# Any new news about Canon 1D X f/8 AF?



## jrista (May 6, 2012)

Its been a while, and we have not yet heard anything from Canon about the 1D X, particularly its AF system that seems to be lacking f/8 AF. I like my Canon cameras, but Canon seems to be falling farther and farther behind Nikon in the area of technological excellence...including AF. Nikon's new 51pt AF systems seem to have multiple f/8 sensitive AF points...will the 1D X remain competitive and get multiple f/8 AF points in its new 61pt AF system as well? Speaking for bird photographers everywhere...the loss of f/8 AF will be a pretty severe blow for supertele+TC users... :'(


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2012)

They have not said anything about a redesign of the AF system, it took years to develop, so its not a likely event that it would be scrapped on short notice.

I've done testing with my 5D MK III using taped contacts, and the AF system is basically incapable of consistent focusing at f/8. I did have reasonable focusing with my old non-IS 70-200mm f/2.8, but not with any of my other L telephotos.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2012)

i tested my new 5Dmk3 with the 70-200 and a canon 2x TC stacked with the kenko 1.4 TC and definatley no sign of AF at f8  so i wouldn't hold my breath for f8 AF on the 1Dx I dont think its as simple as flicking a switch in the firmware otherwise i am sure magic lantern would have enabled it on all the other cameras.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They have not said anything about a redesign of the AF system, it took years to develop, so its not a likely event that it would be scrapped on short notice.



Seeing the af performance @f8 on my humble 60d, I guess Canon is not fixing the hardware, but optimizing the firmware - my 60d works ok @f8 if multiple af points have got the subject, but it's very tricky in bad lighting conditions with just one. But for a "pro" body, Canon cannot release a 1dx w/ af @f8 and say "your mileage may vary"... maybe they figure out a way to enable or disable it based on lighting conditions, so it either really works or not at all?


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

Canon let me used a 1D X last week at the Florida's Birding & Photo Fest 2012 in which I was part of the speakers group.

I talked to them about the f/8 issue and the answer was the same. It's because the way they have the AF points.

Here is an image with a non-production body.


----------



## Shnookums (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> I talked to them about the f/8 issue and the answer was the same. It's because the way they have the AF points.



I guess that for what you do, f/8 AF is important. Do you consider it an issue or not? Considering the 1Dx will be a great camera. Can it replace your 1DIV?


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

Shnookums said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > I talked to them about the f/8 issue and the answer was the same. It's because the way they have the AF points.
> ...



The AF is lightning fast and just locks! I probably had about 3 images out-of-focus during my overnight used of the camera.

I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm. I'll keep my 1D MKIV and 5D MKIII for landscapes.


----------



## briansquibb (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> I'll keep my 1D MKIV and 5D MKIII for landscapes.



+1 I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person thinking that way


----------



## xROELOFx (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> Shnookums said:
> 
> 
> > Maxis Gamez said:
> ...



can you explain to me why? is it because of the lack of the cropfactor? or the more shallow DOF?
wouldn't a 1D X with a 1.4 extender almost be the same as a 1D mk. IV? (like in autofocus speed, image quality etc.)


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm.



I can understand that. Do you think you'd get a 7d (or an upgraded 7d) if a 1.3x crop doesn't happen again?

Just wondering what bird photographers will buy next..


----------



## tron (May 8, 2012)

It's a shame! It will be difficult to find a secondhand 1DmkIV at a reasonable price


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

xROELOFx said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > Shnookums said:
> ...



Hi,

If you use a 600mm lens with a 1.4x TC attached to a 1D X, you’ll get 840mm at f/5.6 while with the same set up with the 1D MKIV is 1092mm at f/5.6 with an excellent AF performance.

You won’t be able to use a 600mm with a 2x TC anymore so that’s out of question. Same goes with the 500mm.
I truly don’t see a reason to sacrifice 252mm by using the 1D X.

In other words

600mm X 1.4= 840mm (1D X with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
600mm X 1.3= 780mm (1D MKIV – f/4) – No tele-converter attached.
600mm X 1.3 X 1.4= 1092mm (1D MKIV with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
600mm X 1.3 X 2= 1560mm (1D MKIV with a 2x TC – f/8) with a not so great AF. Single point.
800mm X 1.3 X 1.4= 1456mm (1D MKIV with a 1.4x TC – f/8) with a decent AF. Single point.

As you can see, a big difference.

Thanks!


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm.
> ...



Before I upgraded to the 1D MKIV, I used a 7D. I still have it actually.

I recently posted a picture on *Facebook* about that.


----------



## xROELOFx (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> xROELOFx said:
> 
> 
> > Maxis Gamez said:
> ...


i see your point, thanks for your quick reply!


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > I still believe using a full frame for bird photography is not ideal even using a long lens like my 800mm.
> ...



If Canon drops the 7D line, and does not bring back a 1.3x crop camera, and really does indeed intend to drop f/8 AF in their Pro bodies, I think bird photographers on Canon gear are just SOL. I have a 7D now, and I would stick with that until the day it dies. I'd pick up a 1D IV if I could (they are getting rather hard to find...seems a lot of people still want the 1-series performance with a crop factor). In the absence of f/8 AF on any body and the loss of pro-grade crop bodies, I might move to Nikon. I really don't like that thought (I like Canon gear and ergonomics), but if Canon decides to ditch the bird photographers, I think bird photographers will have to ditch Canon. Reach is probably the most important factor for a birder, and being able to AF at maximum reach (which is often 600mm + 2x TC + CF... 1920mm on 1.6x or 1560mm on 1.3x) is critical. Nikon seems quite happy and capable of providing multiple f/8 sensitive AF points in their 51pt AF system, which is used on quite a few bodies.


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > Maxis Gamez said:
> ...



Hang in there... I'm sure something is coming. Maybe not until late 2013 but They are well aware of our frustration. Trust me!


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > PhilDrinkwater said:
> ...



Well thats VERY good to hear.  Thanks for the update, btw. The lack of f/8 aside, how did you like the 1D X in general? If Canon made an APS-H version of the 1D X, would it fill the role as a birders body?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> 600mm X 1.4= 840mm (1D X with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
> 600mm X 1.3= 780mm (1D MKIV – f/4) – No tele-converter attached.
> 600mm X 1.3 X 1.4= 1092mm (1D MKIV with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
> 600mm X 1.3 X 2= 1560mm (1D MKIV with a 2x TC – f/8) with a not so great AF. Single point.



600mm X *1.5* X 2= *1800mm* (D800 with a 2x TC – f/8) with *multiple cross-type AF points* after cropping to the same 16 MP as the 1D MKIV.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



The camera AF System is extremely fast. I would love to own this body but not as full frame.


----------



## briansquibb (May 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > 600mm X 1.4= 840mm (1D X with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
> ...



Not enough fps tho


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > 600mm X 1.4= 840mm (1D X with a 1.4x TC – f/5.6)
> ...



And only 4fps...I'll pass. ;P I'd LOVE a D800E for landscapes, given its DR...but even the 8fps of the 7D is sometimes a bit slow. I don't think I'd be able to stand 4fps. I think even the 6fps of the 5D III is probably at the edge of the lower limit on FPS for birding. Its amazing how much a fine, nuanced movement of a birds head or posture can make or break a photo.

(And thats nothing to say of the space requirements of using the D800. If I spend a day out photographing birds around a Colorado lake or reservoir, I can fill 4 16Gb CF cards, and as much as 6 cards if there is a lot of BIF. The 7D gets about 610 RAW shots per CF card, so thats about 2500-3600 photos. That would be *175Gb to 252Gb of photos a day*, or 10-16 16Gb CF cards, if I was using the D800! Every five shoots would fill up a 1Tb drive...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2012)

Just playing devil's advocate.  I am getting a 1D X (which will replace my 5DII)...would I like f/8 AF? Sure. But...I'm keeping my 7D for birds/wildlife shooting.


----------



## npc2396 (May 8, 2012)

Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D? I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 8, 2012)

npc2396 said:


> Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D? I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.



I used it for 2 1/2 years before upgrading to the 1D MKIV.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 8, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> Hang in there... I'm sure something is coming. Maybe not until late 2013 but They are well aware of our frustration. Trust me!



1.5 years is a long time in the technology market - while it is fine that Canon is listening to customers now and then, I'm not really confident because they've gotten caught with their pants down twice now considering the d800/[email protected]$ and 1dx/af8 issues. But maybe that's too much concentrating on weaknesses.


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

npc2396 said:


> Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D? I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.



Well, the "complete" negation argument is _just plain false_. From a spatial resolution standpoint, you would have to have a 47.6mp FF sensor to be able to crop out the center 18mp to match a 7D (both of which would have a 116lp/mm native spatial resolution (a bit less if you factor in the low pass filter)). Assuming you had a 47.6mp FF sensor, using the same lens on both cameras, if you fill the frame on the 7D with say a 600/4, then you could use the same lens on the FF and crop out the center 18mp and end up with an identical photo. *Only then* could you actually claim "complete negation" of the 7D's resolution advantage. The 5D III is actually at a disadvantage spatially (80lp/mm), which is the very reason why you need a longer lens (960mm) to get the same "framing" as you might with the 7D and a shorter lens (600mm). 

If you are lucky enough to own an 800mm lens, the 5D III will probably serve you well...but you would be stuck with 800mm. You couldn't slap on a teleconverter and get more (since you would then be at f/8, and could no longer AF). You could use a 600mm f/4 with a 1.4x TC and get 840mm, but your still short of that 960mm you would need to actually fully negate the 7D's resolution advantage. And thats nothing to speak of the additional advantage of the 7D with the same 600/4 + 1.4x TC, which gives you an effective 1344mm. One way or another, the 7D has a reach advantage you just can't match with the 5D III, or for that matter even the 36.3mp D800.


----------



## briansquibb (May 8, 2012)

npc2396 said:


> Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D? I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.



The 7D hasn't got f/8 AF so it is down realistically between the 1D4 and the 1DX/5DIII

The 7D is a compromise for birding


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> npc2396 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D? I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.
> ...



Somewhat. You still get the extra crop factor, and a bit of extra reach, so its a compromise, but not really a bad one. I would prefer a 1.3x CF with f/8 AF though (or, if it was possible...not sure it is...f/8 AF and a 1.6x CF).


----------



## briansquibb (May 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > npc2396 said:
> ...



The 1D4 wins out on the low light stakes - doing iso 6400 without breaking a sweat


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Hmm, good point. Thats one of the things that is a bummer with the 7D...it only Auto ISO's up to 3200, and 3200 is pretty rough to boot.


----------



## npc2396 (May 8, 2012)

jrista said:


> npc2396 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that prefers birding with a 5DIII over a 7D? I had both and there was just more detail available in the 5DIII then the 7D which negated the crop advantage of the 7D completely.
> ...



I do not disagree. I am saying take a picture using a 500mm and 5dIII and another with the 7D at a reasonable distance. You will keep the one with the 5dIII. The 5D looks better at 100% than the 7D looks at 50% crop, thus coming close on size. Even at iso 400 i would take the 5D.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

npc2396 said:


> I do not disagree. I am saying take a picture using a 500mm and 5dIII and another with the 7D at a reasonable distance. You will keep the one with the 5dIII. The 5D looks better at 100% than the 7D looks at 50% crop, thus coming close on size. Even at iso 400 i would take the 5D.



"at a reasonable distance"

Thats what I'm talking about, though. To get the "same shot" with both cameras, you would need to be 50-60% closer with the 5D III than with the 7D. That is a BIG difference, and when it comes to birds on the water, you often don't have the option to get within a "reasonable distance". In such cases, it ultimately boils down to getting a decently framed shot you can use...even if it might be a bit noisy (7D), vs. getting a shot where the bird is only a small fraction in the center of the frame, thus resulting in an image that is smaller in area with less detail...even if that detail is less noisy (5D III). In that case, I'd take the 7D any day over the 5D III. 

A 50% difference in distance can also mean that your songbird or raptor flies away because your too close...you've punctured their comfort zone. Again, you could get the shot with the 7D, but you would likely miss it entirely with the 5D III. Reach is one of the most valuable thing in bird photography. The 7D has it in spades, and even if the IQ isn't as good as the 5D III, it can mean the difference between getting the shot and not. Missing a shot is the worst outcome possible.


----------



## xROELOFx (May 9, 2012)

so how good is the AF on the 1D mk. IV at f/8, for example with a 500mm and a 2.0 tc?

i'll probably buy a 500mm in the next couple of days and was researching for a successor for my 7D. either the 1D mk. IV or the 5D mk. III. as i figured, i can crop an image from the 5D3 to 16MP (it would have a cropfactor of 1.375) and would have about the same reach as the 1D4 (not including f/8 AF support).

i have not used the 1D4, neither the 5D3, but almost everywhere i read the IQ of the 5D3 beats that of the 1D4. so would a cropped 5D3 image be better (or equal) of that of a 1D4 image? i guess i should rent both camera's when i have the 500, to figure it all out


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

xROELOFx said:


> so how good is the AF on the 1D mk. IV at f/8, for example with a 500mm and a 2.0 tc?
> 
> i'll probably buy a 500mm in the next couple of days and was researching for a successor for my 7D. either the 1D mk. IV or the 5D mk. III. as i figured, i can crop an image from the 5D3 to 16MP (it would have a cropfactor of 1.375) and would have about the same reach as the 1D4 (not including f/8 AF support).
> 
> i have not used the 1D4, neither the 5D3, but almost everywhere i read the IQ of the 5D3 beats that of the 1D4. so would a cropped 5D3 image be better (or equal) of that of a 1D4 image? i guess i should rent both camera's when i have the 500, to figure it all out



Technically speaking, you would have to crop out the center 13.3mp area (4464x2976 pixels) to have the same effective spatial area as the 1D IV. But your still going to be at a spatial resolution disadvantage...80lp/mm for the cropped 5D III area vs. 88lp/mm for the 1D IV's full sensor. To exactly match the 1D IV with a full-frame sensor when cropping, you would need a 26.6mp FF sensor, which would have the same 88lp/mm spatial resolution.

Keep in mind, raw IQ is not the only factor in "getting a good shot". Camera A may have stellar IQ, but only a 4fps frame rate and only 10 continuous frames, with limited reach (1.0x crop). That could significantly limit your ability to get a keeper in the first place. In that case, Camera B, which great IQ (but maybe not quite "stellar"), a 10fps frame rate and 30 continuous frames as well as extra reach (1.3x crop), is the much better camera. You have a higher chance of capturing that perfect moment that just _"makes"_ the photograph. I'd sacrifice a little bit of IQ any day for Camera B, as its a better tool for the kind of photography I'm doing. 

I personally use the 7D, more because it was within budget than anything (and left me with enough extra money to buy accessories, extra batteries, bunches of CF cards, flash, etc. I would LOVE a 1D IV though...) I find it to be an awesome camera, despite the fact that it definitely does not have the best IQ. In high SNR areas (i.e. a bird itself), its IQ is great, but it has the tendency to speckle noise around in bokeh areas and it just looks terrible. I've learned, however, that that is a moot point. Noise can be cleaned up, by a variety of means (standard noise removal and a bit of quick masking and Gaussian blur in photoshop completely eliminate all noise from even an ISO 3200 7D shot.) Don't let potential IQ bottlenecks hold you back from getting the right tool for the job.

One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.


----------



## briansquibb (May 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.



Dont bet on significantly better high iso performance to 12800 - the 1D4 is still clean to there.

Where the 1D4 will claw back is on the auto iso keeping iso to a minimum when you set the shutter speed and aperture - and you get ec at the same time. This is something the 5DIII hasn't got.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > One area where the 5D III would definitely win out is in the high ISO category. Pretty much all Canon cameras perform the same at ISO 100-400 due to whatever limitation Canon has in their sensor design that prevents them from improving DR past ISO 400. If you regularly shoot birds in rather low-light situations, I would expect the 5D III to do better at ISO 6400-25600 (not to mention getting the extra stop of native ISO to boot.) I think I could have used ISO 6400 and maybe 12800 on some of the darkest days I've photographed birds.
> ...



Ah, yes. The Auto ISO/EC is really a nice feature. Its too bad Canon won't put that in their other pro-grade bodies. I can understand not putting it in a Rebel...but damn, make it a standard pro feature.


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Auto ISO?? what's the advantage of that?


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Auto ISO *with* _exposure compensation_ in Manual mode. The combination of the two is useful. I think only 1-series Canon DSLR's get that feature. I certainly don't have EC in M with Auto ISO on my 7D anyway.


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Auto ISO *with* _exposure compensation_The combination of the two is useful.



Can you give us an example?

Thanks!


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Auto ISO *with* _exposure compensation_The combination of the two is useful.
> ...



1. Manual Mode, 1/1000th shutter, f/7.1:
2. Auto ISO selects ISO 800

With evaluative metering, the scene is a bit too dark. You need the DOF of f/7.1, and you can't go below 1/1000th because your already as low as you can go to freeze all but the birds wing tips. You don't have the option of using flash.

3. Use EC to bump ISO up to by 2/3rds of a stop

Correct exposure now, but its still not manual ISO, so when that cloud passes in front of the sun a moment before you take the shot, evaluative metering compensates and it still exposes correctly. Oh, happy day, happy day. 

(All I would need then is a real-time histogram in the transmissive LCD of the viewfinder so I can identify the exposure discrepancy without having to take my eye away from the viewfinder at all to make the necessary exposure adjustments....oh, I would be in BIF HEAVEN!)


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Why not just change your shutter speed to whatever is needed to get a good exposure on your bird and leave alone the ISO? 

BTW, do you really need to FREEZE the wing tips? I certainly hope not as long as the subject is well exposed.






Canon 30D, Canon 400mm @ f/5.6, *1/30sec*, ISO 800 in Manual mode.

BTW. Thank you for your input and information.


----------



## briansquibb (May 9, 2012)

The way it works is:

Set shutter speed
Set aperture
Set auto iso

Regardless of the light then the camera will maintain the shutter speed and the aperture *by adjusying the iso*.

On the 1D4 you also get the option to set exposure compensation to ensure correct metering


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 9, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The way it works is:
> 
> Set shutter speed
> Set aperture
> ...



If I'm shooting in Manual (that's all I do) why would I want to sacrifice image quality and *noise* by allowing the camera to set different ISO's?

That's what I don't understand.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maxis Gamez said:
> ...



You missed what I said: Freeze all *BUT* the wing tips. I WANT the slower shutter so I can get some blur in the wings to demonstrate their motion...hence the benefit of being able to use EC in manual mode and indirectly adjust ISO. 
[/quote]


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The way it works is:
> ...



The use of Auto ISO allows the camera to correct exposure when moment-changes occur. I can't say how many times I ended up underexposing because a cloud rolled in front of the sun just before I started shooting. (For all my technical knowledge, I'm still a novice when it comes to bird photography...I understand the technical factors and techniques, I'm just not that great at using them in the field yet. ) For BIF, you really can't redo the shoot. Using Auto ISO and EC, the camera could automatically compensate for the change in lighting, but you still have ultimate control over exposure.

As for noise, generally speaking if you underexpose and lift exposure in post, you'll still usually end up with more noise. Digital exposure adjustment always affects noise as well (since at that point its baked into the RAW), so lifting an underexposed photo will have as much or potentially more noise than using a higher native ISO setting. At worst the end result is roughly the same, at best using Auto ISO+EC in camera would produce better results.


----------



## briansquibb (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The way it works is:
> ...



Bird flies from shade to sun - metering changes so without a change you would be over exposed. Auto iso will lower iso and *decrease* the noise and increase the IQ and get you the correct metering.


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 9, 2012)

jrista said:


> Maxis Gamez said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



Say you are shooting an Egret at 1/1000 sec @ f/8, with an ISO of 400. Perfect light and exposure confirmed by following the histogram…. Right?

A cloud comes in and diffuses the light. All I have to do is to reduce the shutter speed to say… 1/500 sec (one f/stop) and continue achieving a good exposure without sacrificing noise by allowing the camera to chance the ISO. If the cloud rolls out, my shutter speed will of course return to 1/1000 sec which I already know is a good 
and confirmed exposure based on the previous light.

That’s two or three click to the left and right on the top dial.

My point is that you can easily achieve the same results without sacrificing noise and more importantly…. Image quality.

Good talk!

Thank you


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2012)

If 1/500 s works for you in that shot, great. But if I need 1/1000 s for the effect I want to create with the shot, then a one stop lower shutter speed does not work for me. It's not a question of whether one can get a good result with a lower shutter speed, the issue at hand is I want to choose the shutter speed. That's what M mode is all about. Having exposure compensation easily accessible with the rear dial in M mode is convenient. Is it necessary? No. But for that matter, neither are autoexposure, autofocus, or high speed continuous shooting. But all of those are convenient, as would be EC in M mode.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> Say you are shooting an Egret at 1/1000 sec @ f/8, with an ISO of 400. Perfect light and exposure confirmed by following the histogram…. Right?
> 
> A cloud comes in and diffuses the light. All I have to do is to reduce the shutter speed to say… 1/500 sec (one f/stop) and continue achieving a good exposure without sacrificing noise by allowing the camera to chance the ISO. If the cloud rolls out, my shutter speed will of course return to 1/1000 sec which I already know is a good
> and confirmed exposure based on the previous light.
> ...



You could do that, but you have to keep in mind the side effects of changing shutter speed or aperture. Both are indeed used to adjust exposure, but they have distinct side effects. A lower shutter speed will increase blur...both blur from motion as well as blur from camera shake. A wider aperture will reduce your depth of field, potentially to the point where half your subject is out of focus when you wanted the whole thing in focus.

At 1/500th with a 400mm lens, I experience just enough camera shake blur when hand-held for it to blur detail when shooting hand-held, even with IS (admittedly, the IS on my 100-400 isn't a modern 4-stop version). Additionally, 1/500th of a second exposure can cause more wing motion blur than I want in some cases. I liked your 1/30th second shot of the heron, but you don't always need that low of a shutter speed to get a nice, artistic amount of motion blur in wings. A fast moving bird with a fast wing beat at 1/800th - 1/1000th produces enough of blur for my tastes most of the time. In that case, I really want to keep my shutter speed between a pretty narrow range, limiting my ability to adjust it if exposure correction is needed. If I require a specific aperture to achieve enough DOF to get a whole bird, say a large bird like a pelican, in focus while tracking it in flight, the only thing I can vary at that point without worrying I'll impose undesirable side effects is ISO.

I could certainly change ISO manually (and I always do, given that I use a 7D and don't have the option of EC in M), but if I had exposure compensation against Auto ISO in manual mode, that makes the adjustment so much easier. I don't need to drop into a specific camera mode to change ISO to my desired level, exit that mode, then focus/lock and track my subject. With EC, it would simply take the roll of a dial to achieve the exact same thing, but *without losing* the instantaneous ability to adapt to changing lighting circumstances. Its definitely a convenience thing...but convenience means I spend more time watching the birds (and getting keepers) and less time watching my settings.


----------



## briansquibb (May 9, 2012)

Maxis Gamez said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maxis Gamez said:
> ...



You are not listening - getting the camera do set the iso can *improve* the IQ and reduce the noise because it can react quicker than the shooter as the bird flies from shade to sun. You will always get the correct exposure and therefore more keepers

Your method of adjusting the shutter speed will change the blur and therefore the composition quality.

I would love to see how you adjust the shutter speed fast and accurately enough to capture a raptor coming out of the sun into the woods


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 10, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 1D4 wins out on the low light stakes - doing iso 6400 without breaking a sweat


 
Picked up a used 1D MK IV yesterday, only 1440 actuations, so its basically new. I bought it based solely on your recommendation, so I'm holding you responsible.  

Just as a hedge, I have a D800 coming next week to try out, but its a totally different camera. Ec in manual mode does seem to me to be a nice feature as is the AF point linked to the exposure meter.

At the same price as a 5D MK III, I think I will love the MK IV.

I'm in doubt about the D800 with respect to the editing of the very large files, but I'm thinking landscape for it. I will use the f/8 capabilities of the MK IV as well, but not the D800, since Nikon does not have any comparable lens to the 100-400L.


----------



## briansquibb (May 10, 2012)

Here is how to get manual + ec

Objective: Set set a minimum and maximum shutter speed. In Av mode if the shutter speed dropped below the mimimum then the ISO would be bumped up so that the minimum was reached again.

Method:

- enable safety shift (iso speed) C.Fn 1 - 8
- set shutter speed range C.fn 1 - 12 ( set the minimum shutter speed )

In the field:

- set the Av value
- set the base iso value (can be L so then it acts as auto iso)
- set exp comp as needed (yes we get exp comp and auto iso this way)


----------



## xROELOFx (May 10, 2012)

i think i will get a 1D mk. IV too. but i still don't exactly know what to expact of f/8 autofocus with a TC 2.0x. do any of you have experience with this? how good/fast is it?


----------



## briansquibb (May 10, 2012)

xROELOFx said:


> i think i will get a 1D mk. IV too. but i still don't exactly know what to expact of f/8 autofocus with a TC 2.0x. do any of you have experience with this? how good/fast is it?



I have tried it on the 1DS3 + 600 + 2x II. It was accurate but just a little slower. I didn't really look at the IQ in detail - the A4 print of a heron on a nest looked good to me,


----------



## stilscream (May 11, 2012)

1D mk IV AF at f8 is a little slower, but yes, it seems to be accurate. I have been using it for a few weeks, and as an ameature used to a 7d, I was not impressed with AF outside of single point to be frank. I just leave it on center point and adjust the framing. My 7d seems faster having to only deal with 19 points instead of the 1D Mk IV's 45 points. I am waiting for the 1Dx to be shipped and see how different the AF system is.


----------



## briansquibb (May 11, 2012)

stilscream said:


> 1D mk IV AF at f8 is a little slower, but yes, it seems to be accurate. I have been using it for a few weeks, and as an ameature used to a 7d, I was not impressed with AF outside of single point to be frank. I just leave it on center point and adjust the framing. My 7d seems faster having to only deal with 19 points instead of the 1D Mk IV's 45 points. I am waiting for the 1Dx to be shipped and see how different the AF system is.



It is so easy and quick to move the AF point around with the 1D4 that I persevered and that is the only adjustment I make on the fly. With the single AF point there is no way the 7D is faster.

Using the central point only would mean a 5DII approach to AF


----------



## Maxis Gamez (May 11, 2012)

Any AF will perform a little slower using a tele-converter. I use my 1D MKIV with the 400mm f/5.6 and 1.4x TC all the time with great success.

Here is an example during my Spoonbills & More Workshop.





*Canon 1D MKIV, Canon 400mm L @ f/8, 1/2000 sec, ISO 400 in Manual mode, Hand-held*


----------



## bchernicoff (May 11, 2012)

Last night just for the hell of it, I stacked my kenko 1.4x onto my canon 2x II onto my 400mm f/2.8 which gives an 1120mm f/8 lens. AF worked liked champ on my 5D Mk III.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Last night just for the hell of it, I stacked my kenko 1.4x onto my canon 2x II onto my 400mm f/2.8 which gives an 1120mm f/8 lens. AF worked liked champ on my 5D Mk III.



Sample images with EXIF? (Sorry to be a skeptic, but this is pretty much THE issue of the day for bird photographers, and the word from Canon has been pretty explicit this far: 61pt AF only works to f/5.6).


----------



## briansquibb (May 11, 2012)

I believe the Kenko fools the camera that there is no converter through some electronic wizardry.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I believe the Kenko fools the camera that there is no converter through some electronic wizardry.



I understand why it *might* AF at f/8 because of the Kenko...I am skeptical that it was "like a champ".


----------



## briansquibb (May 11, 2012)

jrista said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the Kenko fools the camera that there is no converter through some electronic wizardry.
> ...



Depends where you came from - perhaps better than a 5dII?


----------



## nikkito (May 12, 2012)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6478.0


----------



## bchernicoff (May 12, 2012)

I understand healthy skepticism, so I made a demonstration video and have uploaded two RAW files. The video shows the AF in action and towards the end I even focus on a moving jet after taking off, though it was in One Shot AF. Could have had a better result in Servo. Anyway, everything I was shooting was pretty far off. I should also test it on closer subjects with more complicated backgrounds. Let me know if there any specific scenarios you would like me to test. I suppose I can try the same extender stack on my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II and see if works...in fact I'll go do that now, while you are chewing this stuff over.

Oh, regarding the Kenko fooling the body... the camera shows f/8 and the EXIF records that, so at least at some level, the camera is aware.

video:
http://youtu.be/Q42Ppq6U63k

two RAW images:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32275661/9Z9C4459.CR2
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/32275661/9Z9C4464.CR2


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2012)

Well, @bchernicoff, I can't thank you enough!  That actually looked like it was rather difficult to record a video of the viewfinder while activating AF, so the effort is much appreciated. I'm pretty surprised by the speed, looks like it locked on pretty quick onto pretty much everything...so I have to agree...seems to focus "like a champ" (at least in that light!) 

Any chance you could try some lower-light tracking at f/8? Just to see how it might perform in a more real-world setting. 

Anyway, thanks again! Looks pretty awesome, and certainly good enough for birds in daylight.


----------



## bchernicoff (May 12, 2012)

I just tried it with my 70-200 IS Mk II in much lower light and with more complicated backgrounds just in case buildings at near infinity focus against the sky were too easy a subject... and the result is... Wow!

Another video...this one is less clear...parts of it black out as the cell phone camera looking through the viewfinder didn't get enough light, but stick with it. Also, I tried it indoors, handheld with just one lamp on and it works fantastic. 

I was using Aperture to read the EXIF information and by default it doesn't show the lens's max aperture. I enabled that field and for the extender stack with 400mm f/2.8, it shows f/5.66, however the body will only let you select f/8, so there is definitely some Kenko trickery going on. All I know is it works!
http://youtu.be/sPgF4f_knz8


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> I just tried it with my 70-200 IS Mk II in much lower light and with more complicated backgrounds just in case buildings at near infinity focus against the sky were too easy a subject... and the result is... Wow!
> 
> Another video...this one is less clear...parts of it black out as the cell phone camera looking through the viewfinder didn't get enough light, but stick with it. Also, I tried it indoors, handheld with just one lamp on and it works fantastic.
> 
> I was using Aperture to read the EXIF information and by default it doesn't show the lens's max aperture. I enabled that field and for the extender stack with 400mm f/2.8, it shows f/5.66, however the body will only let you select f/8, so there is definitely some Kenko trickery going on. All I know is it works!



I have to agree, seems to be working like a champ! I'm curious...it looked like you were using all of the AF points there in full auto selection mode? If so, that is really quite impressive, as many of those points are f/4 only points, IIRC. Very impressive indeed. Thanks! I still want to wait and see what Canon comes up with for a megapixel monster as competition against the D800 (for my landscape work), but you've put the 5D III back in the running as a serious contender for my next camera body (vs. the 1D IV, which given its price point even used, is looking little bit less appealing now). I may have to grab a 1.4x Kenko and try it on my 100-400 until I can afford something along the lines of a 600/4 II. I've heard the same kinds of things about the 100-400 and f/8 AF just not being viable using a pin-taping trick, but I figure its worth a try (at least, with Canon's new 61pt AF system.)


----------



## bchernicoff (May 12, 2012)

jrista said:


> I may have to grab a 1.4x Kenko and try it on my 100-400 until I can afford something along the lines of a 600/4 II.



Just be sure to order the right model (DGX) and read the post people in which people have had problems with them. It seems like they possibly did a silent update that has increased compatibility, so I would recommend ordering one new from Adorama (I bought mine through Amazon but the order was filled by Adorama).

http://www.adorama.com/KN14XPEOSDGX.html
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4977.0


----------



## jrista (May 12, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I may have to grab a 1.4x Kenko and try it on my 100-400 until I can afford something along the lines of a 600/4 II.
> ...



Thanks for the links. I'm definitely going to check that out. I've been thinking about the way AF is rated, and why Canon may not want to rate their new AF system for f/8. Generally speaking, I think AF systems works with more infrared light than visible light, and as such, they are capable of functioning to very low exposure values. I think most of the time Canon AF systems are rated for -1 EV operation, while Nikon's newer AF systems are rated for -2 EV operation. I am curious if the f/8 AF "limitation" is only once you start to approach this limit. Based on your videos, f/8 AF certainly seems to work great when there is a decent amount of light. 

I guess one could try to AF in full moonlight (which would be about -2 EV) on the 5D III or 1D X, or maybe a dimly lit room with dimable lights, etc. to see how f/8 AF works at those levels. I believe birds at or just after sunset are probably around 8-10EV, which is probably roughly the same as @bchernicoff's second video (maybe a bit darker), in which case f/8 AF and a Kenko TC with Canon's f/5.6 AF sensor is probably entirely viable for bird photographers.


----------

