Category: Camera and Equipment Reviews

I recently rented a Canon 16-35 f/4 IS lens for my trip to Coyote Buttes in southern Utah.  Since I knew I would be shooting swirling rock and large canyons, a 16mm is a necessity in this type of environment for good landscape photographs.  I discounted a number of other options.  The 16-35 II f/2.8 does not have a stellar reputation for sharpness.  The Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is really sharp but also has significant issues with CA.  The 14mm f 2.8 would have only usable for some shots.  I would have needed a different lens for many other shots.  The same applied to the 17mm TSE.  It’s a good lens but not very flexible.  The Zeiss 15mm is considered the sharpest lens of the bunch but again I would be limited in use.  The 16-35 f/4 seemed like the best of the options for what I was going to be shooting.

After using the lens for a week, I have to say I liked the lens a lot.  It is is significantly lighter and easier to hold than a 24-70 f/2.8.  It balances really well on the camera (in this case, a 5D MKIII) and the IS certainly comes in handy in certain situations.   The 16-35 f/4 delivers very sharp pictures.  I had very good sharpness except for the extreme corners at 16mm.  I had no issues getting sharp images at 1/30 and 1/60 second.  I used a tripod for images below that level.

I also tried out the lens on a couple of astrophotography shots. It has a lot less coma (lens aberration that elongates stars in the corners) than my 24-70 2.8.   While the 16-35 is still not perfect in this regard, it at least produces a usable photo.  I’d like to do further testing against one of the Rokinon lenses which are supposed to be much better in this regard in comparison to most of their Canon counterparts.    The downside of this lens for astrophotography, is of course, its maximum aperture of f4.  This means that to utilize the 25 second shutter speed rule to prevent star trails with this lens at 20mm or so, you will have to use ISO 6400.

The one downside I noted is that lens hunted a lot to focus on fine detail such as lines in the rock at close distances.  This could of been due to a couple of things: my rental lens was not up to snuff or the rock lines didn’t provide enough contrast to focus on. I didn’t have any issue focusing on larger objects like trees or mountains so again, I will have to do more testing to see what was causing this phenomenon.

Overall, I really like this lens and would consider adding it to my bag if I end up needing an ultra wide zoom on a regular basis.

I purchased a Canon 7D MKII, hoping that it would be the camera that I had dreamed the original 7D would be.  In other words, a smaller, more affordable body usable for sports photography.  The 7DII is an improvement on the original, but ultimately I found it suffered from some of the same flaws that led me to dismiss the 1st version.  By way of background, I am an all-purpose photographer.  I shoot portraits, weddings, sports, and nature.  I bought the 7D MKII to use primarily for sports and wildlife photography.  The advanced autofocus system, 10 FPS motor drive, weather sealing, and strong build quality led me to hope this camera would fill a niche.  And it almost does.  Unfortunately, I either got a body that needed some adjustment or Canon released a camera that wasn’t quite ready for prime time.  There’s a lot to like about the 7d MKII, but I couldn’t justify keeping it.  In time, maybe I will feel differently as RAW processors become available and AFMA software such as Reican Focal come out with updates for the body.

For this test, I mated the camera to my 70-200 2.8 II lens.  I used the 7D MKII at a volleyball tournament to test out the autofocus and performance of the camera.  I also shot a few landscape shots to assess image sharpness and dynamic range.   Here are some of my conclusions.

Build Quality and Handling

First, I have to say this is a well-made camera.  It feels hefty and solidly made.  Gone are the days of prosumer digital SLR cameras that felt like they would break just by holding them in your hand.  The controls are laid out very well and the buttons are intuitive.  Anyone who has used a 5D will feel right at home.  The camera is weather sealed robustly.  The only thing that worried me is that if I dropped the camera, the built-in flash would be the weak point.  Otherwise, this camera feels like a pro body.  I did not get a chance to use the new controller on the back to select autofocus points, however.

Autofocus

This camera has  a very similar autofocus system to the 5D MKII and the 1DX.  The autofocus menus and modes are almost identical to these cameras.  It has the extra processing chip, a la the 1DX, to allow for iTR metering and assist with autofocus.   The autofocus seems very fast and crisp.  I had very few totally out of focus images using the 70-200 2.8 II.  The problem came when I zoomed in and critically assessed the sharpness of the images.  Many were slightly out of focus.  This occurred even on almost stationary subjects like players serving.  I often had hands or balls in focus instead of the area where the center autofocus point was aimed at–the head and torso.  Here are a couple of examples.  The first shot is a small size jpeg of the whole image while the second shot is a 100% crop of the full size image showing the area of interest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here, the camera has gotten the ball in perfect focus, but it is in the top of the frame.  The center point was aimed at the player’s head and torso.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this image, again the camera seems to have just missed its mark.  The very bottom of the player is in focus while the top is out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This ‘m Here, I’m using a 400 f4 DO at f4.  The player is standing still but image is slightly soft.  This one is actually probably good enough to print, but it is still annoying to know it is not perfectly sharp on a stationary object.

Using the 400 f4 seemed to reduce the speed of the autofocus noticeably.   Losing the one stop of light really seemed to diminish the autofocus performance.  Autofocus performance without a 600 EX RT attached was also less than stellar in the dark conditions of a high school stadium.  This may have contributed to focusing issues as well.

High ISO

The camera produces slightly noisy files at ISOs above 800.  By the time you get to 6400, I wouldn’t use the camera at settings 6400 and higher without significant noise reduction being applied.  Unfortunately, since the file is not detail rich to begin with, this really muddles the files.  I applied very conservative noise reduction to the ISO 3200 files and it produced adequate results.  But with a full frame camera like the 5D MKMII, this is not even necessary until ISO 6400.

Image Quality

In addition to autofocus, I also came away with the impression that image quality is still lacking in Canon APS-C sensors.  In comparison to a Sony file or a Sigma DP Merrill, Canon sensors are lackluster when it comes to sharpness, and in particular, dynamic range.  The images below show dark shadows and blown out highlights.  In order to get a good landscape shot, you would have to use bracketed exposures and then combine them in a program like Photomatix to capture all the detail out of a scene.  This isn’t such a big deal in sports photography, but it really precludes using this camera for landscape or detail work.  I won’t give a conclusive finding on image quality of the 7D MKII, however, until RAW converters come out.  These are in camera jpegs.  But just eyeballing, I would say Canon has a ways to go in this respect.  The IQ is definitely better than the original 7D, but not significantly.

I recently had the opportunity to use a Phase One IQ160 and Phase DF+ camera system.  I wanted to get an idea of how the 60 megapixel files would compare to other cameras on the market so I also worked with a Canon 5D Mark III, a Nikon D800, a Sigma DP2 Merrill, and a Fuji XE-1.  Not surprisingly, the Phase One back came out on top with regard to image quality and dynamic range.  What might surprise you is what camera came in second.  The small, compact Sigma DP2 Merrill produced dizzingly sharp files with great color rendition and saturation.  These two cameras produced better looking images than the other three in the field.  The Sigma’s dynamic range is more limited, however.  The Nikon and Canon cameras ranked third and fourth respectively with the Fuji bringing up the rear.  Not that that is a bad spot to be.  The Fuji has a APS-C sensor compared to 35mm full frame sensors in the Canon and Nikon.  No camera in this unscientific test produced bad images.  I would rate all the images as being quite respectable in terms of sharpness and overall quality. All of the cameras produced usable files.

The overriding factor in doing this test was to see what advantages users of medium format digital backs have over the rest of us who have relied on 35mm digital sensors for the past decade.  The answer is quite a lot.  Back in the day, wedding photographers and other people who needed higher quality images relied on medium format film as the gold standard.  When digital cameras came into the mainstream a decade ago, most photographers abandoned medium format film in favor of the ease of use of digital technology.  When medium format digital backs came into being, most of us did not make step up due to the high cost.  Unfortunately, we may have sacrificed our standards to some degree.  For the past decade, the fine detail in wedding dresses, landscapes, and architecture has largely been rendered as blobs by 35mm sensors.  Yet we as photographers did not complain since our clients had largely ignored the loss of quality in return for the convenience and immediate gratification digital sensors could provide.

Medium format digital backs have changed that equation recently, however.  Pictures are rendered in stunning detail and the dynamic range of the sensors is unparalleled.  The fine detail that is capable of being captured is truly stunning.  Compared side by side, the clarity and sharpness of the files is readily apparent.  The good news is that all the cameras produced good to very good images.

To conduct the test, I photographed Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park, the Denver Botanic Gardens, and also shot models in a wedding fashion shoot in studio.  I was able to check out a Phase One DF+ camera and IQ160 back along with a 28mm, 55mm, 80mm, 110mm, and 75-150 zoom. I used a Nikon D800 with a 24-70m zoom, a Canon 5DMKII with a 24-70mm zoom, a 70-200 2.8 IS II, and a 24mm TSE II.  I used a Fuji XE-1 with the 18-55mm zoom and a Sigma DP2.  Since the Sigma has a fixed 30mm (45mm equivalent) lens, I tried to shoot a number of pictures as close to 45mm as I could on all the cameras.  I used Capture One 7.0 to convert RAW files except for the Sigma.  Sigma Photo Pro must still be used to convert the RAW files.  I then enlarged several of the photos on screen and compared them side by side.  I then cropped the photos and saved the files seen below.

Crop of images shot with Phase One 645 DF+ and IQ160

Crop of images shot on Canon 5D MKIII

Crop of images shot on Nikon D800

Crop of images shot on Sigma DP-2 Merrill

Crop of images shot on Fuji XE-1

First, my impressions of the Phase system were mostly positive.  Anyone who has used a Mamiya 645 system will find the controls very familiar.  Phase acquired Mamiya several years ago and the Phase body is largely a rebranded Mamiya 645AF II or III.  There have been minor improvements to the controls and autofocus, but it is largely the same camera.  This is both good and bad.  It is easy to use but autofocus remains an on and off proposition.  I found myself reverting to manual focus on several occasions because the camera hunted to focus.  It also missed focus on a few shots (front or back focus) when I left it in autofocus.  This is not ideal since I was shooting in a studio.  Phase has promised a completely revised body in the near future so hopefully this situation is temporary.  The set up time of the 645 system is also quite long.  It takes approximately 10 seconds for the back to power up and be ready to shoot.  This threw off my timing on more than one occasion.  I was ready to shoot but the camera wasn’t.  Once I figured out it was better to leave the camera on and not worry about battery life, this improved quite significantly.  I didn’t misfire on nearly as many shots.  The back takes just over a second to get ready between shots so it is not a device for rapid fire capture.  In comparison to a Canon 1DX, it is a tortoise to Canon’s hare.  But this camera simply isn’t designed to handle all shooting situations.  This minor delay didn’t prove to be an issue in the studio setting or outside taking landscapes.  If you need to bracket exposures for HDR or take pictures of moving subjects, the slow recycle time could become more of an issue.

The IQ back itself is very easy to use.  At first, I thought I would be thrown off by the lack of symbols on the back.  It has just four unlabeled buttons.  But navigating through the menus is quite simple and I got used to the blank button interface quickly.  The one thing I couldn’t figure out was how to use live view on my technical camera.

Editing RAW files has to be done in Phase One’s Capture One.  Its layout is similar to Lightroom and the program is quite powerful.  A number of edits can be made to files before exporting.  I found myself lost on more than one occasion in using it at first but eventually I became familiar with the basic controls.  A big thanks goes to Brian Muntz of Phase One for helping me through some of the finer points of the program.  The nice thing about Capture One is that any number of files form other camera brands can also be edited in Capture One.  The end results were very good. I found the resulting files to look just as good if not better than those produced in Lightroom.

 

Regensburger Photography is a full service photography studio providing innovative and stylish portraits, senior portraits, weddings, and more in the Denver metro area. If you are looking for someone to capture memories that last a lifetime, contact Regensburger Photography today at 303 478 -7586.

I recently had the opportunity to check out a Canon 1DX for a week.  I shot a couple of college basketball games with it and photographed some waterfowl at wildlife areas.  In short, it’s a very good camera.  Here are my basic conclusions.

1. Handling and operations: This camera feels great in your hand , albeit somewhat heavy.   The camera controls are laid out intuitively and anyone used to a 1D series will be be right at home.  Most necessary controls are selectable via buttons, with a couple of notable exceptions.  The older 1D cameras could change the picture quality setting via a button below the LCD.  That function has been removed in the 1DX.  Like all other Canon cameras, mirror lockup has to be accessed via a menu as well.  The other small flaw in the handling is that when using the vertical grip, it’s a little too easy to move the shutter speed setting while in manual mode, particularly annoying if you’re using a strobe.  Otherwise, this a tank that handles like a BMW.

2. Speed and performance: The 1DX is a blazing fast camera.  It can shoot at 12 FPS which is more than enough for sports and wildlife.  Aside from the full frame sensor, the autofocus system is the major update in the 1DX, and it is fantastic.  Once the camera locks on, it rarely loses focus.  It is amazing to see how many shots in a row the camera can take sharply in focus.  The camera gives the user 6 presets to choose from, varying the acquisition speed and other variables.  The one thing that isn’t perfect about the 1DX’s new focusing system is that it does not always lock on to focus instantaneously.  This is particularly true with small items such as ducks flying.  The camera failed to lock on even during a few sequences during a basketball game.  Overall, however, the performance of the autofocus system, even with a 400 f4 and 1.4 x converter, is truly amazing when compared to the previous models.

3. Image quality: Image quality is typical of Canon sensors.  The 1DX takes really sharp and contrasty files.   Its one big drawback is dynamic range.  Here in snowy Colorado this is something of an issue.  Expose for the sky, and the snow is whited out.  Expose for the snow, and sky is too dark.  This is mostly fixable in RAW processing but can present some issues.  I would also say that the 1DX underexposes slightly.  Color balance is great.

4. Battery life: At over 2000 shots per charge, battery life is excellent.

5. High ISO: Wow!  There is no issue with noise up through ISO 6400.   It is great for sports and low light portraits.

6. Comparison to 5DMKIII: The 5D is very comparable is many respects to the 1DX.  The focusing system on the 5D seems to acquire focus a little quicker but also loses focus more often.  That extra Digic processor is definitely doing something on the 1DX.  The 5D has a quieter shutter but isn’t in the same league speed wise.   The 1DX gives you more confidence that the shot won’t be missed. I read a post on another site that the 1DX doesn’t offer wildlife shooters any advantages.  I would disagree.  The ability to shoot 12 FPS and keep focus consistently locked on is a a definite advantage.  Image quality is very similar between the two cameras.  The 5D is good to about 4000 ISO as opposed to 6400 on the 1DX.  The 5D’s jpegs look better to my eye but there is virtually no difference when looking at RAW files.  The built-in vertical grip on the 1DX is nice but the extra bulk can be a disadvantage as well.  All in all, Canon has developed two really good cameras.