July 29, 2014, 12:09:24 AM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - kevl

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16
Canon says not to store batteries in the camera or grip when the system is not in use in the manual shipped with the 5D3 because of battery drain. In fact is says to leave the batteries in for no more than 24 hours prior to a shoot.

Perhaps the drain that is been seen is excessive, but is it really an issue? If you're not going to use the camera for 5 days take the batteries out like Canon says you should.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrade from my T3i Need Advice!!
« on: July 30, 2012, 03:34:24 PM »
If the 5D3 is outside of your budget then wait at least until the new "entry level" full frame camera is announced. The T3i is a great camera. The 7D has the same sensor with a better body and better AF system.... but in the end you'll have the same sensor limitations.

Now that I have the 5D3 I can't imagine going back to the APS-C sensors. The extra reach was nice... but the photos I get from the 5D3 are well worth the price of admission.

18
I shot a wedding yesterday and the reception was in an exceedingly dark location. Not just the dance but the whole meal and speeches... It was a REAL pain to have to keep moving my focus point in order to see where I had it selected.

Not cool. :(

19
Add me too.

I am finding it hard to ensure critical focus in darker situations because it is hard to tell if I am on the correct point or not.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: June 28, 2012, 07:19:19 AM »


Does anybody think that in all seriousness NOT having a D800 is going to cost them work, money or enjoyment?



Great question! I chose the 5D3 for various reasons, but I think I can IMAGINE two people who might answer "yes."

1. The "pro" who either doesn't want to, or cannot, properly frame shots while capturing a decisive moment. With the D800 he'll be able to crop the shot in post to make it look like it was properly shot with a 5D3. If this person "only" had 22MP he would not sell his work because he'd have to crop it to 6MP or something. :)

2. Have you shot with or seen the files from a medium format camera? I got to check out the Phase One earlier in the year and just looking at those files makes a person smile. The single D800 file I've played with sort of had that feeling too it. So a pixel peeper, camera trekkie kind of guy may actually enjoy their D800 much more than other (in class) cameras simply because of the insane amount of detail that is captured. I'm not convinced that translates to any meaningful benefit in print however.

The thread asks if the 5D3 is better at anything over the D800. My answer? When I had the chance to play with both of them I didn't even touch the D800. The 5D3 sells itself because of expectation and reputation. The only thing that the D800 seems to best the 5D3 at is a failed (IMO) marketing move of having 36MP which are at least 18 more than we really "need" and I put that in quotes because I'm not convinced we need that many even.

The 5D3 is better at fitting into my workflow, both by giving me the tools I need and not getting in the way with "features" I don't.

If you're a Nikon guy with lots of glass get the D800, if you're Canon get the 5D3 just like every credible review has said neither camera is strong enough to make a person who is at all invested in the product line switch. They are both truly great cameras. The 5D3 is just better. ;)

It's better because it fits me.

Kev

21
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Tips, Tricks & Settings
« on: June 27, 2012, 09:01:50 PM »
Is it possible to get it to meter using the selected AF point instead of the center of the frame?

22
EOS Bodies / Re: My 5D mkIII AWB is Warm - Help
« on: June 27, 2012, 08:44:26 PM »
I only got my 5D3 a couple of weeks ago, but I am also finding that the images are a little warm even with shots taken outside in the shade.
No problem with shots taken in sunlight or using flash though.
Not a big deal to correct in RAW for a few shots here and there, but it will be when I take it for jobs where I have to work on 500+ photos!
+1 exactly. So I'm not the only one then

Previous to the latest firmware (1.1.13 I think...) my 5D3 was way too cool on AWB. I shoot RAW so it was no issue to fix. However, since updating to the latest firmware I find the AWB to be very accurate.

Try the latest firmware if you haven't already.

Kev

23
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 26, 2012, 07:55:59 AM »
One thing I think we can all agree on:

The 5D Mark III is capable of amazing performance by creating usable files at ISOs which we often finding ourselves needing to use: 1600-6400. Of course I would clean up a file shot at 6400 before I printed it.

I can shoot a band in a night club and shoot night city street photos at 6400, and that's what I needed the 5D3 to be able to do. I don't "think" I'll "need" higher ISOs than that but time will tell. If higher ones clean up well then I may use them, but I don't "need" them.

The thread isn't really about this, but what would people say is the highest ISO the 5D3 can use to produce a usable print? Any examples?

Thanks for everyone that pushed about the cat image - I really appreciate all that I've learned because of it.

Kev

24
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 26, 2012, 07:50:10 AM »
So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.

If you are referring to what Sambal Oelek said about the cat at ISO 6400, I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I got you wrong. I'll try to post three 100% crops: one without any NR, one with the default 25 chroma NR, and one with 69 (!) luminance NR without chroma NR, which makes the chroma noise easily distinguishable form the luma noise.

What I was expecting was to see a lot more color noise (chrominance noise or chroma noise for short), similar to filo64's result. Luminance noise is already visible in the jpg (the "graininess" of the OOF areas), so i figured that at least some chroma NR was being applied by the RAW converter.

Thanks to kevl for uploading the file.

Thanks for posting this!

Kev

25
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 25, 2012, 09:04:28 PM »
Thanks for posting kevi... for giggles I downloaded your file and opened into photoshop with the latest ACR....  ACR automatically sets color noise at 25 and detail at 50 standard...  you can drop 25 to 0, but surprisingly, the "color noise" that sambai was referring to, really doesn't change that much if any from 0 to 25... there is plenty of noise, but it's fine noise that only goes away when the luminance slider is played with, and that doesn't fully disappear until it's around the 50 mark..  But it is leaps and bounds above what we had to play with before... and this is even taking into account that ACR is STILL buggy with 5d3 files and have been proven so time and time again.  Once adobe gets that straightened, it will be even more consistent and will render files even better.  So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise...  Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.

Thanks for the explanation! :)

26
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 25, 2012, 02:37:00 PM »
I've been all though LR4 and can't find any way to set what you are talking about. Color Noise Detail is set at 50 by default in LR4, but doesn't get applied unless you adjust the Color Noise slider.
A setting of "25" is pretty agressive NR and would make the cat look plastic.


In that case, would you mind publishing the RAW file or sending it to me privately? I've seen correctly exposed ISO 400 files with more visible chroma noise.


OK I uploaded it to MediaFire.

http://www.mediafire.com/?5ay71skgmod5tm9 

The image does impress for the noise level, if not the subject & comp, but I can't see how I could have inadvertently added noise reduction to it...

This CR2 RAW file was copied directly from the harddrive and not exported from Lightroom.

Kev

27
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 20, 2012, 06:56:38 AM »
I've been all though LR4 and can't find any way to set what you are talking about. Color Noise Detail is set at 50 by default in LR4, but doesn't get applied unless you adjust the Color Noise slider.
A setting of "25" is pretty agressive NR and would make the cat look plastic.

 

28
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 19, 2012, 06:59:34 PM »
Thanks for the replies and info all.  My MKIII is in the mail and should be here @ weeks end.  For me the deciding factor between the MKII and III was ISO performance and auto-focus.  I don't upgrade my camera often, as it's a big step up from my current 20D, which is 7 or so years old.   Maybe some of the later firmware updates will clear up some of the issues mentioned above.  Regardless, it seems like a good amount of camera and based on what I've read and heard, for my needs, I don't mind paying a bit extra for the auto-focus and higher ISO.  It does bother me that the MKII is sharper @ lower ISO's, but coming from the 20D I am sure I will be pretty happy.


Congrats!  Enjoy the sweet camera.

Yep for you the debate is over! You have an excellent camera on the way! Enjoy it! I'm loving mine. It was scary to spend that much on a camera, but it is truly excellent.

Congratulations on your purchase!
Kev

29
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 19, 2012, 03:42:00 PM »

Looks like there is quite a lot of Chroma NR being applied to this picture. ISO 6400 with absolutely no NR looks very messy, but it does clean up quite nicely, like in this picture.


Here is the shot as it was taken, no profile correction, no strong contrast curve, and no edit to her eyes. Just like the last time I posted it there is NO noise reduction at all. This was shot in RAW with the faithful picture style.

ISO 6400 only looks poor with the 5DIII if you are under exposing. In this case I slowed the shutter to 1/50th, and had the image properly exposed in camera at ISO 6400. Under exposing at any ISO and then using Lightroom to make up for it will make any file look like junk.

The worst of noise lives where images are improperly exposed. I've only shot with the Mark II momentarily so I can't speak to how it performs, but my T3i behaved just exactly the same. Of course it can't shoot at 6400 and get a usable file in any sort of light.... but I am able to make usable files at 3200 with it.

Kev

30
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 18, 2012, 11:25:08 PM »
Here's a real-world shot at ISO 6400 that I took tonight for a friend with my brand spanking new 5D3. Shot in RAW, no noise reduction added (camera set to Standard, but I don't think that affects RAW at all), 180mm, ISO 6400, 1/50th, and  f2.8.

Only edits are lens profile (70-200 2.8L), strong contrast curve and I enhanced her eyes in Lightroom 4.

I know this is higher ISO than you were talking about, but I think it may still be helpful.

Kev


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4