Messages

31

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this true

« on: March 06, 2013, 01:53:28 PM »

.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Maybe it is some sort of weird dialect? 

32

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this true

« on: March 06, 2013, 01:29:51 PM »

Concerning OP's question and the conclusion the video makes, my experience (after owning 5D2, 6D, 5D3) is the 5D3 is noticably better than 5D2 in terms of noise and ISO performance as ISO increases. The difference in noise is as others have pointed out: less banding, less color noise, and a more "film like" noise pattern.

I can tell you different editors and NR softs will make for slightly different conclusions when comparing the two bodies. I use Capture One v7 here and when comparing in that, 5D3 is noticably better in terms of noise and ISO.

That said, 6D (which I had for a short while and sent back for a 5D3) was even a bit better at noise and high ISO than 5D3. If these were my primary concerns, I'd probably have stayed with 6D. But despite how good the 6D center AF point is in low light, the 5D3 AF system is in a different league altogether, as is build quality, and these swayed me to 5D3 and very happy with it.

And all of that said, I'd take the 6D over the 5D2.

33

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 05, 2013, 09:40:08 AM »

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

Unless you're shooting wide open or focusing manually with the DoF Preview button pressed, you're stopping down after focusing every time you shoot. AF is always performed with the lens wide open, regardless of the aperture selected. The lens stops down just before the shot, and that's when focus shift occurs.

Do you see a bigger issue now?   

Ah, thanks for the edification.
Indeed, then it would be a VERY BIG ISSUE, and then I wonder why that hasn't been all over the internet already! Maybe sample variation did play a role here? 
BTW, not that I am personally interested in this lens, but would this be true even if one is back-button focusing?

Yes, true no matter how you autofocus.

Maybe they are dealing with it in the lens AF firmware? Basically an "on the fly AFMA based on aperture" of sorts perhaps? Would be interesting to compare the observed shift doing manual chart shot vs AF chart shot at various apertures.

34

Lenses / Re: UV filters (any difference?)

« on: March 03, 2013, 07:37:51 PM »

A cheap filter will negatively impact your sharpness, and add flare.  A good filter will not reduce sharpness, and will only very slightly increase flare.  I'd go with B+W MRC (or Nano) or a high end Hoya.  Skipping the filter is better than a cheap one (but your 17-40 needs one to complete the sealing).

^^^ +1 ^^^

A couple of years ago I had the same question, read the advice, tried the cheap ones anyway, now have only good ones after seeing everybody was right about getting good ones.

BTW, B&H has very good price for the 77mm B+W mrc (non-nano).

35

Lighting / Re: Which flash for a 5d mkIII

« on: March 03, 2013, 07:07:10 PM »

Another thought is doing a third party flash. I just got the Yongnuo YN-568 and it's great with the caveat that the AF assist beam will only illuminate the center 9 points (or so, depends on subject distance/focal length). But other than that, pretty nice unit for very little money. Then there is the Nissin 866 with a built in sub flash for fill in, a feature I think would be useful. I think both of these have high speed sync which you might want if using for outdoor fill. Price points are roughly 1/4 and 1/2 that of the 600 respectively.

On the flip side you tend to get what you pay for with Canon stuff, and it's really a matter of whether the "shortcuts" of the third party stuff will cause you problems worth spending for Canon. For these flashes it basically comes down to AF assist shortcomings and lack of the 600's radio. But the Yongnuo 622 ETTL radios can be had for about $80 a pair, so a cheap solution for that and then it only comes down to the differences in AF assist, which may or may not be a big deal for you.

LOL, I'm no flash expert and in fact a newb who just researched this very thing, so ^^^there's^^^ my core dump. Hope it helps.

36

Lighting / Re: Bounce flash with YN-568 question

« on: March 03, 2013, 03:37:58 PM »

Consider trying the ettl average mode?

I was messing with it and figured out switching to average mode fixes it, so nice to confirm it with your experience as well. Setting to average mode allows bounce to meter correctly.

Thanks everyone for your input!

BTW, I'm liking this flash at this price point, pretty solid value. I also have a pair of YN-460 II manual flashes and they are likewise nice bang for the buck.

I was skeptical about the AF assist but it actually works pretty good on the central points. I'll check later the actual number and placement of AF points it illuminates and post.

37

Lighting / Re: Bounce flash with YN-568 question

« on: March 03, 2013, 01:33:16 PM »

Some light reading

http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/

I saw that site. I've had excellent results using manual flash for bounce, so my question basically boils down to "do I have something not properly configured or does this flash have a problem?"

38

Lighting / Bounce flash with YN-568 question

« on: March 03, 2013, 11:58:04 AM »

I just got in a YN-568 ETTL II flash. This is my first experience with an ETTL flash - used manual to this point.

I tried using it to bounce flash and it severely underexposes. My understanding of ETTL II is that exposure is set via a pre-flash and should account for bounce, or any other modifier, when setting power level.

Searching the net showed a number of people supporting my inderstanding of how it supposedly works, but also a number of people who express the same issue I have, even with 580EX II.

So not sure what to think at this point. Should ETTL II bounce flash properly expose or should I need to dial in +3 (or so, which makes the exposure close to right) on the flash first to make it work? If the latter, ETTL seems rather pointless to me except for direct flash, which seems to work, but has a pitiful asthetic.

Any thoughts?

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mark 3 raw files cannot open in Capture one & Photoshop CS5

« on: February 26, 2013, 04:14:32 PM »

5D3 support was added in Capture One v6. The current version of CO is 7. I don't know if there is a way to add camera support to older versions, you might ask on their forum.

40

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

« on: February 26, 2013, 04:01:08 PM »

I'll post more later this week...

Interesting. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Got the lens back, Canon claims they could not duplicate what I illustrated on the screen capture video when they (supposedly) tried it themselves. Funny, it still does it here just like it did before... And they go on to say "it performs as it should". So this one is outta here and all I can say is my experience with Sigma repair was light years better than my experience with Canon...

The bozos at Canon repair can't even do their customer survey right. They email it before I even get the lens back and now that I have the lens, the survey link is expired. But then, maybe they have a reason for doing it that way and they don't want their bosses to know the truth what a customer thinks about them?

Never again do I send them something out of warranty. They just take your money and give it back the same condition you sent it in. Which is sad, it is a great lens when it works.

41

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)

« on: February 26, 2013, 11:25:16 AM »

Here's the low light cat pic processed with Capture One Pro v7. Basically nothing but NR, local contrast, vignette and RGB curve. I used Stephen Melvin's nice render as an asthetic template and just messed with it (i.e. the original RAW) in CO to see if it could do the same thing...

Skitron, CaptureOne also does well... Do I see a thin veil of green snow in dark parts not seen in the LR versions some of us posted? look at the middle of the frame on and above the dark torso.

Obviously user setting could result in different rendering...but it may also be the nuances of different programs.

Yes, I see a bit of green in the CO and a bit stronger blue in the LR. I'm sure one could mess with them to make them identical, but my exercise was first to see if CO would do what Stephen did in LR, and the answer for me is yes. Then the exercise for me turned to learning to embrace the chiaroscuro, and I learned alot about that from your nice shot and Stephen's nice render. So thanks to both of you for the inadvertent lesson for me!

[edit] And I'm pleased as can be to know that I can shoot at this ridiculous ISO setting and there are at least two editors, probably more, that can deal with it to at least some useful degree. Pretty amazing tech.

42

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 candle light High ISO (102400)

« on: February 25, 2013, 11:20:50 PM »

Here's the low light cat pic processed with Capture One Pro v7. Basically nothing but NR, local contrast, vignette and RGB curve. I used Stephen Melvin's nice render as an asthetic template and just messed with it (i.e. the original RAW) in CO to see if it could do the same thing...

[edit] BTW - Duplicating Stephen's chosen asthetic in CO was a nice exercise in terms of learning to embrace the chiaroscuro. If you're a chiaroscuro newb like me, I can say it's worth d/l'ing the RAW and playing with it in your editor...some nice lessons learned for future reference by playing with it. Also, nice shot by Ray2021 to learn the lesson with.

43

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

« on: February 24, 2013, 10:26:23 PM »

P.S. - It is almost like a I need a second AFMA for medium range.

I've had fits with mine. The symptoms are you think you have AFMA set and you cannot get consistently sharp shots as telephoto. In fact they're rarely sharp and usually just enough off to be not quite right, with no zone of sharp focus (i.e. not a case where it just back or front focused). But interestingly it is not as much a problem using it as a macro. And when a tele shot works right, it has amazing IQ.

I finally isolated a 100% repeatable and quantifiable issue in testing. How I tested was setup tripod and test target, tether to EOS Utility, magnify 200% in EOS Utility. Then increment the focus single steps via the ">" and "<" buttons.

What I saw with my copy was that when changing the direction of focus (i.e. several ">" clicks and then a single "<" click or visa versa) the focus would change what looks like about 20 single clicks worth of going only a single direction. And not only that, the image would actually shift in the viewer frame. So something in the mechanical focus mechanism has some slop/play in it.

BTW, IS on/off doesn't make any difference in my case and I tested a friend's copy the same way and it did not exhibit this issue.

I sent it to Canon and paid over $200 and it came back the same way. I complained to them and did a video screen grab of the EOS Utility session and sent it back to them again. It should be here Tuesday and this time they took alot longer, so hopefully fixed this time.

I'll post more later this week...

44

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

« on: February 20, 2013, 08:04:48 PM »

I appreciate its quite a bit cheaper but does this lens do anything the 70-200 2.8 ii IS can't do?

IMO, not really except for handling. I could split hairs and say my prime has ever so slightly better color and bokeh and the zoom is ever so slightly sharper, but for real pictures its kinda pointless.

I ended up with both because I didn't have anything long and in my indecisiveness did a low ball bid on the prime on eBay and actually won, and it even it turned out to be mint. But my primary use case for this length is seated theater and kids sports, so the zoom and IS were too attractive to pass up when the 70-200 IS2 dropped right under $2K at B&H...

But so far, I'm keeping the prime just because its small, light and black and every bit as good as the 70-200 IS2 long end, even arguably a half a hair better. Plus it's still small, light and mostly black with the 1.4x TC3 making it an outstanding "covert" f/4 280mm...and a small black lens and monopod is less attention-getting than a great white even without the monopod...

45

Lenses / Re: Photozone has released their review of the Sigma 35 1.4...

« on: February 18, 2013, 08:58:58 PM »

LOL, I will surely spring for one of these when I finally get sick and tired of my Rokinon (aka Samyang) being a manual lens. It's a great lens but this is the 21st century after all, and AF is hard to do without when we don't have split prism focus screens for 5D3. Plus the Sigma is even better anyway...