Messages

61

EOS Bodies / Re: Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)

« on: May 03, 2012, 03:52:50 PM »

Canon [is] technically unable to solve it with their sensor technology.

This.

The thing about competition is it spurs innovation.  The fredmiranda.com d800/5D3 comparo speaks volumes to the advancements Sony/Nikon has made with respect to DR.  Those shadow recovery samples are simply mind blowing.  Comparing to the Canon images, it's clear they are still languishing a few years behind in that regard; and there's no amount of spin that Canon fanboys can pile on to change that fact.  Canon simply couldn't pull off the same improvements in time for the 5D3.

Hands on samples/reviews/comparos are now all over the internet, and Canon has been made well aware of where they stand ... and you know damn well they are pushing their engineers for improvements.  They simply have to - waiting another 3 years without offering some type of serious update in sensor tech will put Canon in trouble with the large-format-print/landscape/studio crowd.  They are already causing too much confusion with their convoluted lineup of bodies and their heavy push into cinema - where they still aren't being taken seriously.  It's time they get back to the basics of making great still cameras, and I'm assuming they well.

Don't worry - Canon will respond.  Just be patient and give them time.  Their sensor upgrades are coming.  At least, I'm putting my faith in them that they will be.

62

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon, STOP shipping defective products!!!

« on: April 25, 2012, 10:58:42 AM »

I have yet to see an image where this supposed issue affected it, have you?

Plenty of videos on YouTube showing the problem when shooting at night, and auto-metering with the LCD backlight on...



Maybe you don't do a lot of night shooting - but the problem is certainly very real.  Canon wouldn't offer a fix if it wasn't.

63

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: switching bodies

« on: April 24, 2012, 11:28:36 AM »

with that in mind, my question is: Has anyone thought of making an adapter for canon lenses so we can use it on nikon bodies?

This is exactly why there are currently a lot of dual brand shooters.  The Nikon D800 has tempted a lot of us.

64

Lighting / Gelling for Tungsten at Indoor Events?

« on: April 20, 2012, 02:27:46 PM »

How many of you gel your speedlites to match ambient lighting at indoor event shoots?

I normally do not gel at events, but then again my past event work has typically been in low-light environments where ambient lighting isn't an issue.  However, I shot an event in a ballroom the other day, and the results look hideously "point-and-shoot"-ish.  Meaning, the people are all balanced to flash, but the background is that hideous orange tungsten glow.  To make matters worse, the walls were all wallpapered a deep yellow-ish orange hue, so the contrast in color balance is extremely obvious, and makes the photos look atrociously amateur. 

I started painting in a white balance correction in Lightroom on the background, but then realized I didn't have the time to do it on 200 photos.  I'm chalking this up as a lesson learned, and if I had to do it again I'd definitely gel with a CTO correction.  Do many of you do this in environments with heavy tungsten lighting?

65

EOS Bodies / Re: Removing Low-Pass / AA from 5DMIII

« on: April 15, 2012, 09:07:35 AM »

Another DIYer...

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase

66

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory

« on: April 13, 2012, 09:11:37 PM »

Don't understand all the anger about canon fixing this.  It's a problem that affects a lot of people, and just because it doesn't affect you it doesn't mean that you have to get mad at the people it does affect.

+1,000

I don't see why you'd use the top LCD screen to meter when it's much easier to do so in the viewfinder, or even the rear LCD if you're on a tripod. I often shoot from very low angles where the camera is an inch or two off the ground, sometimes at night. I just find that it's much more convenient to meter through the viewfinder. I guess others prefer to look at a tiny LCD screen on top of the camera that's difficult to see. 

...

Exposures get thrown off all the time for a number of reasons, but it's not like we're shooting film anymore. Just review the image on the back of the camera, and adjust exposure accordingly if necessary.

I think "dilbert" explained this well enough on the bottom of the first page.  Many nighttime landscape photographers and astrophotographers use tripods with their cameras mounted in extremely bizarre positions.  This can make composition via the viewfinder very difficult, and often times totally impossible with the back display.  Many astrophotographers also implement angle finders to assist with the chore of difficult compositions at night.  That said - once the desired composition is achieved, most people don't want to go back to crawling around on the ground just to meter.

I often times use Av off the top LCD (with backlight on) to get an idea of the available light's impact on the sensor.  Then I calculate out a manual exposure at a lower ISO for a bulb exposure.  But if that initial metering is incorrect, my final manual exposure could be off by an uncorrectable amount.

As Keithfullermusic pointed out above: if this doesn't effect you - why are you expressing so much frustration towards the people who are happy it's being fixed?  I'm an astrophotographer and I am personally thrilled Canon is stepping up and addressing this.  Moreover, I'm a little baffled by the number of photographers who find this kind of light leak completely acceptable in a $3,500 camera body. 

Heck, it seems to be a simple fix - let's let Canon address it and move on.

67

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Product Advisory

« on: April 13, 2012, 07:43:56 PM »

All the tests I've seen online were done with no lens and the body cap on, or with a lens and the lens cap on.

I've tried it on my camera with no lens and the body cap on and it has the issue described.

But has anyone demonstrated a scenario and taking an actual exposure where this will result in problems?

68

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Recall?

« on: April 12, 2012, 04:30:57 PM »

Here's the even more likely order of sequence:

1)  Canon corporate issues press release
2)  Craig splashes it over the internet 29 seconds after the announcement
3)  You find out on this forum 3 minutes later.
3a) You call CPS immediately and they have no idea what you're talking about.
3b) You call CPS 5 minutes later and they have no idea what you're talking about.
3c) You call CPS 30 minutes later and they have no idea what you're talking about.
3d) You call CPS 4 hours later and they have no idea what you're talking about.
3e) You call CPS 1 day later and they have no idea what you're talking about.
4)  A CPS rep calls you 2 days after that.

 

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAA

I just snorted coffee. 

69

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Recall?

« on: April 12, 2012, 04:26:31 PM »

As far as i'm concerned its better than sit around worrying about it on an internet forum.  Plus if they have any information, CPS may be able to help their professional client better than canonrumors, no offense craig. =)  In the end, they will let me know directly if they find any information regarding such a recall.

Honestly - you'll probably find out on the internet first. 

Here's the likely order of sequence:

1)  Canon corporate issues press release
2)  Craig splashes it over the internet 29 seconds after the announcement
3)  You find out on this forum 3 minutes later.
4)  A CPS rep calls you 2 days after that. 

70

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Recall?

« on: April 12, 2012, 04:14:04 PM »

For what it's worth, i just contact my Canon CPS reps and they said they haven't officially gotten any word from their contacts of any recalls and any mentions of recalls are just rumors at this point.

There's some one posting up the same thing over at DPreview.  Why does everyone think they'll get top secret recall info from a support member before Canon corporate makes it public?

"CPS said they didn't hear anything - so - this is all crap!" 

Even if it's real, I say we embrace it - it shows Canon is standing behind their stuff!!!

TOTAL RECALLIN'!	Small | Large

See you at the party, Richter!!!!!!!!!

71

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark III Recall?

« on: April 12, 2012, 03:20:00 PM »

It would be great to have the issue acknowledged and addressed so rapidly.

Agreed... this would be a huge effort in building good will toward the brand/company.  Canon has been hesitant to ever publicly acknowledge problems, much to the chagrin of many loyal shooters.  Seeing Canon step up this quickly would certainly help rebuild some of their credibility... at least in this frustrated shooter's mind.

72

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 09, 2012, 12:56:26 PM »

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....



 

73

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 09, 2012, 12:48:20 PM »

I just did a similar test, taking two outdoor pictures with my new 5D MK iii. The one without the lcd light on is metered for 10" exposure duration and turns out fine. When I use the lcd backlight the meter shows 6" exposure duration and the shot gets underexposed by almost one 1 stop.
I acknowledge these tripod mounted night shots with long exposure duration are not the ones I do regularly, but to me the light leak problem seems very real.
So, should I send the camera back?

Is it normal practice (for you or anyone else for that matter) to have the LCD backlight on when metering? If your answer is no, then just use it as you normally would and don't waste your time and potentially money returning it. If yes, then may be you need to review your practices and/or make manual adjustments.

As I noted previously - some astrophotographers use the LCD backlight during metering to observe the exposure settings.  Well - at least I do.  This way I can use the settings to calculate a longer exposure for a manual/bulb exposure.  And there's really no way to see that LCD display without activating the backlight (or by using a headlamp - which we're learning can also effect the metering).

So if we can't use the backlight under pitch black conditions out in the field - then one could certainly resort to the rear LCD image preview/info screen.  However, this is a huge hindrance in my opinion.   If the camera is on a tripod in a funky position, where access to the rear LCD is totally obstructed, you would literally be screwed. 

I don't think everyone is realizing how much of a serious problem this is turning out to be (at least for nighttime landscape photographers). 

74

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 08, 2012, 01:15:37 PM »

... it just doesn’t appear there is an issue to me.

Wrong.  It's a HUGE issue for anyone who's favorite photographic subject is the inside of a lens cap!!!

All sarcasm aside... does anyone not see how this could be a serious issue for astrophotographers? 

If you are using a headlamp or the LCD backlight to set your exposure for a night sky capture, you could be in serious trouble.  I'll be doing some tests tonight and will follow-up tomorrow.

I fear the 5D3 may not be suited for astrophotography at all if this problem affects nighttime exposures.

I've not done any astrophotography, but I was under the impression that the onboard meter is perfectly useless for such work. Or any meter, for that matter -- I thought the serious stuff was all done either from well-established exposure charts or by stacking multiple exposures....

b&

Erm, no.

Because you would NOT rely on the camera's idea of what is correct exposure when doing astrophotography. Because if you did, the camera would seek to make the picture's lightness similar to that for normal photography.

You simply don't use the camera's exposure system when photographing star fields, because the overwhelming majority of the field is near-black.

You go to manual, or bulb.

Maybe I've been taught the wrong way, but I've regularly used the camera's metering system for astrophotography.  By ramping up to a high ISO (say 3200), and performing a short exposure, you can then calculate back out to an equivalent exposure at 100 ISO using a bulb.  But if your initial "base" (for calculating) exposure is wrong, your 3-hour equivalent will be shot, and no one likes to waste three hours under a night sky.

Granted, most astrophotographers will thoroughly check the LCD and histograms before moving forward with a longer exposure - it just sucks knowing that the initial calc made off the LCD display may be totally bogus.

This isn't really a deal breaker - since most longer exposures are done manually - it just means the LCD could be useless for performing one's exposure calcs.  Kinda crummy, especially since that LCD backlight is invaluable in the hills when its pitch black.  Looks like I'll just have to use the LCD preview and INFO screen instead, once the test exposure is complete.

Meh.

75

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue

« on: April 08, 2012, 11:35:18 AM »

... it just doesn’t appear there is an issue to me.

Wrong.  It's a HUGE issue for anyone who's favorite photographic subject is the inside of a lens cap!!!

All sarcasm aside... does anyone not see how this could be a serious issue for astrophotographers? 

If you are using a headlamp or the LCD backlight to set your exposure for a night sky capture, you could be in serious trouble.  I'll be doing some tests tonight and will follow-up tomorrow.

I fear the 5D3 may not be suited for astrophotography at all if this problem affects nighttime exposures.