Messages

31

5D MK III Sample Images / 5DMkIII 'just for fun'

« on: June 07, 2012, 03:32:52 PM »

Just for fun

Model: 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II
Sweet Candy bag: 24-70mm f/2.8

Can anyone spot the 'deliberate' mistake?

32

Software & Accessories / DxO Optics Pro 7 and 5D Mk III

« on: June 06, 2012, 03:01:35 PM »

Has anyone used DxO Optics Pro 7 with 5D Mk III RAW files and if so, how does the resulting image quality compare with other RAW processors e.g. DPP, LR, ACR, Capture 1 etc?

Pros and cons?

33

Software & Accessories / Re: ProPhoto RGB

« on: June 02, 2012, 12:44:34 PM »

That could explain a lot, although regarding sRGB being set in camera I thought this only affected jpegs and not the RAW files.

34

Software & Accessories / White balance tool in LR4.1 final release?

« on: June 02, 2012, 08:56:11 AM »

Has anyone noticed any problems with the white balance tool in LR4.1 final release?

On a recent studio shoot with my 5DMkIII and 24-70mm f/2.8 IS II, as usual I set a custom white balance in camera before shooting (as a starting point for developing the RAW files as I was shooting only RAW, no jpegs) and also shot a colour rendition chart to fine tune the white balance in post. I also used this chart to create a custom camera profile.

Strangely, after selecting the custom camera profile and using the white balance tool to reset the white balance, this was wildly different from the custom white balance that I'd set in camera i.e. much, much warmer (c. 6500K as opposed to a custom white balace of around 5000K). In fact, it looked way too warm, so I had to manually adjust to cool it down so that it looked good on my monitor, which is a regularly calibrated Eizo CG245W.

Could this be a problem with the white balance tool, or is it more likely I screwed up somewhere else in the workflow?

I could do extensive comparison tests using different software, but thought I'd just ask first if anyone else has noticed anything amiss in LR4.1

Edit: I've been using the same colour management workflow for the last couple of years and haven't noticed this big shift in white balance previously.

35

Software & Accessories / ProPhoto RGB

« on: June 02, 2012, 08:43:21 AM »

Does anyone edit in ProPhoto RGB and if so, do you see any real practical advantages in doing so?

When you save images for web display, do you leave them in ProPhoto RGB or convert them to sRGB? I'd have thought convert to sRGB as most monitors wouldn't be capable of displaying anywhere near the full gamut of ProPhoto RGB, but I inadvertently uploaded an image in ProPhoto RGB recently and the colours didn't look discernably different from the sRGB file I replaced it with when I realised my error. The only differences were that the image didn't show up in the thumbnail preview on one particular website (just a little question mark in a small box, which was what prompted me to check the file type) but the full size image displayed fine when the thumbnail was clicked and whilst the thumbnail did actually show up on a different website, it had a noticeable green cast, but strangely there was no green cast in the full size image when the thumbnail was clicked.

36

United Kingdom & Ireland / Re: Bad news for Camera retail in the UK

« on: June 02, 2012, 08:19:19 AM »

This might explain why they were reluctant to exchange my 5DMkIII

37

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mk3 - A few complaints

« on: May 28, 2012, 06:25:46 AM »

this is quite an old thread my first copy was faulty and i returned it and got a new one the new one
is completely different to the first copy and so far is awesome even without any AFMA on any of my lenses

I've been having the same problems and wondered if I should return mine for a replacement also. I've just 'phoned Jacobs in the UK, from whom I bought mine back in March but apparently I'm the first person who has contacted them regarding the issue (which I find hard to believe)! I told them that as well as poor jpeg detail, I've also noticed random white pixels (255,255,255) surrounded by dark pixels. They could only suggest that I send the camera to Canon for testing and repair, either direct or via themselves. Is this a standard response from retailers? What was your retailer's response when you asked for a replacement?

38

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: hiking with the 5dmkiii

« on: May 28, 2012, 06:05:44 AM »

and another

That looks pretty sharp to me!

Do you mind me asking whether this is an out of camera jpeg or did you develop it from the RAW file?

If out of camera jpeg, what camera settings did you use e.g. ALO, HTP, NR etc?

If developed from RAW, what was your workflow e.g. DPP, LR4, CS5 etc?

I only ask because many early adopters, myself included, have been having concerns about IQ.

39

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - advice needed please - keep it or send it back?

« on: May 24, 2012, 08:12:10 AM »

Thanks for your comments Phil, although I can't quite make up my mind whether I've just had a telling off or not 

I think if I do try for a replacement or refund it will, as you say, be the on the basis of the jpeg quality (white/black dots as well as the general mushiness).

1) Have you tried turning the NR off? Have you done RAW vs. JPEG tests.

At an early stage, I turned the NR to low. I didn't turn it off completely because I needed to share the jpegs more or less straight away, was shooting a lot of the time in low light at f/4 without flash and in any event didn't have the appropriate software with me to develop the RAW files. I did however shoot both RAW and JPEG (RAW to a 32Gb CF card and JPEG to an 8 Gb SD card). Therefore, when I returned home to the UK I downloaded the ACR 6.7 update. I also downloaded the DNG converter and tried processing a couple of DNG files via Lightroom 4. There is no doubt that developing from RAW (either using the CR2 files or first converting to DNG) gives better results than out of camera jpegs.

2) How has the LCD light affected your photography? Why are you unkeen to accept the fix? How do you know this wasn't the fix they introduced for all of the others? I actually think lensrentals did the community a disservice by showing this because, even though it's a perfectly acceptable fix and everyone who "knows" agrees, people suddenly don't like it.

It hasn't, but as someone else mentioned if I try to sell the body at some stage it's on the record that there was a 'problem' with serial numbers ...1... and ...2... and therefore would this affect the resale value?

3) Can we see some photos with the lens? Wide lenses will always have distortion but we can't really make a judgement without seeing that. I doubt there's a serious problem with the lens though but without seeing, it's hard to make a judgement.

Fair comment. I'll try to post an example later - I'll have to log on to a different computer.

4) If there are black / white dots, send the images to Canon through your retailer for analysis. I'm sure they can sort it out.

How would they sort it out? Has anyone else noticed this and if so is it likely to be fixed via a firmware update, or is it likely that my particular sensor has a physical fault and therefore needs replacing? I bought mine from Jacobs in the UK, so maybe I'll just give them a ring and see what they say.

Realistically this is what you get for being an early adopter. If you didn't want these kinds of problems, don't early adopt... it seems a touch harsh to buy something early days, find a few tiny minor issues and then send it back because of them. Every camera has problems early on - in fact, it sounds like the d800 has some fairly major issues.

I felt I had little choice.  The 1Dx wasn't available, I wasn't keen on the idea of going for a 1DMkII with the MkIII just released and if I'd taken my 1DMkII, I wouldn't have been able to capture a good number of the images I did.

The only one to reject the camera on IMO is the JPEG quality - if you can't find a setting that works for you, you'll likely have to switch brands... or at least send a very strong signal to Canon that it's unacceptable to you.

40

EOS Bodies - For Stills / 5DIII - advice needed please - keep it or send it back?

« on: May 24, 2012, 02:32:47 AM »

Oh no - not yet another 'whinge about the 5DIII thread' I hear you say

Well, not so much a whinge but a 'cry for help'.

I'll try to explain my dilemma. Coming from a 1DMkII, I really wanted to upgrade to a 1Dx but felt I needed a full frame camera for a 'trip of a lifetime' that I went on from 13th April to 18th May. The 1Dx wasn't available prior to 13th April, the 5DMkIII was available - just! So I went ahead and bought one of the very first 5DMkIII kits available in the UK (had to go for the kit because there was no 'body only' available at the time of purchase).

The good:

On my trip, I took over 2000 pictures in all sorts of lighting conditions and have to say that I've been blown away with the low light/high ISO capabilities. It soon became obvious that some of the shots would have been impossible with the 1DMkII in the circumstances I found myself and with the kit available at the time (I had a 580EXII speedlite with me, but no batteries yet). Yes, the out of camera jpegs are mushy to say the least, even on the lowest noise reduction setting, but the images are MUCH better when developed from the RAW files via DNG converter and Lightroom 4.

Also, the AF appears to be amazingly accurate in the most challenging of circumstances.

The bad:

My body is one of those (serial numbers ...1... and ...2...) that allegedly has the problem with the backlight affecting exposure. I understand that Canon has issued an advisory offering to 'repair' affected cameras under warranty (allegedly using a small piece of sticky tape).

Although image quality is much better when developing the RAW files, the jpegs out of camera are very disappointing - even at low ISO in good light. Not only mushy, but I've noticed the odd 'black spot' at 1:1 magnification (didn't the MkII have the same issue when it was first released?) - this is actually a pure white pixel surround on all sides by dark pixels. Easy to clone out, but why should I have to!

I've been seeing some weird distortions with the bundled 24-105 lens that go beyond the known barrel distortion at the wide end, even after applying lens corrections in post.

The bottom line (my concerns):

The 5DMkIII has some great features but the out of camera jpeg IQ is extremely disappointing. OK, so shoot RAW and develop myself - but shouldn't the out of camera jpegs, particularly from a camera at this level, be usable for those situations when spending time developing RAW files is just not practical or feasible?

I have one of the early production models with a design flaw i.e. backlight potentially affecting exposure. Canon has offered to 'repair' it under warranty but something inside me bucks against accepting that solution i.e. I'd feel much happier with a replacement than a bodged up substandard version. Logically, the two would probably be the same i.e. have similar pieces of sticky tape in the appropriate places, but for some reason I just feel I'd be happier with a 'new' body.

To resolve the lens issue, it would need to be taken or sent to my nearest Canon authorised repair centre for testing and possible repair or replacement under warranty, which is over 200 miles round trip from me. I don't really feel comfortable sending it via post or courier.

I've exhausted my budget for new equipment so whatever decision I make now, I'll be stuck with.

What should I do?

1) Return the whole kit for replacement?

2) Return the whole kit for a refund and reconsider my buying options?

3) Soldier on with the kit - do some more lens testing myself to pin down the distortion issue and deal with that separately under warranty and just accept that for decent image quality I'll have to spend time developing the RAW files; forget the backlight affecting exposure (non-) issue?

4) Any other constructive comments/suggestions?

41

EOS Bodies / Re: Anti-aliasing filter in 1DX

« on: April 04, 2012, 01:32:40 PM »

A well-tuned low pass filter does not really lose any detail, whereas a camera without a low pass filter will generate false detail. A filterless camera is destructive to detail.

Now I'm confused

What would be the advantage of having a different version of the D800 without a low pass/AA filter then? I somehow gained the impression that it was for e.g. landscape photographers who want more detail in their images. If absence of a filter generates false detail/is destructive to detail, what would be the advantage of leaving the filter off?

42

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help: 5D III & 24-105 sharpness

« on: March 29, 2012, 04:23:55 AM »

I think a great deal of the soft image problems are stemming from the 24-105mm lens they are shipping as a kit lens.
I took test shots with mine when I received it and I hated the results.
Soft, dull, dark and not what I was expecting from a highly rated camera.
ET

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,303.0.html

43

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review

« on: March 29, 2012, 04:14:18 AM »

I have to admit that I found the following statement in KR's review to be very reassuring and in accord with my own sentiments:

"The 5D Mark III is plenty accurate. If you're not getting great results, try a different lens or be more careful. The results can't be any better than your own photographic abilities."

That's probably because I want to believe it though 

44

Lenses / Re: Lens advice: which prime should I buy first?

« on: March 29, 2012, 02:37:44 AM »

I wasn't intending to post this morning (it's 07:37 here in the UK) just lurk for a few minutes to see what's new, but I feel I have to respond to JerryKnight's post. With full respect to JerryKnight, it appears that the OP has a genuine enthusiasm for photography and is not a photography newbie, just picking up a different tool. OK, the technicalities of using a DSLR might take a while to master but, as JerryKnight points out, that in itself will not produce great images. That brings us to my favourite quote, from Ansell Adams i.e. "The most important part of a camera is the twelve inches behind it". It doesn't matter what tools are used, whether it be a point-and-shoot, toy camera with a plastic lens, a large format film camera, a technical camera, a DSLR or a pinhole. For all we know, the OP might have more artistic vision, creativity and imagination in his little finger than the rest of us have as a group. He might well be one of those really annoying people that because of these factors, combined with their energy and enthusiasm, rapidly surpass the wildest dreams of many of us who have been plodding on for years with our top of the range DSLRs without really getting anywhere. 

45

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: A bad workman blames his tools? (5DMkIII)

« on: March 28, 2012, 11:21:19 AM »

Poll update: so far, almost 90% think there isn't any real problem with 5DMkIII IQ - very encouraging