone was unable to capture that).

1D Mark II viewfinder with center AF point selected

I still prefer the old-style illumination and consider the new system a huge step backward in usability, which plagues otherwise wonderful tools. Hope that Canon will find a better solution in their next generation cameras.

Filed Under: Photo Equipment Tagged With: , ,

First Flight Shooting with the 5D3

July 1, 2012 by

Yesterday evening I went out to Lake Tisza for a two hour flight shooting test. Courtship feeding was in progress these days in the whiskered tern colony and I thought that that could be a good test for auto focus capabilities, and a chance for me to learn to use the new AF system.

I’ve used two lenses: a 500mm f/4L IS USM with the 1.4x II extender, and a 400mm f/5.6L USM. Both lenses had an 600EX flash attached to a bracket with a Better Beamer – for just a gentle touch of fill light. I shot handheld with both lenses. Yes, it is not the funniest thing to follow fast moving birds with about 6kg of glass and metal, but wanted to know how it feels with the smaller body of the 5D3.

Self-Shadow

The new AF system worked quite well. It was as good if not better than the aging system in my 1D Mark II. Coming from the 1D2, the ability to show the active AF points in the finder was a real boon – I could instantly refocus when the system catched the otherwise busy background.

I was surprised that I did not feel the need for the grip when shooting with the 500mm. Although the 5D3 is not that much bigger than the 5D2 was, it fits my largish hand much better. I was able to grip the body securely and maneuver the 500mm lens with it. I was even more surprised that with the 400mm I could use the grip – the rig felt somehow nose-heavy. Or I just missed the hand strap. This point needs more testing. But at the moment I think I will work without the grip for at least a month or so.

Images are first class, there’s nothing to complain about them. I really love the huge 22 megapixel files – I can crop them as needed later without risking my usual A3+ sized bird print quality.

For those interested in the f/8 thing. I started to avoid shooting with the 2x teleconverter since the 1DX specs arrived – just to see if there’s anything I miss with it. Actually I have gained a lot – better image quality (the 2x II is quite a lemon). I also had to push myself and move closer to the birds. It proved to be great fun – the closer you are the more you became a part of their lives. Bottom line: don’t feel a burning need for the f/8 focusing capability at the moment. I just let those images that would need the 2x go.

Courtship Gift

Regarding the bad things. There a few of course. The most irritating of them is the auto brightness control algorithm. On several occasions the screen remained so dark that I can’t see a thing on it (it was golden hour, so the sunlight was quite muted). When I pressed the play button sometimes brightness came back. So I ended up turning off the auto thing and controlling brightness myself.

Another observation that makes me sad is the inability to judge sharpness from the LCD. I do AF microadjustment check/recalibration before each shot for the actual working distance. But frankly I was unable to judge where the focal plane is without cranking up JPEG sharpening seriously. But that have a negative side effect on the histogram and blinkies. I would like to see the LCD image properly sharpened for the camera’s display (or even a custom function that would allow slightly over-sharpening it so that one can judge sharpness much easier) without affecting the JPEGs and the histogram. Maybe in the 5D4 or 5…

All in all I really love the 5D3. It is a joy to work with this camera. Is it perfect? Far from it. But if I treat is as a tool then I’m sure it will produce some great images in the upcoming 3-4 years.

Filed Under: My Photos, Photo Equipment Tagged With: , , ,

Canon 5D Mark III Initial Impressions

June 28, 2012 by

Finally got my 5D Mark III today! Spent the last 2.5 hours on updating the firmware and setting it up the way I use to use Canon bodies and did some initial tests. For the curious and impatient: it’s a 8 out of 10 body in my opinion.

What I like:

  • Construction. Feels more like an 1D than a 5D. No flexing and squeaking parts when you squeeze it. Also like that it is a bit heavier than the Mark II was – it fits my large hands much better.
  • Speed and responsiveness. This camera really reacts fast. Feels even faster than my aging 1D Mark II.
  • In the few shots I made colors seemed more natural than the Mark II, but I think future versions Capture One should improve their handling of the files.
  • The ability to reverse the top and back dials for manual mode. I usually shoot in Av, and prefer to use the mail (top) dial for setting aperture even in M mode. This was always working on the 1 series, and finally it is available on the 5D!
  • Like that Canon went forward in the level of customization – it’s still quite limited, and not enough for me, but at least the direction is good.
  • Depth of field preview button is finally on the right side.
  • The remote release socket is moved down to the position where it was on the original 5D. Mark II was a pain to use in the portrait position with a RRS L-bracket. I really appreciate this change.
  • The live view/movie mode switch. I don’t care about movie shooting at all, so it’s great that all the movie related stuff is moved away in still image mode.
  • The LCD. It is way better that the old one was. Finally Canon made and LCD with the aspect ratio of the images the camera produce.

All in all, it’s light years ahead of the 5D Mark II. Does it reach the level of the 1 series? Not really. There are few things that I strongly dislike (some are shared with the 1DX and I would dislike them even on that body):

  • No dedicated mirror lock-up button. This is ages old… Maybe sometimes somebody will listen… I would love to set mirror lock-up to the M-Fn button!
  • The USB port is a joke. It’s not deep enough, the cable does not sits in it snugly. I had to push it in a couple of times to make a secure connection.
  • Don’t like the on/off switch’s position. I managed to turn off the camera twice while changing the exposure mode.
  • Virtual level. Imprecise, and pain in the ass to use. I’ll continue to use the 3D level in eFinder Tools of my Viewfinder app or a simple 2-axis bubble level.

I dislike several things about the AF system from the user interface design point of view, some are cosmetic, some are pretty serious. It might be that I’m overly sensitive to UI design (this is what I do part time for a living), but these annoy me too much.

  • Illumination is worthless against bright backgrounds. I don’t see that the points are illuminated at all. I would prefer the strong illumination on the former 1-series bodies.
  • They way the grid is implemented. I always disliked this feature on Nikons and preferred the interchangeable focusing screen approach (I use the grid screen on my older bodies). The fact that the gridlines flash red annoys the hell out of me. Especially when I move the active focusing point with the joystick. Of course I can turn off illumination completely, but then I loose it completely…
  • Not to mention the infamous ‘AF point does not illuminate in AI Servo mode’ issue.
  • I ended up using the mode where all 61 points are always displayed (just to know where they are without fiddling with the selection around). When I leave the camera idle for a while (that is, when the bottom part of the viewfinder is not visible) then non-cross-type points are starting to flash. This is OK when I select them, but in this mode it is downright annoying. Imagine you are watching a bird to do something and the camera starts to flash the AF points (all of them except the central region with an 500/4 and 1.4x attached)…

All in all I like the camera – it definitely worth it’s price – but will stick with my 1D Mark II for occasions where the UI of the new AF system does not make me happy. Hope that Canon will fix the AF UI issues in the rumored upcoming firmware update.

Stay tuned for more as I use the camera regularly.

Filed Under: Photo Equipment Tagged With: , ,

The Sensor vs the RAW File

June 26, 2012 by

Your camera’s sensor records a lot more than finally appears in your master TIFF file. Actually it might have more pixels than those appearing in the RAW file.

Last year I did a little research about this topic, and the following graphic shows the “big picture”. There are two distinct regions on the sensor: uncovered, regular pixels, and ones covered with a black mask. The black mask is used to determine the black level (i.e. how black is black with regards to thermal noise and sensor design).

One step of processing a RAW file is scaling – mapping all the values between the sensor’s black level and white saturation level into the 0-1 interval. Yes, the blackest black on a sensor is not represented by a zero readout from a pixel. For example, on a Canon 5D Mark II, which is a 14-bit camera and thus each pixel theoretically can be of any value between 0 and 16383, the black level is 1023 and white saturation level is 15600. So you lose a bit at each end.

How the black level is determined varies by vendor to vendor – or Canon vs everybody else. Canon puts the entire image into its RAW files (including the black masked pixels) so a RAW converter have the opportunity to calculate the black level from these pixels on its own. On every other camera I tested (a bunch of Nikons, Leicas, Sonys and Phase One backs) the camera determines the black level and subtracts it from every pixel. That is, the camera does the black half of scaling.

This have severe effect on some applications – astrophotography for example – where one creates multiple exposures and averages them. With a Canon RAW file and proper processing noise in the darkest tone will oscillate around the black level. So noise from multiple averaged exposures will cancel out. With black scaled files however, half of the noise oscillation is cut down and there are no negative values that cancel out positive ones around the black level. All in all, a Canon is theoretically better for averaging than any other camera.

But why the default crop is needed? Why don’t we get all the pixels from the active sensor area? Because RAW conversion algorithms need a startup area. In other words most RAW conversion methods produce ugly artifacts around the borders. So the solution is to simply crop these out.

  ☕ ☕ ☕

Did you enjoy this post? Consider buying me a coffee if so.

Filed Under: Image Processing Tagged With: , , ,

Image Stabilizer + Tripod

June 7, 2012 by

Common wisdom says that you should shut off your lens’ image stabilizer when shooting from a tripod. There’s another saying that it’s safe to use on newer generation lenses, because it detects that the lens is steady and turns off the ill-effects automatically. Actually I belong to the former camp. When I compared my new non-L prime trio with the L zooms, I did a pair of test shots with my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (version 1, which I own for 9 years) for the sake of this post.

The pictures show the center of the image, where I focused with contrast detect focus and validated that the focus is spot on manually through live view (by executing a manual focusing step to see whether I can focus any better). The camera used was a Canon 5D Mark II, mounted on a sturdy Gitzo 1325 tripod and Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead. The zoom was set to 70mm, aperture was f/8. These are unprocessed images straight from Capture One 6.4.2. Yes, these were shot on a cloudy day.

The first 100% crop is the non-IS version. As good as it gets.

Image Stabilizer OFF

 And here is what happens if you turn IS on.

Image Stabilizer ON

The bottom line: if you are seeking ultimate image quality and as such shooting from a tripod, then shut IS off (unless you test your configuration for yourself and that test proves otherwise – newer lenses can behave differently). It will also save some battery power!

Filed Under: Photo Equipment Tagged With: , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »