Chuck Westfall answers questions regarding Canon 5D Mark III

[yakim_peled1]

<p>http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/AH_CW_interview/</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>Interesting that DPP also gets the ability to do HDR, a relief because I have not seen any in-camera JPEGs from the 5D III that actually looked sharp (they really look like 10 megapixel images resized to 22 megapixels). It would be nice if DPP could also do that based on files from earlier cameras.<br /> The Digital Lens Optimizer sounds interesting, but will not work with raw files from the old 5D! What information does the 30D include that the 5D does not? Shooting distance information? Too bad, because the current Lens aberration correction function simply allows you to drag the shooting distance slider. Anyway, I'll be out of luck with my 3rd party lenses. Of course, if this DLO is indeed a great improvement it will be more attractive to buy those ever more expensive Canon EF lenses instead of Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Cosina-Voigtlander or Samyang. An interesting note is that CR2 files will increase 2-3 times in size after applying DLO. Wonder what happens there...</p>

[zml]

<p>CW vs. Fake CW...tough choice...<br /> :-)<br /> Seriously and on a related note, a new piece of software, ImageBrowser EX 1.0.1 for Windows should be available from Canon but the D/L links seem to be shot.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>The lens optimizer sounds interesting indeed. Sounds like DXO on steroids. I'm all for squeezing more info out of existing gear for free. </p>

<p>But I don't understand why it outputs a .cr2 file 2-3x the size? Why is the output not tiff? Is it not part of the demosaicing process?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Yet... As usual</p>

<p><em>no comment on Canon's future plans or products....</em></p>

[doug_landrum]

<p>Thanks for the informative link, Yakim. My 7D remains a breakthrough product. No comment on future plans to purchase additional Canon gear.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Yet... As usual<br>

<em>no comment on Canon's future plans or products....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nothing new here. Canon was never a company that discloses future plans or products. You might have guessed that I posted the link for his other replies. :-)</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

 

[lester_wareham]

Interesting to see that the af at f/8 issue has been "forwarded".

 

It will be a boon to see that added into a future 7D II body say, it still looks as if wildlife shooters that need pixel on target

will still be tending towards a crop body for the foreseeable future.

[bobatkins]

<p>Canon have never put AF at f8 in any consumer orriented SLR or DSLR. Apart from the EOS-3 it's always been an "EOS-1" feature only. If they did enable it on the 1-D X and even maybe on the 5D MkIII, I doubt it would trickle down to the 7D series.</p>

<p>Whether it's even "doable" isn't known. For accurate AF at f8, that capability has to be designed into the AF sensor hardware. It's not a software issue. What is a software issue is where the AF cuts off. It could be possible to allow AF at f8, but not with the precision and certainty that you would get at f5.6. Whether Canon would be open to having an AF that wasn't quite up to their normal specs is questionable. They would be opening themselves up to complaints if it wasn't 100% perfect or even if it wasn't as good as it is at f5.6.</p>

<p>"Forwarded to Japan" doesn't mean it will be done. Lots of ideas and market feedback comments are sent to Japan and never get acted on. However some are, so there's always a chance.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>AF at f/5.6 isn't "100% perfect" now on either the 5D MkII and the 7D. Both slow down noticeably when I add my 1.4x TC to my 500mm/f4. It's clear that Canon doesn't use a "100% perfect" standard.</p>

<p>Even on recent "pro" bodies, the f/8 AF only worked with the center AF point and the function slowed.</p>

[lester_wareham]

<p>No I agree with your points Bob, I am just observing that if Canon have a new policy of no f8 in pro and full frame then it might make sense to add to a high pixel density crop line for wildlife where reach is key. 7D II or a new super 7D line (at a price point hike), just speculation. Even slow f/8 CP only would be a reason to upgrade for some.<br>

I have also noticed f5.6 does not seem to be as good on the 7D in low light as my old 20D, normal light it is fine. So there also seems to be a AF speed vs light level/f-stop trade, not at all surprising. Perhaps there is a need for a fast/slow but positive AF option, this could probably be done in firmware.</p>

 

[digitmstr]

<p>I think their f/stop AF "policy" may have some to do with markets separation but, also with customers' expectations. </p>

[dcstep]

<p>The pixel-pitch of the 7D is already smaller than the D800. If you're going to crop anyway, then a FF doesn't make sense for wildlife. Perhaps if one wants to use the same body for birds and landscapes, then a high density FF sensor makes some sense, but then you get burdened with slower fps and large uncropped file sizes.</p>

<p>I'm really curious to see the 7D MkII. I'm likely to upgrade my 5D2 to a 5D3 and keep my 7D, but then I'll likely replace that with a 7D MkII if they improve high-ISO performance. Shooting AF at f/8 would be a benefit that I'd jump for and I guess the odds are up if the 1D MkIV disappears.</p>

[lester_wareham]

<p>David, yes this is my point, Canon have decided to focus on moderate pixel density on full frame and abandon the f/8 AF in favour of more general fp etc, that makes a lot of sense for the target market.<br>

It does leave the wildlife segment that need reach staying with the crop path for reach, that seemed to be the idea with the 7D anyway. So adding a crop with an f8 capability would add a market.<br>

Of course some wildlife work is not reach sensitive but is noise sensitive, people have been using 5D IIs preferentially for macro work for some time.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Lester, yes, we agree. "Reach" is a function of lens focal length and pixel-pitch. The crop factor has absolutely no impact on reach, it only relates to what portion of the lens' image circle is used by the sensor. So, between Canon and Nikon, the 7D is the "reach" champ, given equivalent lenses.<br>

The fly in the ointment, as you mention, is noise. The current generation 7D is very good in this regard, but it doesn't perform up to the level of the 5D2 and probably not close to the 5D3. (BTW, I own and use the 5D MkII and the 7D). With the new Digic-5 processor and the new pixel lens technology from the 5D3, combined with an even better AF system, bodes really well for the 7D MkII. I suspect that there'll still be a noise gap, due to the smaller pixels, but the gap will have narrowed again. Software advances should also help with the 7D's tendancy to produce moire in certain relatively common detail situations (like on feather or fur detail). Hopefully, the price won't bound too far from it's current place, but given the yen/dollar changes in the last few years, I'm not optimistic.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>My sister-in-law (at Tulane) just ordered a 5D Mk III. She Facebooked me today about this... sort of cruel to me... I hope Canon hurries up the long awaited 7D II (if only to prove the 7D classic was not a flop).</p>

<p>Assuming you have everything except the mythical 5D Mk III (or Mk II 7D) -- is the 35 1.4L a must have? I lack that. I think it would make a top lens for my indoor beer bar photos -- always so dark inside there. I'd use it as well with the EOS-3. (but never with a Kiron lens)</p>

<p>Sorry for the hijack and my random thoughts.</p>