September 18, 2014, 01:52:01 PM

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
31
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

32
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.

 

33
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

34
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

35
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


36
EOS Bodies / Re: T3i (or T2i) to 5D Mark III
« on: May 24, 2012, 10:56:20 PM »
Thanks Axilrod! Do you shoot RAW or jpeg?

37
EOS Bodies / Re: T3i (or T2i) to 5D Mark III
« on: May 24, 2012, 12:51:22 PM »

I can literally hear your excitement as you describe your new camera!!  It is making me want to upgrade even more from my T3i.  I do have one question for you.  Are you saying the ISO 800 is about the same as 25000 in JPEG or RAW?

I too am about to upgrade to the 5D3 and considering the price. The photos posted above look impressive. The 5D3 at 6400 seems to have slightly more noise than the T3i at 1600. The various tests I've seen seem to indicate that the 5D3 has 1.5 stops of improved noise performance. The noise performance is the same at 1.5 stops increased brightness via ISO increase.

What is harder for me to tell is how this will translate to real world performance. Since beyond just noise, the overall IQ of the image produced is supposed to be far superior. So a bit more noise on a much clearer image may well look MUCH better in real world shots... or not. I do not ever shoot in jpeg so the noise reduction that the 5D3 does in jpeg mode is irrelevant to me.

I'd be interested in the answer to LibertyRanger's question. In RAW, in real world scenarios, what is the equivalent quality wise on the 5D3 to the T3i at ISO 800 & 1600.

Thanks all!! This will be very helpful to me in making my final purchase decision. The price of the camera is significantly outside of my comfort zone but I need a pro body in order to get the work I want to do.

Thanks!
Kev


38
EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview 5D3 review out
« on: May 23, 2012, 11:08:00 AM »
Its interesting that when doing a direct comparison to the 7D the metering and focusing accuracy and the ergonomics and handling are rated much higher than the 5D3. When the 5D3 is very similar in handling if not I would say better, and with the better metering I would say the 5D is better there too.

More reason to think that things are is slipping.

I tried comparing it to the T3i and found the T3i won in several areas... I don't think that is the case. If so then the 5D3 is grossly overpriced.

Kev

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Some high ISO 5D3 samples from last weekend
« on: May 22, 2012, 11:19:59 AM »

ISO 3200, exposure pulled 1/2 stop. Good sense of motion, but too soft to run large in print. Oh well, maybe next time.




How did you get the buildings to stay reasonably sharp in the background?

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Info? [CR2]
« on: May 14, 2012, 10:34:26 PM »
Considering the price they will have to ask for such an animal as this proposed 7D2 it would have to have at least similar high ISO noise performance as a 5D2. I can't see the reason to upgrade to it unless it does. The 7D focus is already pretty good.

Kevin

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dmk2 any rumors??
« on: March 19, 2012, 09:59:01 AM »

I'm hoping the 7DII will be all about the sensor quality with some modest autofocus improvements. (all else being just gravy)

My plan had been to upgrade from the T3i to the 5DMkIII but the price is way outside of my dream budget. So I am really hoping that the 7DII will be all about sensor quality.

Please please please Canon, please please!

Kev

42
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Full Spec List?
« on: March 01, 2012, 11:06:41 AM »
I think they hit a homerun with this one. There is a solid captive population of MKI and MKII owners whose biggest beef was the autofocus. They have not only given them that they have also given them great native ISO. Very versatile spec. Love it.

+1

What XanuFoto said. :)

43
Lenses / Re: Pricing of the New Lenses
« on: February 07, 2012, 07:22:25 AM »
Canon USA press release:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248044cf6e

Quote
The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens is expected to be available in April for an approximate retail price of $2,299.00.
...
The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is expected to be available in June for an approximate retail price of $849.99, while the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM lens is expected to be available in June for an approximate retail price of $799.99.

2,299 US is obviously much better than 2,299 EUR, but even still that's $1,000 more than the Mk I.  I'm still LOL'ing.

Kev

44
Lenses / Re: Pricing of the New Lenses
« on: February 07, 2012, 07:14:03 AM »
Quote
Available April 2012
EF 24-70mm 1:2,8L II USM 2299 Euro

LOL that's $3011.35 Canadian. This has to be a mistake... or the Europeans are getting seriously ripped off. Or maybe they throw in a 7D with a kit lens if you pre-order? :)

Kev

45
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 06, 2012, 10:05:13 AM »
as is, i don't believe that this dog is going to hunt.

Exactly.

I'm shooting with the Sigma IF EX DG 2.8 24-70 and unless Canon rocks IS on their new 24-70 I can't imagine switching. The Sigma only seems to fall short in that if I point it right at the Sun there are some flares captured. Not really an issue at all, since I know how to avoid the problem.

Kev

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4