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.
don´t you think the AF will be as good as 5 year old cameras who do wildlife shots pretty well?
I've never seen the point in screen protectors for a camera. #1, my screen never gets scratched, and thats with professional use, #2, if it does get scratched... so what? The screen doesn't take the photo. Who cares? The camera is a tool. A carpenter doesn't put a protective cover on his hammer so the nail doesn't scratch it up.
Lovely project - go for it!
I hate to spoil some of the fun but a macro used wide open is not very usable for anything else than abstracts. DOF is very thin. So you need to be able to set aperture somehow (that means electronics)
Seems we have two camps forming here. Those that have it and love it, and those that haven't got and can see nothing but problems even though the reviews praise it for the low price and high IQ
Is this a way of clearing old stock, isn't the MK3 able to way out perform those lenses?
I do a lot of night time, night time HDR, panoramic photography and just wondered if the 7D would be up to the job for this. I often do long exposures, in a few shots i've done 20-30 minute exposures on a beach at night and while the 550D was good it wasn't quite perfect, so I wouldn't want to upgrade and lose that performance i have currently.
So yes, he is right that some NR was inadvertently applied by ACR, not you, and that you can knock it from 25 to 0 and get more noise, but he is wrong about how much noise and what kind of noise... Minimal difference in color noise between 0 and 25 and it is luminance noise more than anything else, which is to be expected, and cleans up quite nicely.
If you are referring to what Sambal Oelek said about the cat at ISO 6400, I'm not sure I agree, but maybe I got you wrong. I'll try to post three 100% crops: one without any NR, one with the default 25 chroma NR, and one with 69 (!) luminance NR without chroma NR, which makes the chroma noise easily distinguishable form the luma noise.
On the other hand, Canon, along with other Japanese electronic manufactures are too dumb to come up with intelligent firmware because they still run those firmwares under DOS! A real OS with multitasking kernel is the foundation to software intelligence. Look at smart phones, they run OSX (iphone), Linux Kernel (Android) and Window Kernel (Windows Mobile). The OS limits how complicated your software layer can ever be.
I've been all though LR4 and can't find any way to set what you are talking about. Color Noise Detail is set at 50 by default in LR4, but doesn't get applied unless you adjust the Color Noise slider.
A setting of "25" is pretty agressive NR and would make the cat look plastic.
Looks like there is quite a lot of Chroma NR being applied to this picture. ISO 6400 with absolutely no NR looks very messy, but it does clean up quite nicely, like in this picture.
Here is the shot as it was taken, no profile correction, no strong contrast curve, and no edit to her eyes. Just like the last time I posted it there is NO noise reduction at all. This was shot in RAW with the faithful picture style.
ISO 6400 only looks poor with the 5DIII if you are under exposing. In this case I slowed the shutter to 1/50th, and had the image properly exposed in camera at ISO 6400. Under exposing at any ISO and then using Lightroom to make up for it will make any file look like junk.
The worst of noise lives where images are improperly exposed. I've only shot with the Mark II momentarily so I can't speak to how it performs, but my T3i behaved just exactly the same. Of course it can't shoot at 6400 and get a usable file in any sort of light.... but I am able to make usable files at 3200 with it.
Kev
Here's a real-world shot at ISO 6400 that I took tonight for a friend with my brand spanking new 5D3. Shot in RAW, no noise reduction added (camera set to Standard, but I don't think that affects RAW at all), 180mm, ISO 6400, 1/50th, and f2.8.
Only edits are lens profile (70-200 2.8L), strong contrast curve and I enhanced her eyes in Lightroom 4.
I know this is higher ISO than you were talking about, but I think it may still be helpful.
Kev
Well, then I guess the 300 f2,8 L IS sucks bigtime, because mine missed by 30 meters aiming at 100 meters, and that was at +20.... It needed hardware calibration, and when it came back I adjusted it to +6 and it was dead on. Calibration doesn't have anything to do with "bad" or good lenses at all. It has to do with tolerance. And in my experience you can go 10 and 10 steps at the time and see no difference, heck both my 50's where very close, but not perfect (like my other lenses) until I ran the FoCal software, it only adjusted them 2 steps from where I was, but it made a HUGE difference in stabillity and accuracy. Farther and farther adjustment doesn't always make it better and better, it's the RIGHT adjustments you need.
Just checked, and it seems the 50 and 135 are the ones that are the least adjusted both on my 5d3 and my gf's 5d2. My 24 is at +16, but it hits perfect. I ran it through FoCal, and it gave me +16...
35 is at -11 but also hit perfect.
During my tests with the 50 1.2 for portrait uses, I found the AF for the 50, terrible. Sometimes, maybe 20% it would lock on and be awesome, sometimes, it would be close, but just off, and sometimes, the camera would show focus confirmation, but image would be blurry as heck. Plus the MA was so off I had it on the max MA to get it in focus for the few shots it got focus. When i tested the 35 1.4, on the same body as the 50 test, I got a lot more in focus in more demanding situations. The only time the 35 was OOF was when shutters were too slow because it was too dark, which isn't a lens issue, but a camera/operator issue. Dont get me wrong, I wanted to love the 50, but for the sample I tested, it's too unreliable.
How fair is that? If you had å copy at Max out MA, you haven't got a properly calibrated lens, and of course that won't work. I didn't get any stability or accuracy with my 50's before i used REIKAN software. But now, the 50 L is just fantastic, and as you can see from my bottom signature, I have the others to compare with. It isn't perfect, but it's what's closest in the 50 focal...
I am a relatively new photographer, unlike a pro like you. I have been a motion picture cinematographer for 15 years and have done several major movies but not done much still photography. I bought a 5d2 three years ago now the 5d3 and have pre ordered the 1dx.
I will upgrade to the best available so it helps me create better photos easier.
BUT the posted photos fail to show me any super technology. Again, I am NOT saying that 1dx will not have super focus etc... Or that the photographer is no good. Just that these photos fail to impress me. Photographers have managed to take such photos for decades... IMHO.
Sounds like you have great gear but I wouldn't say that buying a more expensive camera would be hitting the easy button, in fact you are probably going to make it harder on yourself by buying a 1DX. You might want to look at the modes as you will notice that there is no fully automatic mode, rather the 1DX is stripped down to the bare essentials: Program (PE), Aperture Priority (AV), Shutter priority (TV) and Manual (M).
(...)
