October 25, 2014, 02:38:59 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 - JoeDavid

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
Does anyone have a more exact description of this problem?  I have a 200/2L IS that is in the "affected" serial number range but, when I put it on my 5DM3, it autofocuses just fine with the IS enabled and there are no unusual noises; just the faint IS sound that you always hear.  Is there a specific combination of IS, metering, and AF modes that the cameras and lens have to be set on for the "loud noise" to be emitted?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2012, 07:59:03 PM »
And how is APS-H any better? I always felt like it was the worst choice for wide-normal FLs (the ones you would normally use on a mirrorless camera). There is no decent non-L fast-50 Canon equivalent for APS-H (IMHO 35/2 is pretty bad). I guess that 28/1.8USM is a decent 35 on 1.3 crop, but that's all... It may be acceptable if they produce some nice APS-H format primes (like 12mm, 28mm, 40mm, 75mm), but then again it would fail at adapting EF/EF-S lenses (in term of vignetting, black edges and awkward FLs) and that's a deal-breaker for someone like me.

I shoot FF most of the time but I still enjoy shooting with my 1DM4 which is, of course, APS-H.  In a mirrorless body I'll take the largest sensor Canon is willing to put into it and, yes, I do shoot with L glass most of the time.  I'd be quite happy with a 1.3x sensor mirrorless body to use with the 14/2.8L, 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 50/1.2L... you get the idea.  Don't get me wrong, I'll take a mirrorless that is FF but I don't think Canon will produce one.  I don't really think they'll use APS-H either, so it will end up being something that I may buy as a backup for traveling light but not as my primary camera...

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 07, 2012, 09:00:26 AM »
I don't think there's any way that Canon will release a mirrorless that is FF.  If they did they would charge way too much for it...  If I had my wishes I'd like to see one with the APS-C or, better yet, APS-H sensor size.  That 4/3 proportioned (but larger than 4/3 standard format) sensor in the G1 X is just about the craziest thing they have ever done.  I know there was a lot of hype about the G1 X and that the image quality was quite good but I found it interesting that Best Buy listed it for a couple of months before it was release and then deleted it from their site once it actually started shipping.  Sort of makes you wonder about the mass market appeal of the thing.  My guess is that Canon is lining up another oddity to not cannibalize their DSLR market...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Firmware upgrade, missing step...
« on: April 24, 2012, 08:45:23 AM »
Loaded mine from CF with an SD card installed with not probelms.  Updated two 5DM3 bodies this way.  The only problem I had was that the update changed some of my camera settings.  For example, the card to record to was set to the second (SD) slot after the update.  Before the upgrade they were set to CF.  The update also set my AF mode to single point with the center point selected.  These changes occured on both cameras.  Weird!  I'll have to go through the entire camera settings on both of them to see if anything else was changed...

EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 09:19:23 PM »
Not meaning to hijack the thread but, since most of this is about soft images from the 5DM3, here goes...

I have had the 5DM3 for 4 days now and am pretty pleased with its performance.  I've been doing mostly outdoor landscape type of stuff testing it out.  Tonight I realized that I hadn't used a flash on it at all so I mounted a small 270EX that I use for fill flash and began firing away at at a stack of magazines on the coffee table with the 24-105L.  With the camera set to let it select the focus points the results were soft to completely out of focus.  Changing the AF to single point produced sharp photos.  The magazine on top was a copy of American Photo with the large word "Photo" in red.  When the camera locked onto the red Photo word, the focus was completely off.  It got better when it chose to lock onto areas with black text but never produced anything as sharp as single point AF focused on the same black text.  This requires more investigation on my part but it will have to wait.  I have a 580EX II that I can test with as well but I thought I'd go ahead and put this out there in case anyone else with a 5DM3 can look at it too...

EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: March 15, 2012, 07:26:37 AM »
Great stuff, thanks.
If we're talking about jpegs direct from the camera, can we throw the improvements between ISO 50 to 100 out the window?

From looking at the noise in the various ISOs from the RAW files with no noise reduction during ACR processing, I doubt you'll tell any difference between them.  It wasn't a huge difference between 50 and 100 but it was clearly visible at 100% (pixel peeping...).  In fact, in JPEGs directly from the camera, I doubt you'll tell much of a difference from ISO 50 to 400!  800 looked like it will clean up with minimal loss of detail too.  Above that, the noise level starts to ratchet up signficantly with each full ISO step.  I will say though that the noise remained in a "tight" pattern all the way up through 12800; it just gets heavier as you go up but maintains quite a bit of detail.  At 25600 you start to see some of the random large chucks of noise that really impacts small details in the image and I wouldn't even bother with H1 or H2 unless you're desperate for any image at all.

Remember these comments are based on the Imaging Resources RAW files shot with studio lights.  To me they represent near "ideal" conditions.  Out in the real world, any underexposing of images always results in greater noise...

EOS Bodies / Re: Question regarding ISO 50 on 5D III
« on: March 14, 2012, 10:07:24 PM »
Maybe just an odd occurance but, from the RAW files posted at the link below, I found the ISO 50 image to have less noise in the shadows than ISO 100:


I used the Beta ACR converted with the noise reduction turned off and looked at all of the ISOs from 50 to 25600.  The shadows definitely exhibit less color noise in the ISO 50 shadows (most noticable between the Crayola crayon box and the pepper oil bottle just below the fabrics).  Canon may be doing some "on chip" noise reduction before the RAW file creation and it functions at ISO 50 as well resulting in less noise.  I don't think I've seen anyone else comment on it but ISO 50 definitely has less noise if you turn off all of the software noise reduciton when processing the files to compare them...

EOS Bodies / Re: 5DM3 HDR Article
« on: March 14, 2012, 09:55:03 PM »
I think he did mention the in-camera HDR only went 1, 2, or 3 exposures above and below. Maybe the 5 & 7 are AEB only and not part of the HDR function?

That's my understanding.  HDR uses 3 exposures, AEB can be up to 7, and Multiple Exposure is up to 9.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 or 1DX for Ultimate Image Quality...
« on: March 14, 2012, 08:10:52 PM »
How could the 1DX loose?

One way would be resolution.  The 5DM3 has 4M more pixels.  At low ISOs it, at least theoritically, could resolve finer detail.  Of course the AA filter choices Canon has made may purposely prevent it...

EOS Bodies / 5DM3 HDR Article
« on: March 14, 2012, 08:04:22 PM »
I ran accross a 5DM3 HDR article on Canon's Learning site.  It's about what I expected but it would be better if it could save the resulting file in a 16 bit/color file format.  At least the input files taken can be RAW and you have the option of saving them but of course that is the same as a 3 shot bracket.


* Sorry if this link is a double post.  I didn't see it anywhere.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III Information
« on: March 13, 2012, 08:11:08 PM »
For what it's worth, I heard from the camera store I'm getting a 5DM3 from this morning (they contacted me).  I was told that Canon USA has their initial allotment ready to go but would not begin shipping to dealers until Friday (16th).  If true, that should put them arriving at some of the dealers the first half of next week.  With any luck, I may have one by the end of next week...

Lenses / Re: cannon 35mm 1.4L now or wait for 35 f/1.4L II?
« on: March 07, 2012, 07:57:58 PM »
It may end up being the bargin that you missed if you decide to wait.  I have one and can't image that they'll improve the optical quality much.  I'm sure they'll add their latest micro-coatings to the elements (plus their incredible price increase!) and bring the weathersealing up to the current level of the other L glass introduced recently but it's still a well built, sharp lens "as is".

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 1 DX
« on: March 07, 2012, 02:57:03 PM »
Back the end of February, Canon UK (and I think Germany) posted a press release stating that the 1D X would not ship until late April:


I don't know about Canada but I kept watching and never saw a similar press release from Canon USA.  I don't know if they are that out of the loop or simply don't care to update their US customers.  I think the original date given was the end of March so it looks like a slip of a month at least.

EOS Bodies / 5DM3 Video Odd MB/sec requirements
« on: March 07, 2012, 10:01:55 AM »
From an article on Canon's Learning Center about the 5DM3 and video:

"* HD 50 fps or 60 fps recording places the greatest demands on memory card speed, especially during ALL-I recording. Required read/write speed during HD 720p ALL-I recording for CF cards is 30 MB/sec; for SD cards, 14MB/sec."

Anyone know why it wouldn't require the same MB/sec rating for both types of media?  the MB/sec should be driven by the video recording parameters; not the card format shouldn't it?

EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 vs Canon 5d3 sample images.
« on: March 05, 2012, 09:18:55 PM »
I concentrated on the landscape shots because you would think that they were included to show off the resolution capabilities of the 5DM3.  I saved the images locally and used DPP to see the full Canon information.

The shot of the village on the hillside was taken with the 50mm f1.2L at f8 and 1/400 sec, Image Quality setting was Fine, and a Picture Style of Landscape.  To me it looks like a soft image over-sharpened a little when viewed at 100%.  It worries me if that is the best it can do at ISO 100.  Metering was set to Evaluative with a -2/3 Exposure Compensation setting (so much for Canon's perfect metering...).

The fall foliage shot across the water was taken with the 70-200/2.8L IS II at 85mm using f8 and 1/320 sec.  Image quality was again set to Fine with a Picture Style of User Defined 1 at ISO 200.  To me this shot also looks like a soft shot that has been slightly over-sharpened when viewed at 100%.  This one was also metered with Evaluative metering with a -2/3 Exposure Compensation.

The last one (the one of the lake with the hills in the background) was taken at 17mm with the 17-40mm f4L; NOT the 17mm TSE.  The shot was taken at f11 and 1/160 sec.  Again, Image Quality was set to Fine and used the Landscape Picture Style at ISO 200.  Knowing that the shot is focused fairly close judging by the foreground sharpness, I can live with the soft foliage in the distance.  Evaluative metering as the others but this time no Exposure Compensation was used so the metering hit 1 out of 3.

All in all, it looks like a pretty weak showing for landscape photography.  One other interesting thing to note is that they were all taken in October of last year with three different versions of the firmware...

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7