April 20, 2014, 08:34:05 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 - SambalOelek

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
31
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.

Most contemporary Canon DSLRs (and many compacts) run DryOS, a RTOS (completely unrelated to DOS, by the way). This limits costs compared to licensing another OS. None of the operating systems you list are real-time operating systems, and would not necessarily be suitable for Canon DSLRs. The DryOS kernel fits in 16kb of memory, the Android kernel is, what, 2MB?

32
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 21, 2012, 07:59:49 AM »
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.

In that case, would you mind publishing the RAW file or sending it to me privately? I've seen correctly exposed ISO 400 files with more visible chroma noise.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 20, 2012, 02:36:42 AM »

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

I don't use Adobe's raw converter myself, but the XMP of your file shows
ColorNoiseReduction="25"
ColorNoiseReductionDetail="50"

25 is the default Color noise reduction applied to RAW files in Lightroom. If you reduce this value to zero, you should see some pretty colors :)

Hope you'll update your posts with the result. I'd be interested to see how much noise is actually present.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III vs 5D Mark II Raw Image Quality
« on: June 19, 2012, 09:21:17 AM »
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

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.

I have shot SxS comparisons between the Mk II and III at all ISOs. I'd say the difference from 50-800 is negligible. At higher ISOs, the amount of (unreduced) noise is actually quite similar, but the Mark III files look much better after NR. IMHO

Even at very low ISO's, if you push the exposure in post, you will see ugly blotches of color noise in the shadow areas in Mark II images. Mark III files have the same issue, but it's slightly less prominent.

35
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.

That's a non-sequitur. The 50L focus shifts (a separate, but very related issue) is caused by the lens' undercorrection of spherical aberration, in other words a design flaw (or "feature", if you prefer).

36
Technical Support / Re: removing dust from sensor
« on: June 18, 2012, 06:08:20 AM »
I've used Sensor Swabs with great success. I breathe lightly on them to get a wee bit of moisture (tip from Bryan Carnathan at the-digital-picture.com) and give the sensor a few swipes. Repeat if necessary.

I believe Canon does not recommend using anything but a blower if you're cleaning it on your own, so FWIW you may void your warranty...

37
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...

My experience is similar, and I probably should have my own sample calibrated. It's especially frustrating because I've never encountered any such problems with the 35L (two samples), 85L, 135L (three samples) or 50 f/1.4 (3 samples) for that matter. Slight MA needed, sure, but nothing like this.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: CANON 1Dx - Action images - UEFA EURO 2012™
« on: June 15, 2012, 08:24:41 PM »
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).
(...)

I'll let sanj answer for himself, but I would think someone who's a seasoned cinematographer and long time 5D2/3 owner would not have to rely on the fully automatic modes to obtain properly exposed pictures :)

Having said that, it does take a bit of adjustment going from a "enthusiast"-level camera to a 1-series. And afterwards, you don't want to go back :)

39
The 50 1.2 wont focus right wih the outer AF sensors on the 5D.

The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with any AF sensor on any 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.

Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.

40
Lenses / Re: 400mm f/4. Anything good and "affordable"?
« on: June 12, 2012, 09:35:38 AM »

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the Canon 2x II extender. I have to say that I was quite impressed with both the IQ and the speed of the AF. To be honest when I bought the extender I really was expecting the worst, but ended up being very happy.


Just got the Kenko 2x TC DGX.  On 5D MkIII, it ONLY works with 70-200 II, not anything else, which I expected since my Kenko 1.4x only works with 70-200 II as well.  Kenko can keep denying compatibility problems with 5D III and put their head in the sand, but problem exists. 

On 70-200 + 2x TC, probably cropped out 80% of the photo.  It was at dusk, so iso2000.

 
DZ3C3817 by drjlo1, on Flickr


Nice level of detail considering the 2x converter. There is quite a lot of visible noise, though, did you push the exposure in post?

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Used 60D or new 650D/T4i?
« on: June 11, 2012, 05:56:53 PM »
In all fairness, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM is comparable to the 100 L, and on par mechanically and IQ-wise. It has a metal body, the 100 L is a bit on the plasticky side in my opinion. The 100 f/2.8 non-L is also at least on par IQ-wise (except the L's bokeh, which is great).

Ok, I didn't make myself clear enough: I'd only recommend/get 3rd party lenses if there is a significant price or iq difference to Canon, because you'll run into less difficulties with the latter and it's valid for cps.

I had the 100 non-L macro and only switched it because the L has better sealing and is dual-usable as a portrait lens with IS and sharp f2.8 - I don't have a 70-200/2.8. I am frequently recommending the non-L for macro work, excellent lens.

At the same time, I'm always commenting on the 100L plastic fantastic build, but the iq and IS is stellar. I don't know much about the Sigma, but for currently 75€ more (Canon currently has a 70€ rebate) I'd take the Canon any day.

Ok, that makes sense. The 100L is great, no question about it. It just feels a bit...tacky compared to, well, any other L-lens I can think of :)

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Used 60D or new 650D/T4i?
« on: June 11, 2012, 08:34:07 AM »
Just wanted to mention it: There are other excellent lenses out there that create stunning images except for Canon "L", and older Canon L or even the current 17-40 aren't that stellar. I've got Canon lenses that don't have a comparable 3rd party alternative (100L, 70-300L) (...)

In all fairness, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 OS HSM is comparable to the 100 L, and on par mechanically and IQ-wise. It has a metal body, the 100 L is a bit on the plasticky side in my opinion. The 100 f/2.8 non-L is also at least on par IQ-wise (except the L's bokeh, which is great).

43
Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?
« on: June 05, 2012, 07:45:35 AM »

Is there a list anywhere for the Canon lenses that require a front filter for complete weather sealing?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM 
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM 
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM

Another way to look at this is those lens which are vented and can (theoretically) suck in dust.  It's probably wise to put a filter on the non WS, non L, 17-55 since it has been known to pick up dust.  (actually I don't know where the vent is on this specific lens but you get the point).

There are vents around the front element, but dust may accumulate over time even if a filter is used. If necessary, however, it is very easy to remove the front element and get rid of the dust. The entire operation takes less than five minutes.

44
Lenses / Re: Can a UV filter affect IQ (sharpness) on a lens?
« on: June 04, 2012, 09:35:59 AM »

1. Weather sealing. A lot of L glass needs a filter to complete the seal.

Says who?  Canon?  If Canon says it's weather sealed, shouldn't that mean it's weather sealed without a filter?  I'm not doubting you, just requesting a reference.

Several Canon lens require a filter to "complete" (the key word being complete) the weather sealing.   Example, 16-35, page 7.

Is there a list anywhere for the Canon lenses that require a front filter for complete weather sealing?

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM 
EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM 
EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D & 3D Prediction from Japan
« on: June 04, 2012, 09:24:10 AM »
after the "3d" where will the mk iiifall into????

Into the hands of photographers who do not need or want the high megapixel count and the 1-Series size/ruggedness :D

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4