Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS 7D Firmware 2.0 Available for Download

« on: August 07, 2012, 04:48:48 PM »

Buffer rate increase is insane. it depends on how much info is recorded, but testing it, I got anywhere from 23 shots to 29 shots before the buffer was full.

Some other cool features, but nothing I really need. Still very nice to get this big of an upgrade for free.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Please recommend tips for capturing actions shots on a 5d mkii

« on: May 30, 2012, 12:52:17 PM »

If you want to catch action with the 5D II, you need to use the center focus point and AI Servo. You'll crop in post so the subject isn't in the center of the image. Use the best aperture/ISO combo to get a shutter speed of at least 1/500 (though you may be able to get away with 1/250).

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Image Review Camera vs Lightroom

« on: May 30, 2012, 03:23:04 AM »

Exactly. The power of RAW gives you full creative power. The in-camera processing is meant for jpeg. When you shoot RAW, what you see on the back of the camera is mainly a good judgment of what the outcome can look like. In jpeg, what you see is what you get, and you can make some adjustments.

You can create your own Picture Style that will better represent the RAW file. It isn't the defacto outcome, but it can help in understanding that you are in control if the image, and not the camera. I believe the histogram is a representation of the jpeg, but it can still help in seeing that you are not clipping the shadows or highlights.

If you want quick results, you can create develop presets that give that pre-processed look. But even then, you should mess around in LR to get the image you want. When I am shooting for my own fine art photography, all I am concerned about is getting a proper exposure. I apply no develop presets. But when I am shooting for editorial, I have presets that get a good overall image, and do WB and exposure myself and crop.

If you do shoot jpeg, those in-camera settings will be visable, but because of jpeg you will not have full control. Now I know LR, did recently add 5D III, so it may not be perfect, but you should be able to still get a great image.

The main thing is to not fully trust that the RAW file will look exactly like what you see on the back of the camera, but you can make it look that, and in RAW, can make it look like you want. RAW has a greater dynamic range so highlights and shadows can be corrected even though they may seem clipped. That does depend on the image and it's exposure, but you learn to know how your camera works.

I have worked very extensively in LR3, and LR4 is far greater. Of course, Adobe keeps updating it's software to better take advantage of new cameras. So the 5D III, may not be perfect yet in LR4, but I doubt the human eye can notice any flaws. If you do have LR4, or just tyring out the trial, keep on messing around. I would be willing to bet that once you figure it out, you will love LR.

I do teach private lesson, and have worked with pros on LR, but I truly believe that a proper understanding of RAW and LR will give you great results. Now only if Adobe and Canon would pay me for this thoughts

4

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Image Review Camera vs Lightroom

« on: May 30, 2012, 12:34:54 AM »

Simple solution, don't bother with things like HTP and ALO. Even WB doesn't even really matter when shooting RAW. And Picture Style is nice to get an idea of what a processed image could look like, but doesn't play any part in the RAW file. DPP (Canon's proprietary software) can read this info, but all you are doing is still letting the software process for you.

Since you are using LR, if you want to get images processed quickly, or at least at a starting point you like (and if you are indeed shooting RAW) then create presets that you can apply as you import the images.

I have a basic preset for my sports photos that I like to use. Because I need a fast turn around on them, I use this preset to get a very nice, but basic, process on them, and then I only have to do very slight work on them. Because I am not shooting jpeg, I can still adjust them to my liking and nothing is baked in. Now DPP's ability to use the in-camera settings is similar, I find that LR (a program with many professional photographers input and made by the largest and most popular imaging software company) is a far better program.

It is very simple to make these presets based off what you are shooting as well as the look you want to start with, ans the nice thing is you can customize them rather than going with what the camera setting think they should be.

Sorry to derail, but all I am trying to do is spread some knowledge. As for the OP, the answer has pretty much been made. Camera is not showing the full size jpeg, while LR, Bridge, etc. start by showing a basic low res jpeg and then render the full res RAW/jpeg.

5

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Image Review Camera vs Lightroom

« on: May 29, 2012, 10:44:43 PM »

@bdunbar79

You have to be joking. First off, the process version has to do with how LR/ACR is able to process the image. The 2012 process version is leagues beyond 2010. The camera profile is LR's recreation of the the in-camera Picture Styles. This is 100% optional, and in most cases Adobe Standard great. What camera settings are you wanting it to import? You know, you can create your own develop presets to apply to the images upon import.

As to the OP's question about LR loading the image, have you ever used LR with an image from another camera? Are you rendering 1:1 on import or standard or minimal? As stated before, your camera isn't showing the full res jpeg. If you aren't rendering 1:1 on import, LR has to render the image when viewing to fit screen or more longer for the 1:1 preview.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III & 1D X Black Focus Point in AI Servo Information

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:29:37 PM »

I honestly don't even think I noticed that they weren't red until I heard other people complaining about it.  I usually only used the center point with the 5DII so whether or not it was red was irrelevant.  But with the 5DIII the autofocus is amazingly accurate, I don't need a red confirmation of how accurate it is.  But I guess for some it's important, but it seems like some people are just using it as an excuse to bitch about the 5DIII.

I just recently added a 7D to go along with my 5D II, and didn't notice the lack of blinking red in AI Servo mode until I read about it in the manual. For what I shoot, it doesn't bother me.

That said, there are people who like the blinking red and are used to it. It also seems strange that it is not an option. I do think people are overreacting about selling the camera off or switching brands because of it, but I suppose that it one way to get Canon to pay attention.

Strange though that there was no out roar about it in the 7D, and professionals were certainly using it. I have seen more than a handful of Getty photographers at various sports games using the 7D.

7

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DMk3 RAW Images Underexposed in Aperture

« on: May 29, 2012, 02:13:00 AM »

I'm not sure I understand why the Camera and pre-RAW-processing previews would appear to be better-exposed though.

Noit 100% sure, but it could be the picture style settings in camera. I'll pull out my cameras tomorrow, as I can't remember if there is a brightness setting in them, but contrast i know is and can affect the exposure as well. Try different picture styles, or even make your own, and see what works best.

8

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DMk3 RAW Images Underexposed in Aperture

« on: May 29, 2012, 01:22:45 AM »

I do not have a III or Aperture, but have you tried any other software? Possibly DPP that came with the camera or you could try a trial for LR or PS and see if it is doing the same thing elsewhere.

One thought is that in the in-camera settings (picture style) have the brightness too high. This would result in the jpeg preview appearing fine on the back of your camera, as well as the pre-processed preview you see in LR.

Do you have display brightness up high on the 5D3? This could lead to a false exposure assessment.

This would not result in the software showing a brighter image before it shows the actual image. It would be a picture style setting. But I do fully agree about using histograms. Though aren't histograms based of the jpeg preview as well?

One method I sometimes use to get a better idea of seeing how the RAW may look on the back of the camera is to make a custom Picture style with contrast and sharpness all the way down and leaving everything else at default. I don't do this much anymore as I now either have it set to monochrome as I do all my personal photos in B&W and like to see it in B&W on the back of the camera (shoot RAW so color info is still there) or when I shoot sports, I have it set to Landscape to get an idea of what my processed version might look like.

9

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D RAW vs. MRAW

« on: May 28, 2012, 01:21:16 PM »

You have to remember that RAW is the fully unprocessed image. Even mRAW files are slightly processed.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?

« on: May 27, 2012, 05:36:25 PM »

The only downside I have found with the 5D II is the AF. However, the camera is meant as a studio/landscape body and for those uses i have never complained about the AF. The camera is not ideal for sports or action shots, but I have gotten amazing  sports shots with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_unger/sets/72157629822941650/

I did recently purchase a 7D specifically for sports and wildlife, but I see no reason to upgrade my 5D II for my landscape and portrait needs. I would love to have a 5D III, but I certainly don't need it.

The centre AF point is very accurate on the 5D. Use that and you will get consistantly good results

No doubt. It is the main reason I was able to grab such great sports shots. I guess the other downside is the low FPS. Not terrible, but there are some sports where you want to catch more moments in the action.

You can certainly can do sports with the 5D II, but it is not ideal. Just like you can do portraits and landscape with the 7D but is not ideal. They each are great cameras and have their specialties.

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - advice needed please - keep it or send it back?

« on: May 27, 2012, 03:40:47 PM »

I'm still trying to figure out why everyone is so worried about this backlighting issue.  You realize that if you're shooting in real life, it isn't a problem right?   

Because modern day photographers are turning into crybabies...

It's also the vocal minority. People who are perfectly happy tend to not spend their time telling others about it online. People with problems will. Also, taking into consideration the amount of people who purchased the 5D III, it could seem that there are more problems with it despite the fact that the problems could fall perfectly normal under the standard failure rate.

As with all electronics, and particularly early models, there is a failure rate. The technology and mechanics that go into today's cameras are complex and fragile. You can't expect every unit to be perfect.

Canon and Nikon both know what they are doing and they give out pre-production models for professionals to test. If they didn't experience any serious problems, it might because they knew what they were doing or the "defects" weren't a concern.

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D mk II still a viable option?

« on: May 27, 2012, 03:22:35 PM »

The only downside I have found with the 5D II is the AF. However, the camera is meant as a studio/landscape body and for those uses i have never complained about the AF. The camera is not ideal for sports or action shots, but I have gotten amazing  sports shots with it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_unger/sets/72157629822941650/

I did recently purchase a 7D specifically for sports and wildlife, but I see no reason to upgrade my 5D II for my landscape and portrait needs. I would love to have a 5D III, but I certainly don't need it.

13

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D4 Specs Revealed? 1D X Has Competition.

« on: December 11, 2011, 06:06:30 PM »

The focus points working down to f/8 caught my eye and lead me to believe this is fake.  That's one of the few gripes about the 1DX.  Seems highly unlikely that Nikon just happens to add 9 of them as Canon eliminates this capability.

This and the one stop higher native ISO caught my eye.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

« on: December 06, 2011, 05:52:12 PM »

Why would you need 'superior' autofocus in a 5D mark 3 ??
It is a high resolution portrait and landscape camera , so that is what its made for.
You want both worlds buy an extra 7D or just one 1D-X and sell the rest of your camera's.

People (i am talking amateurs here) are just never satisfied , we always want something better, newer and more expensive which does rarely improve your pictures.
It just makes you lazier in your technique!

Would not we al buy the new Canon 1D-X + lenses if we could so easily afford it ?
And end up spending over 10.000 euro's just to get more great (but everso always the same) pictures of your running kids inside your lowlighted house or the same pictures of your favorite area:)

Yesterday I was just walking around sundown without a tripod and got lucky to get some of the best landscape pictures I ever did.
No lens or camera can make up for a that split moment when weather ,light and circumstances come together in just a minute window or so.
A simple T2i plus a very old 75/300 lens got the job done.

Very well said.

I would love to be able to purchase the 1D X, but I don't need it for most of my photography. For sports, I am waiting to hear about the 7D II or whatever is going to replace that, but for portraits, landscapes, and studio work, the 5D II does an incredible job. For sports and wildlife, the 7D does an incredible job.

People want a 1D X for the price of the 5D, and that isn't going to happen.

15

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d Mkiii vs 7d... I know, I know

« on: February 17, 2011, 12:04:21 PM »

I am off the belief that a good photographer can make the best of most any camera. At the same time, the 1D line is going to be the better camera when it comes to build quality. Though if you are looking to sell you 1D, now may bring you the most money for it, and the 7D is a good camera for what it does. 8 fps, up to 6400 ISO and offers more reach if that is off interest, so if you need that until you wait for the next 1D, it may not be a bad option.