Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Long exposures won't record to 5d mark iii

« on: March 30, 2013, 04:23:08 AM »

you may have long exposure noise reduction turned on. It's just a guess on my part though, I may be wrong

+1.  Go to page 144 of your manual (Camera3 tab if the camera is available) and check your setting.  Effectively, long exposure noise reduction "doubles" your image capture time, and sounds like what you are experiencing. You may have just interrupted the process.
Hope this solves your problem.

2

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: digital camera as light meter

« on: December 12, 2012, 06:22:16 AM »

The main reason I would prefer a camera used just for metering, is I sometimes go against what my in-camera meter says, to get my desired result.
If this way works, it would literally be as easy as replacing camera A, with camera B. And saving a lot of film too. 

Yes, you can use the digital camera as a light meter and I've heard people using it for just that purpose. In fact, a friend uses his 5D2 to meter for his medium format 617 film camera.  It may be a bit more trial and error at first adjusting for the appropriate film characteristics to get the exposure you are looking for.  He was using Velvia 50 & 100, which can be a bit more sensitive.  Also remember the reciprocity failure of film for long exposures, which the digital camera does not allow for.

Also, what is the crop factor for say, a full frame vs mf.   (like 1.6x , is for crop and full frame)

This depends on your camera.  Medium format cameras for film come in many form factors, eg 6x4.5, 6x7, etc.
I found this reference useful a while ago:  www.viewcamera.com/images/focalchart.gif
It gives the corresponding 35mm (or full frame) focal length equivalent for different medium and large format cameras, and you can determine the "crop" factor from that.

3

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Discoloration/Pealing; Slowly Growing

« on: December 12, 2012, 06:01:31 AM »

As others have noted, this looks like abrasion from clothing or similar.  Especially evident on the harder edges (meaning sharper corners) around the assembly screw holes and the speaker holes.  The discolouration is actually the magnesium body underneath the anodised surface coming through.  In other words, the anodised surface has been "polished" off.  Do you wear a heavy fabric like denim?
I'd say this is happening when the camera isn't in use, and the camera is hanging from the shoulder strap, possibly swinging and rubbing against your body and clothing.
Sorry to see it happen.  Good luck.

4

Lenses / Re: Canon Lens Serial Number -question

« on: October 25, 2012, 04:34:25 PM »

I just checked the lens, and I did not see any date stamp on this one (unless I am missing the obvious)

Luc

Hi Luc,
I received my 24-70II on the first weekend release here in Sydney (31 Aug).  My serial number is xxxxx00349, and there is no date code on this lens.  I've looked many times in case I'm missing something, but its not on all L lenses as Neuro said.  As MtSpokane also said, serial numbers are distributed out but are not necessarily sequentially sold - I wouldn't be too concerned.  I'm loving this lens and the quality of the images it helps produce.  I'm sure you will too.

5

Lenses / Re: Patent - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS

« on: July 09, 2012, 04:04:09 AM »

Two possibilities.
1.) This was one of the lenses tested for the MkII of the 24-70L and it was just patented for the sake of being patented.
2.) Canon actually listens what people want and on top of that Tamron has put pressure on them with their stabilized lens, so they are bringing one out.
I'm willing to bet on the first option though...

The first option is most accurate.

The original patent filing date (Dec 2010) would have been made before they decided on which design option to release.  As soon as they make the options/alternatives available for field testing they become public domain and you can lose the opportunity to patent the idea later.  As such, all designs (5-6 as per CR original post) would have been patented at that time, to protect all designs they may release, and thats long before Tamron announced theirs.

Deciding to follow through and publish the patent indicates they want to protect their intellectual property in that design embodiment, but is no definite indicator they will ever produce one.

For now, I just want my 24-70 f/2.8L II......

6

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Really Right Stuff Camera Plate w/o Grip - B5D3

« on: May 02, 2012, 06:35:43 AM »

And more...
1st - simple view off camera.
2nd - shows chamfer on leading edge of the minor step, but also the rubber footprint of the camera base, it definitely bottoms out on the flat section of the plate.
3rd & 4th - very minor surface rub on the textured camera body caused by a face to face contact - not a hard edge/corner.  Only very superficial, and certainly nothing more than will be expected during the general usage of the camera.
Note, I couldn't see any witness of the minor step on the camera, that was the initial concern raised here.

***  UPDATE  ***
I feel compelled to update here as these images are being referenced on other sites - eg Fred Miranda.
The very slight and superficial markings on the camera DO NOT break through the surface finish on the camera as stated elsewhere.  In fact, they were particularly hard to photograph as I had to get the light to reflect off the surface just to be seen.  At most viewing angles, the "marks" are not even visible.  You have to really look hard to see them.
Yes, I contemplated removing the images, but in the interests of full disclosure and to prevent further and endless speculation I have left them here so you can decide if they are an issue for you - they are most definitely not for me.

7

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Really Right Stuff Camera Plate w/o Grip - B5D3

« on: May 02, 2012, 06:30:12 AM »

I received my Rev A L-Plate tonight and can confirm there is a small step as shown in the other images, but the l-plate appears to have a generous chamfer on the step leading edge - difficult to tell if it even contacts the camera there as very few light gaps and very neat fit all round.  After 3 hours there is no contact line or mark on the camera in any location.  I'll report back tomorrow night, maybe with images if anyone is interested.
Sorry, don't have lenses or second camera here tonight.

Yes, please pics as soon as you can - even iPhone ones.

Photos as requested.  Sorry for poor quality, but from an old point-and-shoot.  Generally a really neat fit.
The 4th image shows the minor step leading edge chamfer.
Couldn't get an image along the base of the camera as the l-plate blocks the light coming through.

***  UPDATE  ***
I feel compelled to update here as these images are being referenced on other sites - eg Fred Miranda.
The very slight and superficial markings on the camera DO NOT break through the surface finish on the camera as stated elsewhere.  In fact, they were particularly hard to photograph as I had to get the light to reflect off the surface just to be seen.  At most viewing angles, the "marks" are not even visible.  You have to really look hard to see them.
Yes, I contemplated removing the images, but in the interests of full disclosure and to prevent further and endless speculation I have left them here so you can decide if they are an issue for you - they are most definitely not for me.

8

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Really Right Stuff Camera Plate w/o Grip - B5D3

« on: May 01, 2012, 09:03:47 AM »

maybe they just removed the old flanges and put new ones in place so they didn't have to scrap them. They def went the easy cheaper route as my 1dm3 is smooth beginning to end no steps at all.
I should get mine thursday according to UPS tracking.

Yeah I don't understand why the 'step' needed to be added. If the plate needed to be raised at that location, why not make it a curved gradual flange vs a step? At least that won't dig into the camera body...

I am totally with you on that. It will be interesting to see if the L-bracket has the same step - if it does, I dunno if I will keep it as it seems like it may leave a mark on the camera. Can you provide a shot of of the side of the bracket with a profile of the step?

I received my Rev A L-Plate tonight and can confirm there is a small step as shown in the other images, but the l-plate appears to have a generous chamfer on the step leading edge - difficult to tell if it even contacts the camera there as very few light gaps and very neat fit all round.  After 3 hours there is no contact line or mark on the camera in any location.  I'll report back tomorrow night, maybe with images if anyone is interested.
Sorry, don't have lenses or second camera here tonight.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Um... is there a 30mpix camera on the way and when?

« on: April 15, 2012, 10:03:31 PM »

They have now seen that there are enough who are trained to believe that more MP are better and will put their money down for bragging rights.

You're basically telling me I'm an idiot because I feel I have a use for 36MP. I don't appreciate that. Choose your words more carefully.

What you really mean is YOU don't think one needs so many MP. Now that's another matter entirely. That's just YOUR little opinion.

Actually, I didn't read it that way at all.

Maybe it is my Product Development Manager way of thinking, but Need and Want are two very different market segments.  The need is the foundation and creates the opportunity, and in some ways may be guaranteed sales.  The want can be fickle and are opportunistic sales, but can make a product a viable proposition.  I see dozens of fantastic ideas cross my desk on a regular basis, most of which there is a real market need, but sadly unless they can be sold in sufficient quantities they are not commercially viable on a return on investment and/or opportunity cost basis.  So where do the extra sales volumes to make it viable come from - those that want it, either through Marketing (for cameras the big sales message is often megapixels because to Joe Public this is a measureable quantity, after that it can just be techno-babble) or other means (peer pressure?).  Not everyone that buys a pro camera is a professional photographer.

As we saw in the leadup to and just after the release of the 5D3 spec lists, many indicated they needed a high megapixel camera (some studio and landscape photographers).  What the D800 sales is showing is a substantial market that also want it, and together both could be sufficient to guarantee the investment by Canon.

So as Mt Spokane Photography also said, but was omitted from your quote so it loses some context,

Canon will do it because it sells.

You and others (sometimes myself) may be in the Need category, but it is likely the Wants that will deliver the product for you.  I wouldn't take it personally.

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Any way to see focus point used on 5D Mark III when viewing photo?

« on: April 12, 2012, 11:51:15 PM »

You can see the red square focus points when the image is not zoomed in or magnified . . . And in A1 servo, choosing the center point with surrounding squares AF option, for example, you can see the multiple focus points used when you play back the image on your screen, in camera. . . all this info is transfered from the camera to the software you use to view the images later, too.

Interesting, thanks. That's a feature I'd like (not on the 5DII or 7D, probably will be on the 1D X).

I also wish it would display the focal length from the EXIF during playback.

I'm finding it particularly useful at the moment as I learn my way around the new autofocus system.
This is a selectable option under the "Playback Menu".  Playback #3 (blue), AF Point Display.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the default setting is, but have a feeling it is disabled.

You can also view it if you use Aperture on a Mac, at least on the 5dm2 anyway.

Nice to know it is available in Aperture.  I wonder if Lightroom 4 supports it (I'm yet to upgrade from 3.6)?

11

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 10, 2012, 10:14:58 AM »

From the video previously posted by "highnfar," here are screen caps of images taken with the backlight on during metering, and backlight off during metering....



 

Yes, I agree I can see a visible difference between the images.  But which image is the correct exposure for the scene and what you are trying to achieve?  Without a review of the histograms and images, neither may be correct, and for night photography nor should they be assumed to be correct.  (FWIW, the image on the right looks over-exposed, but its almost impossible to tell from such a small grab - and I do know the left is the LCD affected exposure.)
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, there clearly is but it looks to be manageable.  In my experimentation, I've found that the only time the exposure is affected is when the LCD panel in is brighter light than the image to be captured and how much it is affected depends on the intensity difference.
With this knowledge in hand we are forewarned and hence forearmed and can work around it - albeit we shouldn't and I wish we didn't have to, but it is what it is at the moment. 
My workflow for night photography will not change:
1. Compose the image and set focus.
2. Set a high ISO, Aperture Priority, biggest aperture for the lens, set autobracket +/-1 stop.
3. Review the 3 histograms and images.
4. Switch to Manual mode, with same ISO, same aperture, and adjusted time based on review of previous images and the result I want to achieve.
5. Confirm adjusted exposure by creating another image or adjust again.  Determine Bulb exposure time for desired ISO and desired aperture.
6. Set bulb setting, start exposure, grab a coffee, plug in the iPod and wait.

The good news is I've confirmed (on my 5D3 at least) that the light leakage does not get to the image sensor when the mirror is up, so the activation of the LCD or the use of a head-torch or similar during the exposure doesn't affect the image. 

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Why do i have these horrible pixelated regions in my 5DIII images?

« on: April 09, 2012, 11:23:57 PM »

Did you do any post work on the image to brighten/lighten it?  When I've done that in the past I have created banding in the darker areas in particular.
Secondly, a 400k jpeg at full resolution is quite small (I appreciate you may have done this to be able to post the image here).  Have you checked your default jpeg export settings? Try 100% quality and see if the banding disappears.
I'm sure you've done this many times (as you've worked with RAW), so please take these comments as helpful suggestions rather than criticism.

13

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 08, 2012, 09:41:40 PM »

The metering sensor is under the mirror and is used to set aperture and shutter speed.  This means light is getting to the metering sensor.  Obviously, if it gets to the metering sensor, then it probably gets to the main sensor as well, its just not very much light.

The metering sensor was under the mirror in old designs, but these days it's actually up in the pentaprism housing (labeled in the upper right of this diagram taken from a Canon tech report):



So, light that reaches the metering sensor should be blocked from hitting the image sensor by the mirror when it's flipped up during the exposure.

100% confirmed - for my 5D3.  I have done these crazy tests and most importantly - every frame I exposed (using manual focus) came out completely black.  Therefore, no stray light from the “metering leakage” is getting to the sensor.  I even did a 120 second bulb exposure with direct sunlight onto the LCD panel at ISO800 and only the slightest stray light was witnessed and that was found to come through the VF cover – so it isn’t perfect either.  When I removed this tiny VF leak, a 256 second bulb exposure got absolutely nothing. To put in context, a proper exposure was 1/1000 second at f/8.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?

« on: April 08, 2012, 09:24:45 PM »

It sounds like this effect is only observed when there is so little light that the sensor is blindly guessing at the exposure. What is the "correct" exposure that the camera should be reporting when the camera has the lens cap on and viewfinder closed?

I don't think the sensor is blindly guessing - I think it has just stopped searching for a proper exposure setting.  Heres my thoughts why:
I did this crazy test inside a neoprene bag with a lens attached and the lens cap on in a very dark room and got 10 seconds using Aperture Priority.  I was truly expecting to see an under-exposed warning (>30 seconds) in such an extremely dark environment, not a repeatable 10 second exposure setting like others are seeing (see videos and CR Guys notes).  Why didn't I get an under-exposure warning in such a low light condition?  Why isn't the exposure time flashing at 30 seconds, but rather stopping repeatably at 10 seconds?  So I started to think about the metering algorithm.  My guess is the algorithm increases exposure time (2x) and look for some corresponding change in meter reading (2x) (as you would expect in normal use (you know, some light, lens cap off) until it found the optimum exposure), and if it doesn’t get a reading increase change after a few increments it stops its search. 10 seconds at ISO800 seems to be the algorithm limit in the absence of light to the meter. At ISO6400, the time was 1 second. So it seems likely.

15

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Weird banding on new 5D Mark II

« on: April 07, 2012, 05:51:51 AM »

I think this is the thread that Neuro was talking about -
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4736.0

This was a new 5D3, but not sure this case is a similar issue.  Hope you resolve your issue.