Canon EOS 600D

[Hombre de Maiz]

http://www.photokina-show.com/news_images/00824_600d-review.jpg


So I took the plunge and bought me a Canon 600D camera body. So far, so good. The most impressive thing so far is the ISO performance. No hesitation or dramas from using ISO6400. This camera with a 18MP sensor offers better ISO performance than my 8MP 350D from a few years ago. Amazing performance from the sensor.

The Auto ISO feature, something that Nikon cameras have had for while, is nice too. Takes 1080p HD video (with manual audio control) too, but I haven't tried it yet.

The flip screen is only mildly useful. What I don't care for is the small sidegrip, and the layout of some of the buttons in the back. Other than that, thumbs up!


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll96/mauricio_28/IMG_0388.jpg

[El_Goretto]

It's nice little camera but how is the weather proofing? I recommended this one to a colleague and he absolutely loves it.

In regards to the swivel LCD, you will find it useful for taking video. Unless you go all out and rig it up with a shoulder mount and external monitor.

[Hombre de Maiz]

Weather-proofing is the lowest level among the three-tier Canon camera line...

[beebop]

i use the 60D (same sensor as your camera) and i find the noise to be quite a lot. but its my first camera ever so maybe you can compare the noise i am getting and tell me what im doing wrong or if it is acceptable? this picture was taken in natural light at ISO 800, and there is also a 100% crop. they are unedited so i know the noise can be reduced in PP but i want to share the out of camera image. meta data should be intact:

http://ploader.net/files/c6b7b4477506f80b3c2a190603cf74f1.jpg (http://ploader.net/#c6b7b4477506f80b3c2a190603cf74f1.jpg)

http://ploader.net/files/a58be1d6bbc6cb80de424912d73654b0.jpg (http://ploader.net/#a58be1d6bbc6cb80de424912d73654b0.jpg)

[lone_ranger]

Beebop, for a camera with a pixel pitch of 4.3 micro-m in an APS-C sized sensor, that is actually very, very good (about the same pixel pitch as the Olympus micro 4/3 Pen). That noise would virtually disappear with some minor post-processing in Lightroom or Photoshop. However, anytime you're shooting ISO 800 or higher you may want to go raw instead, since it is more amenable to noise reduction. I switched to LR 3 recently and it's like I've gained another extra stop with my current SLR! Highly recommended. Better than the Nik Dfine plug in that I used previously. Personally I think Canon lost the plot when they started designing APS-C sensors with more than 12 megapixels, which is why I love the big fat virtually noiseless pixels in my Nikon D700 (only 12 MP but more than enough for my needs). You get the same in the original EOS 5D Mark 1.

[Hombre de Maiz]

My first DSLR was an 8MP Canon 350D in late 2005, and I can tell you that despite its lower resolution (a full 10MP less), it had worse noise/ISO performance than my current 600D. Perhaps we have different perception/tolerance for noise, but I don't see a problem with the picture and crop that you posted. Nice pic, by the way. Those are the moments when a large aperture prime shines. Shooting RAW will help, as well as over-exposing a bit(without blowing out highlights, of course), and then pulling back in PP. On the other hand, pushing an underexposed shot in PP will increase noise in the shadows, precisely in the area that you posted as a 100% crop.

[lone_ranger]

I think Canon made some significant strides with gapless microlens sensors in the interim. That was almost required to match the performance of large pixel full frame devices. I just wish they had given the option of using the latest sensor technology in a lower pixel count camera (10-12 MP), on the order of perhaps 7 to 8 micro-m pitch size. That would give crazy high ISO performance.

[beebop]

I think Canon made some significant strides with gapless microlens sensors in the interim. That was almost required to match the performance of large pixel full frame devices. I just wish they had given the option of using the latest sensor technology in a lower pixel count camera (10-12 MP), on the order of perhaps 7 to 8 micro-m pitch size. That would give crazy high ISO performance.

that would be one good selling camera. i only got the 60D because i lost out on a 5D mk1 deal. btw i only ever shoot in RAW and from all the softwares i have tried, ACR (adobe camera raw) has given me the best noise reduction results. i dont like exposing to the right. i find it ruins skin textures even if it doesent blow out any highlights. and in outdoor photography the sky can even get blown out at 1 stop under exposure in most scenes. outdoor is my weakness. i think Mr. El_Goretto has that department pinned

[rabbit_39]

ETTR is just a tool to be applied appropriately. :-D I find that +0.7 on my old D50 works 75% of the time without thought. When I remember that the scene is high dynamic range, I have to think about which other tools to apply to expose properly.

[El_Goretto]

that would be one good selling camera. i only got the 60D because i lost out on a 5D mk1 deal. btw i only ever shoot in RAW and from all the softwares i have tried, ACR (adobe camera raw) has given me the best noise reduction results. i dont like exposing to the right. i find it ruins skin textures even if it doesent blow out any highlights. and in outdoor photography the sky can even get blown out at 1 stop under exposure in most scenes. outdoor is my weakness. i think Mr. El_Goretto has that department pinned

Thanks for the compliment :)

In regards to the sky, it all depends on the location and time of the day. If you shoot into the sun, your sky will be very bright compared to your ground. The range between the brightest area and the darkest area of your seen will be really wide and way outside of the camera's range. So you have to choose: expose for the sky or for the ground. If you expose for the ground, your sky will be too bright. If you expose for your sky, the ground will be too dark. I say ground but it could be any subject other than the sky itself.

3 solutions:
1. Shoot with the sun in your back. This way the scene will be lit more evenly. Also shooting on a bright day at noon makes it very difficult. Overcast sky is best.
2. Expose for the sky and fill your subject with a flash.
3. Shoot multiple exposure from -2 to +2 and merge in Photoshop or other programme dedicated to HDR merge (like photomatix). Does not really apply to portraits though.

In regards to the noise on your camera, I find it ok. I second lone_ranger about Lightroom 3. The new noise reduction processor is very powerful and LR also has many other added benefits that Camera Raw doesn't. It's pretty much a mix between Camera Raw and Bridge + many extra features. Highly recommended. I usually import and manage my pictures in LR, then edit them in LR and rarely use Photoshop anymore (unless I need to do some heavy lifting or HDR merge).
2

[K&M]

I always used to carry a graduated filter, nobody use them nowadays?

[lone_ranger]

If the contrast isn't too great, I can get better results using the Gradient brush in Lightroom 3. I don't use grad filters that much anymore. If contrast is beyond the dynamic range of my sensor, I just take multiple bracketed exposures and merge later using Nik HDR Efex Pro.

[Hombre de Maiz]

The only use I can think nowadays for a neutral density filter is to when you want to increase the exposure time and you do not want to stop down the lens any further (because diffraction would start degrading resolution).

[beebop]

The only use I can think nowadays for a neutral density filter is to when you want to increase the exposure time and you do not want to stop down the lens any further (because diffraction would start degrading resolution).

At what apertures does diffraction usually start to affect your pictures? This is one thing that i feel degrades alot of my pictures. Does diffraction properties differ from lens to lens? What lens can you recommend as far as diffraction is concerned?

[Hombre de Maiz]

Driffraction is a function of lens aperture, sensor pixel size (and light wavelength or "color"). It is not a function of lens focal length, sensor size or of lens design. It is determined by the fundamental laws of physics. Unless absolutely necessary (and even then I try to avoid it), I never go into the double digit aperture range (i.e. f/10 and above), and hardly ever above the typical lens sweet spot of f/5.6 (unless I am shooting landscapes where maximum depth of field is desirable/essential). Here's a tutorial that explains photographic lens diffraction: Lens Diffraction and Photograph (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm)

[rabbit_39]

I'm with Hombre, I like using depth of field to separate the components and help with the design flow of the image. Except for one super zoom (I needed the 300mm focal length), all of my lenses are f/2.8 or larger.

[Hombre de Maiz]

When shooting in Aperture Priority (most of my shooting), I typically shuttle back and forth two lens apertures, the maximum lens aperture and the maximum optical quality aperture. So, 95% of my shots (unless I am shooting landscapes) will either be at f/2.8 or at f/5.6 with my 16-35L zoom lens. On the 35L, the two working apertures are f/1.8 and f/4 (where it is already stopped down three full stops). On the 70-200 4L IS zoom lens, the improvement in image quality from stopping down is so marginal that it lives wide open at f/4. Ditto for the 135L at f/2.

[lone_ranger]

At what apertures does diffraction usually start to affect your pictures? This is one thing that i feel degrades alot of my pictures. Does diffraction properties differ from lens to lens? What lens can you recommend as far as diffraction is concerned?

Depends on the pixel size. At the extreme end I have a "point and shoot" Canon S95 that is diffraction-limited below F2.0. On a full frame camera with, say, a 50mm lens you'd be diffraction limited at close to F11. Typically for DSLRs staying within two stops below the maximum aperture is a good starting point. That would be the sweet spot.