  |
|
| — Support free content on this site at no cost to yourself—use the Recommended page — | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Please consider buying through a link below
to help support this site at no cost to yourself. Links below
are recommended vendors. Amazon.com has a huge
product line, and B&H
ships internationally.
I now have a Nikon D3 in hand. I had time for a few dozen snapshots late in the day, and won’t be posting any images until sometime tomorrow. My first impressions—
Screen—wow! You’ve got to see it to believe how good it is compared to anything else. Live View is really good also, but with some puzzling shortcomings (it seems to allow only a limited area of operation). Gotta read the manual I suppose. (Update: Live View must be set to “Tripod Mode”).
Viewfinder—very nice. Spacious and bright.
Image quality—Baffling. While whole-image contrast and “pop” look great, actual pixels is quite another story, one that’s making me queasy. JPEG Fine, or 16-bit TIF from Nikon Capture NX 1.3 (14-bit NEF) are yielding results that are simply baffling to me. I hate to say it, but my gut reaction is not good.
Could I be doing something wrong? Possibly, but JPEG Fine is a pretty simple story to think about and similar results with Capture NX make me think that’s the “way it is”. I used 3 lenses: Zeiss ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar, ZF 25/2.8 Distagon and the 28-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkor. All of those are first-class lenses.
Update: Experimenting with various sharpening techniques suggests that the D3 NEF files might need quite different handling than the previous Nikon and Canon DSLRs I’ve used. There is an overall smoothness reminiscent of large-pixel medium format backs, except that the sharpness seems quite muted...does the D3 have a very strong AA filter that is blurring detail and therefore needs stronger and/or different sharpening?
One reader suggested checking the JPEG settings, and they were/are set to Large/Fine/Optimal. But my comments are based on JPEG and NEF results.
A friend of mine recommended watching this video (below) in its entirety—Steve Jobs of Apple giving a commencement speech containing advice money can’t buy, based on three life stories. If you find it inspiring, get this book: Secrets of High States.
Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III
Update: I’m told I should have a Nikon D3 available tomorrow (Friday). Look for some initial impressions here over the weekend.
My Nov 8 comments on the Nikon D3 still stand—I hope to have a D3 in hand this week or next, but it’s not clear I’ll be one of the privileged few to be able to obtain one. Same deal for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III.
My approach in reviewing these cameras might be different this time. In the past I’ve spent several months shooting and preparing, culminating in one big review. That approach has merit—experience over several months helps rule out mistakes and yields perspective. But it also means that portions of the review that are ready just sit and wait until the whole thing is complete. It means that anyone interested in one of the cameras is deprived of what might be highly-useful information as well. Also, there is no feedback along the way.
So this time I’m considering a different approach, ending up with a similar end-product, but releasing portions at a time so that readers can benefit along the way. I can also prioritize testing according to feedback.
In short, I’m considering a subscription-style review with regular updates. If you have any strong feelings on that approach (in either direction) please let me know what you think. Please use email subject “diglloyd inquiry: thoughts on D3/1Ds3 review”.
Nikon Capture NX file corruption on Mac OS X Leopard
As if Nikon Capture NX didn’t already have the most godawful user interface ever invented for a RAW-file converter (one strike against the D3), Nikon’s update page for Capture NX 1.3 states that it is not compatible with Mac OS X Leopard and “image files may be corrupted”. The usual way to manage that trick is just plain old incompetence, which would not be surprising at all in light of the abominable user interface. So Nikon doesn’t get it right sometimes either (see previous entry).
Canon EOS 1D Mark III firmware update
“Canon does it first, Nikon does it right”? More on that thought another day.
I’ve updated my Canon EOS 1D Mark III firmware to version 1.1.3 without incident. I haven’t yet sent the camera in for the “sub mirror” fix, but will do so when I have a Nikon D3 or Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III in hand so I have something to shoot with.
This review took far more effort than anticipated, but it’s finally ready. If you’ve been reading this blog you know that I like the Zeiss ZF lens line. Now find out in more detail why I shoot the ZF lenses preferentially.
Click to read more
Leica US has loaned me an M8 for testing with infrared. But first, some bunnies, taken with the new 35/2.5 Elmarit in color.
Bunnies in the garden
Leica M8 in infrared — first impressions
Leica US has loaned me an M8 for testing with infrared (see the diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared Photography). As reported in Infrared Contamination: Good Color Gone Bad, the Leica M8 has a weak infrared-blocking filter installed (only a very thin filter is used so as to preserve lens performance) and so the M8 can do double duty without modification as an infrared camera.
I’ve had time only for a few test shots in infrared, using a B+W 092 filter (50% cutoff at 700nm). Exposure times are just barely adequate for handheld mid-day shooting at ISO 320. I generally prefer to permanently convert (modify) my cameras for infared use so as to achieve exposures of roughly 1/320 @ f/11 at ISO 100. However, converting a Leica M8 is an expensive proposition that few owners would consider undertaking without knowing the possible results. Over the next few weeks I’ll be reporting on the Leica M8 behavior in infrared, so check back regularly.
The M8 with a B+W 092 filter is 4-6 stops slower than a converted camera because it has internal infrared-blocking glass over the sensor. The light that gets through the combination of the B+W 092 and internal filter will be partly visible light (deep red), and partly infrared. More investigation will be needed to determine the proportions. Results so far indicate a moderate infrared effect, and with an unusually granular result which degrades sharpness considerably. Further investigation under controlled circumstances will help explain this phenomenon.
Leica M8 with B+W 092, 35/2.5 Elmarit
1/30 @ ~f/8 handheld, ISO 320
Followup on Leica 180/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R
I’ve had little time to shoot the Leica 180/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R (see previous entry), but I did manage a few A/B comparisons on my Canon EOS 1D Mark III. At some point I’ll present some images, but for now suffice it to say that the Nikon 180/2.8D IF-ED needs f/8 to look less good than the Leica at f/2.8 (excepting depth of field). If you shoot Canon and you’re looking for the ultimate (handholdable) 180mm, the Leica is your beast (the discontinued Canon 200/1.8 is incredible also, but huge and heavy). To shoot Leica (or Nikon) on Canon EOS, you’ll need to use an adapter and shoot with manual focus, but that’s life. Leica lenses cannot be used on Nikon bodies, so if you shoot Nikon, hope that Zeiss adds a 180/2.8 Makro-Planar to the ZF lineup.
Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R
Leica prices due to rise—could Zeiss be next?
The US dollar has crashed in the past year (if you want to understand why, read The Creature From Jekyll Island). It’s amazing to see Canon offering year-end rebates instead of across-the-board price increases of 20% for us poor saps in the USA.
The word is that effective in 2008 Leica will raise prices in the USA by about 10% on most items (the Leica M8 has already had its price raised and will stay the same price for now). So if you have been lusting over that new M8 digital and/or a few Leica M or R lenses, now’s the time. (Zeiss also makes many good lenses for use on Leica M mount).
The next question is whether Zeiss and Nikon and Canon will also raise prices. Maybe now is the time to buy that Zeiss ZF lens (B&H Photo has all of the ZF line in stock). It seems likely that a sustained or worsening dollar crash will force the hand of many multi-nationals—there is no way they can make money with the 20% “haircut” they’re taking now. So expect to see price increases become commonplace if the dollar doesn’t strengthen.
I’ve nearly finished my Zeiss ZF lens review. What I thought would take two months has taken six months instead! I’ve learned more than I ever have before about lens behavior, and I have to say I’m very impressed with the ZF line—grant the ZF lenses some time and patience to learn their unique qualities, and they will reward you with gorgeous results time after time. That’s not to say I didn’t lose some hair along the way, but readers of my review can fast forward their learning process by many months, and continue paying the barber.
When I first used the Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 Distagon, it presented various minor optical shortcomings that induced me to avoid using it (as a sort of knee-jerk reaction). But to my surprise, the 25 Distagon has become one of my favorite lenses because of its unusual rendering, and the especially artistic way it “draws” at close range (every lens renders the world differently—don’t waste your time on by-the-numbers lens reviews by clueless morons).
The 25 Distagon has the “problems” of strong vignetting and curvature of field wide open, but beautiful image rendition. Combine all three attributes appropriately and you will be rewarded. How could I not take yet another test shot of my wife’s beautiful arrangement of succulent plants? Perhaps the composition needs work, but the 25 Distagon has done a beautiful job here, shot wide-open at f/2.8 (though the JPEG compression hasn’t done the image any favors). Click to see it larger.
Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 Distagon + Canon EOS 1D Mark III, handheld @ f/2.8
If you are intrigued and want to start with one moderately-priced all-purpose Zeiss ZF lens, I recommend trying the ZF 35/2 Distagon. If you want something world-class, try the ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar. B&H Photo has all of the ZF line in stock (B&H is a recommended vendor)—search for “Zeiss ZF”. For more on the ZF line see the previous comments. Though the ZF line is Nikon mount, they can be used with an adapter on Canon (I use the CameraQuest.com ones).
Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R ASPH on Canon updated
I’ve added some images to my review of the Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R.
As of today, we’re placing click-through ads for recommended vendors on this page and others. By clicking on those ads, you help support the free content on this site at no cost to yourself. It doesn’t matter what you buy, so long as you click one of the ads (amazon.com, B&H, etc).
Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R ASPH on Canon
On the heels of yesterday’s article on the Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R, please enjoy Canon EOS Meets Leica—1D Mark III mated to APO-Summicron-R 90/2 ASPH.
Leica 90mm f/2 APO-Summicron-R ASPH
Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R on Canon
As part of my never-ending quest to find the best optics at each focal length, and inspired by the performance of the Zeiss ZF lenses on my Canon EOS 1D Mark III, I borrowed the Leica APO-Elmarit-R 180mm f/2.8 for about 45 minutes from Keeble & Shucat in Palo Alto, CA (give K&S your business if you’re in the San Francisco Bay Area, they’re one of the last real camera stores around).
Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R
See how it performs in EOS Meets Leica: 1DM3 Meets APO Elmarit-R.
I was chatting with a friend yesterday who mentioned that a future digital camera might offer a larger sensor than the de-facto “full frame” size of 36 X 24mm. Indeed, most SLR lenses from Canon or Nikon or Leica might in theory cover a 36mm X 36mm area (though a few are squared-off in back, and corners might be quite poor). So why can’t we reasonably expect a 4:3 ratio (36mm X 27mm), or the large-format ratio of 5:4 (36mm X 30mm).
Color area represents 3:2 ratio eg 36 X 24mm
Gray area represents increased sensor area possible in a 36 X 30mm sensor.
Squarish ratios are better suited to many compositions, and would allow more megapixels without the downside of smaller lower-quality pixels. For example, scaling the Nikon D3 sensor to 36X30mm would yield 14.5 megapixels with no change to the pixel size. Corner performance might disappoint, but a lens that can cover 36mm wide should be able to cover 30mm high as well. The diagonal of a 36X27mm frame would be 45mm, versus 43.2mm for a conventional 36X24mm frame. The diagonal of a 36X30mm frame would be 46.9mm. Corners might be an issue optically, so perhaps 36X27mm would be a good compromise.
For that matter why are Nikon’s and Canon’s entry-level DSLRs limited to sensors that use 3:2? A squarish sensor would work there too, perhaps 24X18 or 24 X 20 or 22 X 22.
As a boy, I often dreamed (while sleeping) of flying. Fortunately, I never hit the ground. I suppose this video is as close as one can get to true flying (“If at first you don’t succeed...oh @#$!”). Perhaps something to take up should one be unfortunate enough to have terminal cancer.
Apple Safari browser — for Mac and Windows
If you’re a Microsoft Windows user (my sympathies), you might consider downloading and installing Apple’s Safari web browser. Though Safari has its share of issues, it’s my preferred browser. And Safari is the only Windows browser that supports embedded color spaces in images. See Web Browser Color.
Doesn’t anyone want a Nikon D200 for the $1001 I’m asking?! I’ll include a 2GB card and an extra battery.
I’m testing (and using) the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II, Canon’s new and improved 14mm lens. I am planning on writing a review of it. (NOW AVAILABLE).
Premature Capitulation
Spent
Diffraction, a real-world example
I’ve supplemented Diffraction—A Technical Challenge with Diffraction—A Real-world Example. See for yourself why f/8 is better than f/11, at least on some cameras.
One terabyte (1000GB) hard drives
Looking for more storage? There are now several one-terabyte drives available. Read about them at barefeats.com and amug.org. You might also see my past article Hard Drives. I’ll be in the market for a one terabyte drive in the next few months and will report on my experiences as usual. At this point, I’d stick with the Seagate drive, based on what barefeats.com is reporting.
Installing a pair of one-terabyte drives into a Mac Pro and setting them up as a mirrored RAID (using Apple’s Disk Utility) is a great way to protect yourself against data loss from failure of one drive (assuming you put all your important data on that mirrored drive/volume). Don’t forget to make regular backups as well—see March 2 blog entry Backup Strategy.
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III white paper
If you have an interest in how the latest in high-end digital SLRs are designed, you might want to read Canon’s white papers on the 21.1-megapixel Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and the EOS 40D. There is much interesting material. Why doesn’t Nikon provide such white papers?
The discussion of microlenses (page 11) is particularly interesting, along with the claim that the 1Ds Mark III will offer noise as low as that of the 16.7-megapixel 1Ds Mark II, in spite of the 25% larger pixels of its predecessor. Does this mean that the issue of diffraction might be no worse in spite of the pixel size difference (since the photo diode size remains the same)? That remains to be seen in real pictures. Please email if you have insights into that topic and I will share it here in this blog.
Microlenses with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II/III
I created the image below deliberately. See if it causes your eye as much tension as it does mine. I almost threw it out, thinking it was so annoying to look at, until I reminded myself that a good photograph is one that draws attention. Click to see it at a larger size (and be sure that the entire image can be viewed at once). Update: several readers have emailed, indicating that it doesn’t cause their eyes any visual tension. We are all “wired” differently, which is why we might all react to the same image in different ways—a good thing I believe.
Dichotomy
(Zeiss ZF 85mm f/1.4 Planar @ f/1.4, Canon 1DM3)
Want an in-depth review of the 85/1.4 Planar ? Look no further:
Cosina Voigtlander 40/2 and 58/1.4
Cosina recently announced (in Japanese) two new lenses which might be of interest to those looking for image rendition different from the standard Canon or Nikon offerings. (See also the dpreview.com English language summary). Readers of this blog know that I like the image rendition qualities of the Zeiss ZF lenses—I’m always on the lookout for lenses that might offer superior performance and/or image rendition characteristics that are unusual or different from standard Nikon or Canon fare.
The Ultron 40mm f/2 is priced at $379 with hood. The “pancake”-style Ultron lens might be of particular interest for those looking for an extremely compact lens for a small digital SLR. (Nikon no longer makes its similarly-sized 45mm f/2.8P). With an aspheric and high-refraction lens element, the 40mm sounds promising. As an added incentive, it also comes with a matched close-up lens.
The Nokton 58mm f/1.4 offers a focal length the same as the famed NOCT-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2. It is priced at $379 + $39 for the hood. Like the 40mm Ultron, it has a 9-blade diaphragm which should help in producing nice bokeh.
I haven’t yet used any Voigtlander lenses, but I’ve asked Stephen Gandy at CameraQuest whether he’ll provide samples of these lenses for evaluation so that I can report on them here. (Stephen’s CameraQuest is the US source for these and other Voigtlander lenses). Both lenses can be used on Canon bodies with a Nikon-to-EOS lens adapter, though manual stop down is required.
My general comment is that the market is apparently growing for third-party lenses to fit Nikon and (with an adapter) Canon. Until a year ago, the third-party market was mainly Tamron and Sigma lenses of low build quality for Nikon and Canon. Now with Zeiss and Cosina offering specialty lenses with high build quality, the possibilities are expanded for those seeking alternatives.
Public schools today (at least in my neighborhood) are about replacing personal responsibility with layers of rules. Key is avoiding anything that might result in a scraped knee, a hurt feeling or anything that might actually challenge a child to learn how to cope with life. Here we have it folks—a spacious playground where the only thing missing is the Valium dispenser. Don’t forget to smile—that’s the rule! This photo sums it up for me as the tip of the iceberg, but maybe I’m just nuts, because I’ve yet to meet a parent who finds this sign bothersome at all.
Learning-free zone
Who says that shots have to be literally interpreted? In the same vein (vain?) as Forest, I present Fallen.
Fallen
(Canon EOS 1DM3 + Zeiss ZF 85mm f/1.4 Planar)
Canon is offering instant rebates up to $125 on lenses and speedlights through Jan 13, 2008. Please buy through this site’s Recommended Vendors page and help support this site at no cost to yourself.
Ignore unsubstantiated comments
It’s important when reading comments online to maintain an extremely skeptical view of most of them. Comments might summarily dismiss a lens or other piece of equipment as no good. I came across this dubious posting recently, referring to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L:
Don't buy the new 50mm f1.2. You will be very disappointed.
The poster provide no details, a strong clue that cluelessness is more likely. It takes skill and expertise to evaluate a lens. Perhaps this person has that ability. And perhaps that person actually owned and used and tested the lens. Or perhaps not. Or maybe he had a defective sample, but was unable to recognize that the lens was defective. Or maybe the focus was inaccurate. At any rate, there is absolutely nothing to back up the claim; is the poster referring to resolution/contrast, flare control, distortion, focus speed, what?
The Canon 50mm f/1.2L is actually an excellent performer. At f/1.2 (wide open) on the 16.7-megapixel Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II in the extreme corner (outside even a 1.1X sensor crop), the lens can resolve to the limits of the sensor; the “30” bars seen below are the resolution limit on the particular test target that I used for that resolution sensor; the “35” bars cannot be resolved by any lens at any aperture on the 1Ds Mark II.
Actual pixels @ f/1.2, center, mid, extreme corner
(full-frame 16.7-megapixel Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II)
Resolving power in the area mid-way between the center and corner is a bit blurry, but this might be due to field curvature, or it might just be that the lens really is less sharp there, or it might be that my sample is slightly off somehow.
I hope to have a Nikon D3 in hand by the end of November (see my August 23 comments). The one thing that surprised me in re-reading the specifications is that it has no anti-dust capability, unlike the D300 and the Canon EOS 1D[s] Mark III cameras. That’s a pity, as I’ve grown accustomed to the hassle-free cleanliness of the Canon EOS 1D Mark III.
The D3 apparently offers the choice of either 12-bit or 14-bit color, making for an interesting possibility for comparison: do the extra 2 bits actually make a difference?
The dual Compact Flash slots are a refreshing improvement over the bifurcated Compact Flash/Secure Digital approach used in the Canon EOS models—buying two types of cards (mismatched in size), card readers, etc never appealed to me. The D3’s dual slots can swallow cards of matched size and speed, excellent for live mirrored backup, or offer the astonishing prospect of 32GB of internal storage.
Also unclear is whether the infrared-blocking glass will be removable eg whether the D3 can be turned into an infrared camera. While I’m pleased with my Canon EOS 5D-IR (see diglloyd Guide to Digital Infrared), the lack of Live View on the 5D makes obtaining precise focus in infrared more of an effort and more prone to error. So a Live View infrared camera is high on my list of priorities. My workhorse EOS 5D-IR will be for sale should I convert a Nikon D3 for infrared use.
Zeiss announces ZF-I industrial lenses
The Zeiss ZF-I industrial lenses announced by Zeiss Germany are not the same as the prototype lenses for infrared that I recently evaluated, which use single-coating to enhance infrared performance. The newly-announced ZF-I lenses have additional sealing for water and dust, as well as locking screws for focus and aperture. I’m not a big fan of silver-colored lens bodies, but this does solve the problem of distinguishing the lenses from the regular ZF line. The ZF-I lenses won’t be available through normal retail channels however, so don’t expect to see them on camera bodies anytime soon.
Zeiss ZF-I lens
Coastal Optics UV-VISIBLE-IR 60mm f/4 APO Macro
Always on the lookout for new lenses that might apply to infrared, I came across the UV-VIS-IR 60mm f/4 APO Macro from Coastal Optics. Its performance specifications look absolutely stunning, offering best-in-class MTF along with apochromatic performance from 315nm to 1100nm (ultraviolet all the way through longer-wave infrared). It actually transmits from 290 to 1500nm, highly unusual to say the least.
Incorporating an unprecedented five (5) fluorite elements, it’s truly an exotic lens. (Ultraviolet transmission requires quartz or fluorite elements; normal glass attenuates ultraviolet). It seems probable that performance for visible light photography will also be stellar and for those looking to shoot ultraviolet and never obtaining the rare 105mm UV-Nikkor, this might well be the ideal lens. The fact that it is apochromatic deep into the infrared band is a huge plus for infrared shooters as well. The only real downsides seem to be price (likely to be in the US$4000-5000 range), and the f/4 maximum aperture. I should receive an evaluation sample of the 60mm sometime in December, and I will report on it here as I’ve done with the Zeiss ZF prototype lenses for infrared.
Coastal optics also offers the 105mm f/4.5 UV-Micro-APO lens, but it is apochromatic from “only” 250nm to 650nm, not really suitable for infrared use as it attenuates infrared fairly rapidly beyond 650nm (according to Coastal Optics).
There are also two circular fisheye lenses, the 4.88mm offering a 14.9mm circular image and the eight (8) pound 7.45mm offering a 22mm circular image. The price might make you faint, but the performance appears to be state of the art.
I bought a Fuji F50fd 12-megapixel point and shit camera recently, and maxmax.com converted it for permanent infrared use for me. Of course, image quality can’t come close to matching my Canon EOS 5D-IR, a (formerly) $3500 camera with a $500 conversion to infrared. But it’s a good performer, a bargain at its $240 price at amazon.com (don’t forget an extra battery and 4GB SD card).
The large sensor (1/1.6") beats the pants off anything in its class, and at 60-80% of the price of competing cameras it’s great for those on a budget. But the bottom line (for me) is that it makes a terrific point and shoot infrared camera. It’s faster than the F30 I’ve been using and it takes Secure Digital (SD) cards too. It’s not perfect, but it works great for infrared and has no “hot spots”. Still, its 12 megapixels are not twice as good as the 6 megapixels of the Fuji F30-IR I have; maybe it’s 40% better. But that’s true of any 12 megapixel camera: pixel size matters a great deal in spite of what the bozos in the marketing department might claim.
Below are a few samples from my F50-IR that I took recently in Yosemite. It was really an afterthought since I had the Canon EOS 5D-IR and the Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 Distagon prototype lens, but they’re pretty good snapshots.
Multiple exposures for low noise
Intrigued by the multi-frame noise reduction idea discussed yesterday, I experimented with the Nikon D200 and Canon EOS 1D Mark III, reasoning that multiple frames would average out the random noise in dark areas. Read about it in Noise and Multiple Exposures.
4 frames averaged together = almost no noise
Following up on the entry below, I tried (in vain) to get Photo Acute to work on my Mac Pro. I verified all the requirements (Adobe DNG converter 4.2, Canon 1D Mark III + EF 50mm f/1.4). Unfortunately, it’s a no-go (“RAW load error”).
Noise-free photography from any camera?
Photographer Guillermo Luijk offers an intriguing look at the possibility of noise-free digital images from any camera that offers RAW files. The technique consists of combining multiple frames taken at up to +4EV (using his software program). Although I’m reasonably happy with the noise performance of newer cameras like Canon’s EOS 1D Mark III, the possibility of richly-detailed and noise-free dark areas opens up new avenues for exploration, especially with inexpensive consumer-grade cameras. I’m a little concerned about non-linear color accuracy with changing exposure, but perhaps color will be superior.
What’s frustrating to me is why this stuff isn’t just built into the camera as a mode (tripod required) which takes the 2 or 3 or 4 or N images and produces a single outstanding RAW file. The idea is in the same vein as multi-shot medium format digital backs, which shift the sensor up/down/left/right by one pixel to effectively achieve true RGB color without interpolation. So far, Nikon has done the most in this area (not very much), offering multiple exposures in-camera with the D2x and D200, while Canon has done nothing at all.
There are all sorts of goodies which could result from the combination of multiple frames: near-zero noise, 32-bit dynamic range (HDR), increased sharpness (Photo Acute), depth of field, etc. Though some such applications are now just emerging (as software programs), all of these features and more will eventually be built into the camera. For that matter, why not just design a sensor that can take additive exposures until a noise-free image is obtained with 32-bit dynamic range? Time will make it happen.
One reader wrote to me inquiring about diffraction with digital SLRs. It’s not so simple as calculating a theoretical resolution limit—contrast comes into play also. Read my thoughts on the issue (along with examples) in Diffraction—A Technical Challenge.
Click to read the article
I’ve borrowed the new ultra wide angle 114° Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II from a friend of mine for an in-depth review. Watch this blog for more information. My preliminary impression of the new 14mm is that of a high quality lens with excellent correction for chromatic errors (color fringing). However, I am seeing certain imaging characteristics which have raised some questions I will be looking into. I do hope that the 21.1-megapixel EOS 1Ds Mark III is available soon to make that analysis easier.
Below is a reality check for anyone who thinks that stopping down, even at 14mm, is adequate to exploit today’s high-resolution digital sensors (or that sloppy focusing can be overcome by stopping down). Even at these smaller sizes the inadequate depth of field should be “clear”. Click on images below to see larger versions.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III + 14mm f/2.8L II @ f/5.6
Not persuaded because the image above was made at only f/5.6? The image below was made at f/11, which offers twice the depth of field as at f/5.6, yet is clearly inadequate to render the background sharply.
Canon EOS 1D Mark III + 14mm f/2.8L II @ f/11
Stopping down to f/16 would degrade the image contrast noticeably (due to diffraction) and yet offer only minor improvement with this image. Stopping down to f/22 is out of the question; contrast and resolution would drop unacceptably. So in reality f/16 is the hard limit on the 10.1-megapixel 1.3X-sensor EOS 1D Mark III, with f/11 the last acceptable aperture for near-optimal quality. These numbers are even more restricted on cameras with smaller photosites like the EOS 40D; they become f/8 and f/11 respectively.
Want an in-depth review of Canon 14mm f/2.8L II? Look no further:
Canon 1D Mark III sub mirror fix
Looks like my Canon EOS 1D Mark III is one of the affected bodies that will need the sub mirror fix. As I have mainly used manual focus with the 1D Mark III (Zeiss ZF lenses), I have not been too bothered, but I have found that the 1DM3 focuses inaccurately with a variety of lenses under conditions that should have resulted in perfect focus (fixed subjects, not ones in motion).
I haven’t done a scientific A/B test to verify that the 1DM3 focus is in fact worse than other cameras, though it seems so. Read my Focus Accuracy article for insights into focusing as a general issue. Not described there (yet) is the fact that recent tests with a dozen Canon EF lenses using the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II showed not-quite-right focus with fully half the lenses (not wildly off, but enough that a slight manual tweak showed better contrast and slightly better resolution). Still, the 1DM3 does seem worse than any other brand/body I’ve used, but not under all circumstances.
One can complain about Nikon taking a long time to release newer technologies such as full-frame (see Goodbye Nikon?), but in the past few years it seems that Canon bodies have needed more firmware updates, and now an actual hardware modification in a professional caliber body. Was it rushed to market to beat Nikon?
What working pro wants to send in the 1DM3 for service for an unspecified number of days/weeks with no loaner body? (Rent one at $150/day for two weeks?) And given that the serial number range covers 45,000 cameras, the time required and the quality of the repair is certainly a concern. Yes, one expects warranty coverage, but that’s the bare minimum to expect, especially after a four month denial by Canon of any problem. No one buys an EOS 1D Mark III as a casual camera—customers deserve a substantial and tangible acknowledgement of the inconvenience and expense. Doubling the warranty to two years instead of one year would seem appropriate.
Canon’s Digital Photo Profession lens aberration correction
If you’re a Canon EOS shooter, it’s well worth your effort to download Canon’s Digital Photo Professional 3.2 (click on Drivers/Software).
Of particular interest is the correction for color fringing (long found in Nikon’s Capture software). Other features include correction of vignetting and distortion and “color blur”. Fully correcting vignetting tends to look unnatural with some images, so correcting it somewhat less than 100% might be advisable. Distortion correction naturally loses some angular coverage as well as decreasing sharpness (in essence, image pixels must be resampled and stretched to fit).
Canon’s chromatic aberration correction is highly effective (see below), but unavailable unless it is a “supported” camera/lens combination. Since Nikon’s Capture can operate on files created by any Nikon digital camera and any lens from any manufacturer (see Nikon Capture’s Color Aberration Control), this is disappointing to say the least, especially since one such “unsupported” combination is the Canon EOS 5D and the newly-introduced EF 16-35 f/2.8L II! Ditto for the 14mm f/2.8L II.
Ironically the previous model EF 16-35 /2.8L is supported on the 5D. If it’s a matter of RAW-file data describing which lens was used, the software could provide a choice allowing the user to specify which model lens was used. “Buy a new Canon camera body that supports the new lenses” seems to be the message from Canon. I find that inexcusable, at least without a legitimate technical reason (hard to imagine, since Nikon can work the magic with any combination of camera/lens).
Please see my April 5 blog entry for background on the color fringing seen in the two Canon EF 16-35L models. Shown below is a frame taken with the EOS 5D and the original model 16-35 f/2.8L. Mouse over the image to see without/with color aberration correction from DPP 3.2. All traces of red and cyan fringing disappear, though the sharpness leaves a lot to be desired
© Copyright 2007 digLloyd, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in any form requires explicit, written permission. No part of this document may be copied, distributed, disseminated in any form, electronic or tangible, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of digLloyd, Inc or its authorized representative.