« on: February 25, 2013, 05:16:07 PM »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
With all the obsession over self-imposed ISO limits for "clean images," (myself included) this is actually very refreshing.It's all about using the right tool/setting for the job. A grainy/noisy B&W sky can look fine. But sometimes you probably should go for a "clean image". After all, a noisy color shot of a person's face usually just looks like a mess.
I shot with the 1DS2 for years and upgraded to the 5D3 so I have the same exact experience that you have with the bodies. A couple of things...Thank you for bringing a little perspective to this old fight. There's a lot more to a camera than its ability to shoot a specific scene at 100 ISO. (And most cameras that have been released over the past 5 or 6 years, including my original 5d can do an awfully good job of that).
IF you only have to shoot at ISO 100 then your 1DS2 takes fantastic images. No doubt about it. IF you have to bump your ISO above 400 the images SUCK in comparison. At 1600 they are a complete mess. The 5D3 at 6400 is way better than the 1DS2 at 1600. There are other things that are hugely different as well.
Better screen on the back of the camera by far which in the real work world I need to see if I got the shot I need at a shoot for my clients.
Much better interface, The 1DS2 had the worst interface ever with the strange 2 button controls for everything.
more frames per second
Better dynamic range
The list goes on and on.
The other thing is maybe you need to try a different program to edit your RAW files in. The 1DS2 had a VERY soft out of the camera file because of the high pass filter they put on it. The files sharpened up extremely well in PS but they NEEDED it badly. I would try to do more tests with a different software and also change up your lens. Maybe your lens is calibrated perfectly to your 1DS2 but off a little when mounted on your 5D3. The sensor is not "Sharper" on the older camera. Trust me.
The other thing that is quite noticeable in your test is that the 5D3 shots are exposed brighter in EVERY instance. The test would certainly be more accurate if you match exposure. The settings are irrelevant. Its the final image exposure that matters. Need to compare apples to apples.
At the end of the day if you are are only shooting studio work or landscapes at ISO 100 you would never see the detail difference anyway unless you are pixel peeping. PRINT the images out at 24x36 after making them both look the best they can. Don't limit the sharpening, contrast, etc of one to what you do to the other. That is not what you would do in the real world. You would optimize each image individually for it's intended output. Do that and then lets look and see if the 1DS2 is a better camera. I doubt it. I loved that camera for years and I do love the way the images look from it. That said the sensors are much improved since then and there is more to a camera than a sensor.
"LEGENDARY" quality for Tamron? Let's say it's acceptable. How can that guy call it LEGENDARY? Did they try the 18-270?!Yeah, that kind of jumped out at me too .... someone was just copying a press release for part of the article. Hopefully the review portion was based on the author's judgment and not the publicity agent's.
I heard a rumor that CanonRumors is posting DXO rumors just to generate page views. Since the source is this forum, I'll rate it CR3, since it has to be true.i guess for some the reputation of the DXOmark has just become a bit better.
I think this is the first time admin put Canon's DXO mark on the front page
Yeah, I thought he said earlier this year that he was never going to post anything dxomark-related on the front page ever again because their sensor scores were meaningless.
Edit:QuoteI know people love to debate the numbers from DXOMark.Ahh, I guess he's simply realized how great they are for generating page views
Wow for all the response. I'll definitely appreciate the advice! As far as my overall look, I wasnt going for a traditional portrait. I wanted the pictures to look warm and a little vintage.
@vuiling - lol well I hope your eyes feel better! as far as the picture not having contrast, I would definitely disagree. That foreground is a light leak from the sun, not dirt. Why were you dissapointed that they were taken with a mark iii??
@axil - Thanks man, I really appreciate it Ill definitely work towards getting my subject to pop more!
@pdi - Haha yeah I can see what your saying about the arms.
@ker - Thanks, I'll definitely try using more curves in the future
Question - why do you think the first pose looks awkward?? I can see how her arms in the second shot look cut off, but the first I really enjoy. I understand that you guys are saying the post is done too warm, but would you really be able to tell had I not posted the before pics??
Once again thanks for all the feedback. keep it coming! In a constructive way....
Clearly you have balls of steel to ask for C&C and post your work here. Very nice model! Don't listen to vuiling's comment on the 5D III and disappointing images. Who cares about what camera you use, just get out and shoot something! Disregard vuiling's whole post. I've never had an image online actually "hurt my eyes". That saying is in poor taste, and won't do anything to help you improve your photography techniques. I agree that the skin tones do look underexposed. My favorite composition - the full body portrait in the doorway. Do some more like that, I think your onto something there.
i hope one is an answer to the rumored nikon D600.that would be the "entry level FF". If Canon doesn't release a competitor to the D600 (if it meets the rumored specs), they are going to get crushed in the DSLR market for most enthusiasts and many pros, I think.