Messages

751

Software & Accessories / Re: Printing recommendation?

« on: June 22, 2012, 06:48:24 PM »

That's actually a fairly reasonable method Yellow, and with reasonably high-end monitor/printer and calibration you shouldn't have to go back and forth that often.  If you have the cash there are monitors out there that will alter the whites displayed on screen so that they look more like/match the paper profile you are printing to, rather than appearing so much like illuminated pixels, they also cost an absolute small fortune.

To the OP.  If you want something for small prints or just something cheap to test your colors or a crop of your image at full size, Canon's SELPHY line is both cheap and of fairly high quality.  You might want to read reviews because other vendors sell similar products that might be as good or better, I don't know because I was given a SELPHY and never considered it for purchase first, but the results it's capable of are quite, quite good and I have an older one.  For bigger printers, I don't know the current market at all and cannot help you, good luck though.

If you want a bigger printer the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 II is quite good, at least in my fairly unknowledgeable opinion. Although I did pick it up for $200 MIR off, so $200 total, but despite that I've been pretty please with it. I'm still playing around a bit with my processing to print, but it works great with LR4, has all the Canon paper profiles, and has a pretty easy setup & reasonably quick print times.

752

Lighting / Re: So I want to learn to use Profoto lights. What should I know?

« on: June 22, 2012, 06:33:57 PM »

Just asking what your motivation is in buying strobes over monolights?

Because I got a good deal on a 880ws pack w/4 heads, stands, umbrellas used

753

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 or 200mm f/2?

« on: June 22, 2012, 06:29:11 PM »

If you don't need the improvements the 5d3 has over the 5Dc, go for the lens. If you find yourself limited a significant amount of the time, consider the 5d2 unless you want something with a significantly better AF system.

754

EOS Bodies / Re: How would you upgrade?

« on: June 22, 2012, 06:23:39 PM »

Since the 5D3>>7D and 5D2 in almost every metric, i'd say (1) is the obvious choice.

Unless you need to operate at very high ISOs, I'd go for the 5d2 & 7d for birding & wildlife. 5d2 will be great for everything else, since you can manual/live view focus while the 7d has a pretty decent AF system for the birds & wildlife. If you want it all in one camera, go for the 5d3.

Either one you get, I'd sell off the 28-135 in favor of the 24-105, or get something like the 17-40 for landscapes & a decent wide to normal zoom on the 7d.

755

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 RAW "Crosshatch" Banding

« on: June 21, 2012, 11:47:50 AM »

I can dig out a couple of photos from that evening and post some full res JPEGs if you'd like.

Yes, some samples would be interesting, esp. if the 5d2 shows banding @3200 or even @1600 and the 5d3 doesn't. Atm I am going to buy a 5d2 because I don't see significant improvements in the 5d3 sensor at least at these iso ratings I'm likely to use a lot.

Alright, let me dig them out tonight after I get home. I think there are some improvements to the 5d3 sensor, such as gapless microlenses, but as you say, probably not as much as marketing is making out. The larger number of read lines and improved initial processing probably make a difference.

I think it's just a bunch of small tiny improvements that make it look (to me at least) like there's a decent improvement in image quality (leaving aside DR) at super high ISOs. Just being able to get a pretty usable image at ISO 6400+ with decent shutter speeds (f/4, 1/80+) is pretty awesome, don't you agree? All depends on your use case of course.

756

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 RAW "Crosshatch" Banding

« on: June 20, 2012, 07:35:25 PM »

I've found the 5d3 has significantly less ISO banding, and generally doesn't have a grid/crosshatch patter when there is some.

"Less" in comparison to what? 18mp aps-c (obviously)? 5d2? Any reviews/proof or just your (valid) feeling?

Less in comparison to similar shooting conditions (same event), shooting with both my 5d2 & 5d3. At ISO 3200 my 5d2 exhibited similar grid pattern of ISO in the darkest areas, even without any exposure changes in post. My 5d3 at ISO 6400/8000 does of course exhibit noise, but even in those darkest areas it looked to me like it wasn't all that banded, and what there was did not have a grid pattern, it was just horizontal or vertical (I forget which right now). I can dig out a couple of photos from that evening and post some full res JPEGs if you'd like.

757

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D2 RAW "Crosshatch" Banding

« on: June 20, 2012, 11:30:31 AM »

Yes I've seen that on mine, although usually at higher ISOs and/or where there is a seriously underexposed section of the image or it's pushed +EV too far in post.

I've found the 5d3 has significantly less ISO banding, and generally doesn't have a grid/crosshatch patter when there is some.

758

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you think ML could do MJPEG at S1 (2880 x 1920) on 5d3?

« on: June 19, 2012, 02:17:34 PM »

it would be interesting but doubtful. motion jpg is extremelly inneficient compared to modern H264.

Is it? I have no clue, I'm not really a video person. Just someone who has a small bit of interest. Reason I'm thinking that is the S1 JPGs are a good bit more resolution than 1080p, and I've read some things saying that the 5d3's 1080p doesn't really look like it has full 1080 lines or something like that. Also my random theory is JPEG conversion might require a good bit less processing than h264, so maybe we could get up to 60 fps, at a resolution somewhat higher than 1080p. Wouldn't that be awesome? Plus we know the JPEG engine in the 5d3 is quite good, so quality likely would be great.

Obviously MJPEG has a much lower overall storage/space efficiency than h264, especially when compared to intra-frame compression, but a UDMA7 card likely can keep up with that, maybe even a UDMA6 card. Unfortunately with the 5d3 it doesn't support UHS-I, so the SD slot may or may not be able to keep up.

Motion JPEG is Intra-frame compression, so it's similar to ALL-I mode in 5D3, In EOS 1D C, its 4K mode uses MJPEG 24fps at 500Mbps, considering 1D C/1D X has larger buffer, I think 5D3 can handle 200Mbps properly.

Ah, didn't realize Motion JPEG was all intra-frame. Like I said, I'm not a video guy. Just did a back of the napkin calculation, full individual JPEGs @3MByte per frame, 30 fps, 720 Mbit/sec. Wow! Guess it really does need to use that intra-frame. The JPEG engine probably would need to be modified some for that intra-frame calculations probably, so I'd guess that'd be a hardware change so probably won't be able to do it

759

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you think ML could do MJPEG at S1 (2880 x 1920) on 5d3?

« on: June 19, 2012, 12:20:21 PM »

it would be interesting but doubtful. motion jpg is extremelly inneficient compared to modern H264.

Is it? I have no clue, I'm not really a video person. Just someone who has a small bit of interest. Reason I'm thinking that is the S1 JPGs are a good bit more resolution than 1080p, and I've read some things saying that the 5d3's 1080p doesn't really look like it has full 1080 lines or something like that. Also my random theory is JPEG conversion might require a good bit less processing than h264, so maybe we could get up to 60 fps, at a resolution somewhat higher than 1080p. Wouldn't that be awesome? Plus we know the JPEG engine in the 5d3 is quite good, so quality likely would be great.

Obviously MJPEG has a much lower overall storage/space efficiency than h264, especially when compared to intra-frame compression, but a UDMA7 card likely can keep up with that, maybe even a UDMA6 card. Unfortunately with the 5d3 it doesn't support UHS-I, so the SD slot may or may not be able to keep up.

760

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Do you think ML could do MJPEG at S1 (2880 x 1920) on 5d3?

« on: June 18, 2012, 10:49:53 AM »

They say they can already control the bit-rate, but only at high ISOs. That's weird. Anyone understand that one?

The bitrate maxed out at 151Mbps at ISO12800, if using normal ISO like 100-400, even if we change the H264 parameter to the highest value possible, there is no obvious increase in bitrate, around 47Mbps in ALL-I, 32Mbps in IPB.

That's pretty weird. Is it actually a higher bitrate, or is it like in RAW files how at higher ISO's since it's more noisy it gets harder to compress?

761

Lenses / Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L

« on: June 16, 2012, 09:16:57 PM »

It's to get the shutter speed up as high as possible. Most especially if you're in an area that doesn't allow flashes, although not sure how often you'd use a super-wide or wide angle  in those areas, which are usually churches, since you'd be getting kinda in the way for most ceremonies.

Exactly - you named one reason for my doubting f2.8 on a uwa is all important. The second is shutter speed - if  1/x second is ok @70mm and f2.8 for handheld & motion, then surely 1/(x/2) is ok @17mm and f4?

Of course "as fast as possible" is desirable, but I'm wondering if for a wedding/event setup a top f2.8 uwa zoom is the right spot to spend money for in contrast to your "bread and butter" 24-70 & maybe 70-200 f2.8 zooms.

Sure, if the subjects are staying pretty still. If there's a good bit of action, you still need a high shutter speed. So at 17mm, 1/20 might be a decent shutter speed for say the alter. But when you add in the priest, couple getting married, grooms-men, brides-maids, even normal movement at 1/20 might be blurred, so 1/60 is much better, and 1/120 is significantly better.

762

Lenses / Re: Thinking of getting one of the older 20-35L or 17-35L

« on: June 15, 2012, 07:34:09 PM »

Shooting weddings I NEED the 2.8 (about the slowest that would be acceptable)

Could you please elaborate that? If f2.8 is the min. wedding aperture without IS for a 24-70 lens, isn't f4 ok for a 16mm focal length - esp. if it is for fewer, select shots only? Or is it because the af is better at f2.8?

It's to get the shutter speed up as high as possible. Most especially if you're in an area that doesn't allow flashes, although not sure how often you'd use a super-wide or wide angle  in those areas, which are usually churches, since you'd be getting kinda in the way for most ceremonies. And getting the shutter speed up is less about hand held motion than it is about freezing the subjects motion.

763

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Need help - advice for event photography, urgent

« on: June 14, 2012, 04:13:07 PM »

I'd recommend finding the local photo rental location and renting 1 or 2 additional lenses. Specifically if you're going to need to be back some distance for the speeches, you should look at the 24-70 or 24-105. That'll give you ~38-112/168mm, which would be pretty good for needing a wider angle to get multiple people, to short telephoto so you can be standing back 15-20 feet so you're not right in front.

Depending on the lighting you may need to go to ISO 3200, but if there's a podium/stage it's likely there will be decent lighting right on there. For other photos, you likely will need to use the flash, preferably a hotshoe flash (580 EXII or the new 600 EX), again you can rent. Bring extra AA batteries though! And try not to point the flash right at the people, angle it up at least partly.

I'd recommend full manual, unless there's plenty of light. Otherwise it'll set your shutter speed to extremely low. On the whole, try not to get too wide of an aperture. f/2.8 is probably the widest I would go, otherwise your DoF will get so small it'll be really hard for you to get the subject's face/eyes in focus correctly. If you shoot with flash, you can probably go up to f/4-5.6 to get more of the subject in focus as well.

Also, try to relax a bit! It'll be nerve racking for you, I'm sure, especially since there is so much pressure on you since you work at this company. Also, if you do rent equipment, have them pay for it. It's the least they can do.

764

EOS Bodies - For Video / Do you think ML could do MJPEG at S1 (2880 x 1920) on 5d3?

« on: June 12, 2012, 01:36:35 PM »

So, given that Magic Lantern is running (sorta at least) on the 5d3, do you think it could manage to do MJPEG, or manage to capture the JPEGs fast enough (and then write fast enough to the card) as separate JPEGs at 24/30/60 fps? Or do you think the JPEG engine would be a bottleneck? Or more likely, the sensor readout for processing? It's just a crazy thought, don't really know if ML has tried to do anything like that with a previous camera, but if you're in a 'video' mode it uses a digital shutter, couldn't you simply throw the frame (even if it's just the 1080p) through the JPEG engine?

765

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Manual Posted

« on: June 12, 2012, 01:30:18 PM »

Looking at page 393, it looks like the 1Dx is going to use the same codec as the 5d3(same data-rate), so I doubt their will be any improvement in the video.  That's absurd for the amount of horsepower this thing has. Totally nerfed.

Agreed! Let's just hope the guys at Magic Lantern get things going fast on the 1DX. (1080p/60, 4K video, clean HDMI out)

Still kinda an expensive camera to buy to rely on and wait for Magic Lantern (or others) to enable higher video bitrate, and clean HDMI out!

Canon need to understand it does not help if they cripple the 1DX for features to prevent canibalizing their video department, as long as the competition gives us the features (Nikon=clean HDMI out) there is always a risk of some users jumping ship.

Probably not going to happen for Magic Lantern. They tried to get it working for the 7d which has dual Digic processors which was a problem for them. They have it booted on the 5d3, although it's so far from even having an Alpha release it'll probably be a year unless they can get someone devoted full time to develop on it. If they can eventually figure out multiple Digic cameras, then it may be possible to come to the 1DX, but it probably won't happen.

You are probably right. And the more I think about it, I am considering canceling my 1DX preorder since it IMO is simply not worth it given too few extra benefits compared to the 5D3. (weather sealing put aside). No noticable improvement in high ISO performance, DR or picture quality from what I can see from my own testing. And, in particular due to the dissapointingly low buffer of the 1DX you will in many cases not be fully able to utilize the shutter speed improvements on the 1DX over the 5D3.

And if Canon think I am gonna ruin myself with 15000 dollars to get clean HDMI out from the 1D C, they have to think twice. I know of other ways of getting what I want, even if it is drastic and expensive, it may still be cheaper than spending 15000 on the 1D C.

Hey let's hope ML at least get's things going for clean HDMI out on the 5D3, and maybe even short bursts of 4K video.

If you mostly shoot video, why would you go for the 1DX to begin with? I'd think, at that level, you'd go for a more dedicated video option. I don't know prices exactly, but I've read that there are some reasonably priced (I think ~$10K or so) options for other manufacturers with similar or more features than the 1D C.

I don't really do much video, but I do have the 5d2 and I'd love to get a hold of ML (hopefully closed beta will be over soon) and play with it more. Things like the focus assist zebra striping, PiP 5x zoomed for precise focusing. And I hope they can get it on the 5d3 and do things like 1080@60p, maybe better/higher bit-rate/compression options, maybe even MJPEG? I wonder if the JPEG engine can keep with with 24/30/60 fps. That'd be freaking awesome, even if it's just 1080/720. Even better if we could get S1 (2880 x 1920) sized JPEGs. That'd seriously be awesome!