September 02, 2014, 04:44:45 AM

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 - helpful

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14
EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview Canon 5D mark III noise comparison
« on: March 28, 2012, 04:38:49 PM »

Ok, my point is I'm looking at the DPReview comparisons and actually seeing a better looking image with the 5DII at ISO 800.  And we don't know what they used to do the comparisons, or what settings.

I have a 5DIII sitting at home waiting for me, so I'll do my own test tonight against my 5DII using the ACR RC and Lightroom to evaluate.  Hopefully I get better results than what I'm seeing on DPReview!

Hey, I'm your friend! My camera has arrived today as well! My box arrived at home and I am looking forward to doing the same thing. Hope I can get off work early...

I am sorry as well. I think I was a little too harsh, so my apologies to you.

I predict 85-90 for the 5D3.

Lenses / Re: Best lens/TC setup for football game
« on: March 28, 2012, 04:06:44 PM »
Whatever you do, don't use the 70-200mm F/2.8L with 2x TC III for shooting football, unless you just want portraits when there is no action happening.

It will be a slow and unwieldy f/5.6 combination that will be less-sharp than the other options. And f/5.6 with a TC is worse in autofocus and several other ways, than f/5.6 is with a single lens like the other two choices.

Like someone said, you won't be able to keep shooting much as soon as it gets near sunset, no matter which of these options you choose. If you get some afternoon games in late season you'll be fine and then my best option would be the 400mm f/5.6. You can wait in the corner about 75 feet back from the home goal line and two feet out of the boundary line, and pretty much cover every play in the field. You can still get tightly-framed pictures of plays near the touchdown line, and looser framed shots of everything else.

EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview Canon 5D mark III noise comparison
« on: March 28, 2012, 03:54:16 PM »
Yeah, I know all that.  And you can't compare the JPEG's generated by the cameras, because most people who want quality already know to shoot RAW and have their computer comvert to JPEG.  Comparing in-camera generated JPEG's is not even close to comparing apples to apples if you want to gauge how the new sensor does at differen't ISO's, as the new Digic 5+ processor is some 30X more powerful than the one in the 5DII, and thus has time to do good conversions of the RAW data.

Sorry, I should have been more positive. You are totally right that RAW is the way to make real comparisons.

The truth that I am trying to communicate is that the sharpness of "RAW" images when posted as JPEG images really depends on the processing done to them. The ultimate maximum level of sharpness depends on the sensor and AA filter of course, but I have seen scores of messed-up comparisons where a "better/sharper" camera's RAW images were just over-sharpened, and then compared to under-sharpened images from another camera.

The classic example of dishonesty with sharpening RAW images is to "prove" to newbies that they should "always shoot RAW." They give super sharp screen images produced by Lightroom from RAW images that are sharpened for viewing on a monitor, side-by-side with unsharpened (or even blurred) JPEG images from the camera at the lowest sharpening level. And then they crow about their conclusion that shooting RAW is the only pure way to take pictures, when it was all cooked.

And the very first word of my post was that noise isn't about sharpness.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to get across, anyway. I am defending the 5D3 based on accurate testing done by DP Review, and you are bringing up an irrelevant controversy about whether experienced shooters know how to shoot RAW vs JPEG and the power of the new Digic 5+ processor.

EOS Bodies / Re: Have soft images? This helped me a ton!
« on: March 28, 2012, 03:35:33 PM »
Hooray to this thread! As a past photography instructor I have found the same fact to be true. Whenever soft images come up, 98% of the time it is due to missed focus. Other mysterious factors like "my camera is not sharp" are about as likely to be true as for lightning to strike you.

EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview Canon 5D mark III noise comparison
« on: March 28, 2012, 03:28:51 PM »
Unless you shoot JPEG, make sure you select RAW to compare the two cameras.

With RAW selected, and ISO 800, the 5DII actually looks sharper than the 5DIII... I wonder what method they used to do the conversion?

All the images posted to the internet are actually JPEG images (unless the original RAW is downloaded).

So the RAW images in the DP Review comparison tool are actually JPEGs that were processed at unknown settings by the staff of DP Review. The sharpness should not be looked at when evaluating noise.

The sharpness of the RAW images actually depends completely on what sharpness was selected when the images were processed to JPEG. And we just don't know. If you look at the JPEG generated by the camera, then that is at least an apples-to-apples comparison, unless they tweaked the default camera settings, which DP Review claims not to have done.

EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview Canon 5D mark III noise comparison
« on: March 28, 2012, 03:22:55 PM »
I'm actually a little disappointed from these noise tests with raw files. It beats the D800, 7D, and 5D mark II but not by much. Looks like the Mark 3 is the best by about .5 stop (and only at high ISO), then the mark II, then the D800, then the 7D which is about a stop below the mark 3. The biggest differences seem to be a usable 12,800 iso vs the other cameras that are not...but on the raw files, the difference isn't huge. This is no Nikon D3S but then again it is 22MP which is still very large.

Are we looking at the same images?  Looking at their 100% crop of the coins... 5D3 at 25K looks about the same as the 7D at 3200.  And, the 5D3 at 12.8K looks much better than the 7D at 3200.

In general, I've noticed that looking at 100% crops of the 5D3 reveals obvious noise at high ISOs, but it's of a much more palatable variety and maintains much better contrast and sharpness than any other camera, especially my 7D.

I see myself using ISO 12,800 regularly and 25K in a pinch on the 5D3 where I am not happy with the noise at 3200 on my 7D and try to stick to max of 1600 ISO there.  That's an effective 3 stop improvement for me.

I agree. I think that there is some confusion about sharpness vs. noise. Sharpness is merely a matter of lenses, focus, and image software processing. The AA filter is not going to play that big of a role in the D800 vs. 5D3 except when it is completely removed. All these images could be made to appear much sharper if someone simply used Lightroom to sharpen for screen display. When strictly talking about noise, someone needs to look at the shadow and the blacks, and at colors for chroma noise (odd splotches of color in areas of a single color, ideally looking at multiple patches of different colors in the image). Sensors always have more green in a Bayer array, so it is better to look at red or blue to see chroma noise. Noise always tends to go down in brighter parts of an image (even at high ISO everything is blown out white with a bright enough exposure, so the noise goes away).

This is a center crop of an image at ISO 4,000 from a Nikon D7000 (night softball game). It is simply to demonstrate that ISO 4,000 of the D7000 is the same as ISO 1,600 of the Canon 7D (basketball game photo). Both of the images are mine--I have obscured the watermark only to keep my privacy.

I have looked at all the samples and as near as I can tell the 5D3 does have at least 2 stops lower noise than the 5D2, and at ISO 12,800 should perform about the same as the Nikon D7000 at ISO 4,000.

For any Canon 7D shooters out there, I would recommend the 5D3 has a must-have upgrade. Anyone wondering whether to buy the 7D or the 5D3 should absolutely go with the 5D3 if you can afford it.

The Canon 7D was simply unbelievable in almost every aspect, and it has filled in just as good as a full-frame camera in many situations for me. It is pretty amazing that another camera came out that was 1 1/3 stops better (Nikon D7000), and it is like a miracle that another camera exists which is 3 full stops better than the 7D (3 stops is eight times better, for those who don't know the vernacular). Don't hesitate to purchase the Canon 5D Mark III!

EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 10:29:55 PM »
So you are saying that I could just push the Rate button once to tag it with a star? That would be so awesome and make my life 10 times easier for sports!!

EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 10:17:00 PM »
Re: rate button

Have any of you had to take photos and turn in "several good ones for web use" to sports information at halftime of a basketball game? I receive my 5D3 on Wednesday next week, and I am so hoping that the rate button will work by simply pressing it twice to give a default 1-star rating to a photo. If it requires pressing the button and selecting a rating with another knob, then yes, that will be extremely irritating.

Right now my workflow is like this:

* During the first half I have to be chimping after any major play, and if a photo is good or a play is good if I don't have time to chimp, then I take a blank picture of the floor after that sequence of photos containing the good photo.
* 1-3 minutes before half time I have to run to the media room, download all photos, look at them in thumbnail mode, scroll through the ones before the blank floor pictures, and then star the ones I want to turn in.
* Select and export the starred photos.
* Give flash drive to sports information about 15 minutes of wasted time, if I'm lucky.

Assuming that I can just do a quick double "click" of the rate button to assign it a 1-star default rating (the stars aren't important, because I'm not rating them, just indicating that I want to turn them in to SI), then the rate button would be a tremendous boon to me. I could lesiurely go to the media room, download photos, export the starred photos, and walk back with flash drive in hand in under 5 minutes.

Hopefully I can even have a direct ethernet connection so that someone else can use my pictures live, but I am not sure if I would be happy with that. Some people don't realize that every click of the shutter on a professional camera does not necessarily a cover photograph make. Letting someone else select photos would probably result in a bad representation of my work.

Anyway, I just thought that I would speak out in favor of what hopefully is going to be a good feature for me.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark
« on: March 23, 2012, 10:01:26 PM »
I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.
Easy to spot Canon images they are the ones with banding in the shadows & with burnt out highlights  & very poor  reds , I love the Canon red colour its a great red just like to see more shades of red sometimes.

ROFL, I'm almost an old man, but I'm still literally almost rolling on the floor with gales of laughter. You have the greatest sense of humor, or should I say camera sensor for humor. When I got to the "love the Canon red" that really did me in. LOLOLOL.

Direct link to J&R if you aren't an Amazon prime member:

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14