March 05, 2015, 05:51:54 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 - asmundma

Pages: [1] 2 3
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D or 5D Mark III. For video. Which one?
« on: December 31, 2014, 11:44:21 PM »
I have both 5D3 and the Sony A7s. Sorry but you did a big mistake, A7s is way better then 5D3 which is useless when you have seen the imsge from the Sony.

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Most wanted new features for 5D Mark IV
« on: December 21, 2014, 01:25:47 PM »
I have almost given up Canon for video (not talking about the cinema line), it does not help much to include 4k, it must be way sharper with more detail. Now it feels just stupid to shoot video without a EVF.
From Canon, I want a high megapixel camera with high DR.
However itś not so important maybe as I will buy a Sony A7r (ii) if they fail and use a metabone adapter for landscapes. For normal pictures, there is not so much need for 40 mega pixels-
You know, as I got the A7s - the 12 MP seems very nice, unless you print large print or crop a lot. But the main use is video.
For action and wildlife I have the 1Dx.
I don´t believe anymore to just a have one camera for all needs - unfortunately.

I shot some video yesterday at a friend's photo shoot.

I put my 7D Mark II on a tripod and pointed it at the subjects, with the continuous auto-focus enabled.  It started the day at ISO 800, f/4.0, 1/50th.

I hand-held my brand new Sony A7s.  Towards the end of the day, it was at ISO 3200, f/3.5, 1/50th.

The video from the Sony is gorgeous and detailed, even at ISO 3200.  Beautiful colors, and incredible detail.

The video from the 7D Mark II is terrible, even at ISO 800.  It looks soft, washed out, and altogether bad.

We know from the Magic Lantern experience that these Canon DSLRs can capture outstanding video, but that the image processors ruin it.  So I would assume that the 7D Mark II is capable of wonderful things.

But I'm pretty much done with Canon for video.  I have officially switched to Sony.


Same here, bought A7s, its night and day difference in video quality

EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2014, 12:13:36 AM »
And even if I went with a Sony body (looking at A7S for video) I'm not ditching Canon glass. No way. God Bless Metabones.
I got an a7s for video (mostly school plays), and had my first chance to use it last week.

It is literally unbelievable how good it is.  I recorded some auditions at ISO 1000, F/4.0, 1/50th, and the image quality is outstanding.  I used the Metabones adapter version IV, the Canon 70-200mm II IS, and the Canon 1.4x extender.

Simultaneously, I had my new 7D2 going at similar settings.  The constant auto-focus is great, but the picture is mushier.

I love the a7s for video.

I did the same, canon video is now scrap on the DSRLs.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:53:19 PM »
Oslo Maraton @ start.  (yet another Norwegian 1Dx shooter......) ;)

Just downloaded latest version eu3.0.1x-installer.dmg and it works on yosemite on my Macbook Pro


EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 30, 2014, 01:26:26 AM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

Agree with last speaker. This is the nice feature of 1Dx compared to 5d3 (EC). Actually i am using this mode the most.
Missing auto iso on the 5D2, made me dislike the camra at the end.

Software & Accessories / Re: DxO Optics Pro 9 released
« on: July 16, 2014, 11:25:00 PM »
The only major thing I've noticed about the 9.5 release is that PRIME has gotten a little slower.  I don't know if they've been able to pull out a bit more quality, but it does seem slower than it was when they first released it.  I'm happy to wait for it given the results, of course.

Let me/us know if you discover anything or read about changes in the PRIME output. Or is there already some tutorial available when PRIME makes sense?

I tried it with a DxO trial version back then and discovered that it takes 15min to process a 20mp file on my laptop so I didn't have the time to experiment with it. In hindsight, the output didn't seem to be always that superior to Lightroom/ACR *if* not going for 100% output resolution, but downsizing and sharpening a bit. PRIME is certainly overkill for your average iso3200 shot. It might be better for extremely noisy shots like iso 12800 underexposed - it's just that I don't do these anyway.

For some of my shots, PRIME turned out to be rather mushy, my preference in these cases would be to keep a little "nice" 6D noise in LR as it looks better to me. Probably the same reason mpeg4 asp videos sometimes look better than mpeg4 avc with stronger deblocking.

I believe Lightrooms noise reduction algorithm was updated 1-2 years ago. I stopped using Topaz denoise, as I hardly could see any difference.  Tested Dxo now, can hardly see much difference, alltough it might be there.
Reverting to ligthroom with the pitcure, it puts it in another collection....!  Not like other plugins which does it properly in same.
You really must want to get rid of 5% more niose to go through all this, given that Ligthrom is your core tool.

Software & Accessories / Re: Post processing workflow
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:26:28 PM »
It very easy, buy Ligthroom. Shoot raw, import into ligthroom, do your adjustments.
For 90-95 % of your photos, its all you need.
- read on internet what Ligthroom can do.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Troubles (not funny)
« on: June 15, 2014, 05:24:44 AM »
More true than you think....... 
Yesterday I got my new 1Dx (also have a 5D3), went out for the ultimate test. Fired away, looked great on the LCD...
Came home, got them into Lightroom, hm.... this is not good at all - these 4MB loss in pixels - do they really give such S___ty pictures....
Bad DR, detail .....  wtf .....  big waste of money......

Then I saw the camera was on Jpeg ..........   

Today the sun shines again .....   

Lighting / Re: Tip to use autoISO with fill flash in 5D III
« on: January 01, 2014, 11:27:02 AM »
Does not work on my camera ........  Pls specify more ....

Amazing thread..... How is this going to be resolved?
It may slow down sales a lot.

Not sure I want a 1Dx anymore......stick with 5D3

Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 17, 2013, 04:57:49 PM »
At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate.

That´s the main point. If you are looking to get the f1.2 lenses, you should have the best available AF, to cope with the very shallow DOF. And if you can´t afford the 1DX, then 5DIII is next in line.

^^ This.  AF point accuracy is determined by the 'baseline' - an f/2.8 line is more accurate than an f/4 line, which is in turn more accurate than an f/5.6 line.  If your subject happens to be near the center of the frame, the 5DIII has five f/2.8 cross-type, dual-orientation points there, the 6D f/2.8 single orientation line (and a less accurate f/5.6 cross).  If your subject is near a rule-of-thirds intersection, the 5DIII has a cross-type dual-orientation point with an f/4 line and an f/5.6 line, and the 6D AF point at all near the rule-of-thirds intersection (the closest AF point is an f/5.6 single-orientation line), and not having an AF point on your subject means focus-recompose, and that means backfocus at f/1.2. 

There's not that much difference.  The 5D3 is not a much better camera, where image quality is concerned.  In fact it's less better.

I don't consider a misfocused shot to have better image quality than a properly focused shot.  There's more to capturing an image than the sensor (and the difference between the image sensors is less than the difference between the AF sensors).


Hi the video is fine for newcommers, but not sure the right people here @ cr.  Were way beyond this point i guess......

Pages: [1] 2 3