Messages

166

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Newbie question about testing out my Mark III with samples.. HELLLLLP!

« on: April 18, 2012, 09:18:44 PM »

I was just going to make the  same post. 

The 1.4 version is great.  I would recommend the Pro version over the Plus version because it will also tell what is the best aperture, among other things.  The owner of the program, Rich, is very responsive too.

sek

Do not return your camera for "soft" focus. This is a common newbie mistake.  EVERY camera and lens combination differs slightly. You could return a camera, and or lens, a dozen times before you find a "sharp" combination.  This is EXACTLY what AF Micro-Adjust aims to fix.  There is no way of knowing from the photos you have attached to this post.  There is lots of information out there on how to use this AF adjust.  Or, there are computer programs that can assist you.  Take a look at this one for example.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focal/

167

Video & Movie / Re: Festival of Colors - Shot on MKII and MKIII

« on: April 15, 2012, 11:20:25 PM »

Loved it.  Nothing else to say!

Great production from every aspect.

sek

Here's the latest video that my partner and I shot for his YouTube channel!  http://youtu.be/Hh-o5g4tLVE

Mostly shot on MKII and MKIII bodies. We also used a 60D and 7D. Enjoy!

168

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Entry-level video production

« on: April 14, 2012, 03:01:42 PM »

Disclaimer:  I am a stills  photographer too.

I would look at Sekonic for cinematic light meters.  They have some that measure colors etc.  Lighting is a basic, yet advanced topic, but critical to master.

sek

Already incorporated?  They show admirable determination.  Bursting that bubble might be fruitless

All this is just my uber-humble opinion - many may disagree.  But yes - just a camera and a lens is just barely getting started.  Unless they plan to do nothing but static shots, at the very least, they'll need a set of sticks with a fluid head - the Manfrotto 701HDV is a good low cost starter head (701 head and sticks can be had for around $300).  They can get away with not having a shoulder rig. 

Audio is a whole other ball of wax.  Nothing can cheapen a well-shot video like bad audio.  Unless they're planning to do nothing but music videos and shoot without sound, they'll need something.  Zoom H4n or an H1 in a pinch ($100 to $300).  A decent shotgun mic to stick on the end of a home made boom pole might also be a good call.  Omnidirectional / stereo mics on the zooms are great for environmental sound but don't do very well with dialogue

A T3i (even a used T2i) actually punches above it's pay grade, in terms of video quality, but that's also highly dependent on the glass.  Just one "$400 zoom" sounds scary.  Slow glass works OK if you've invested heavily in lighting - or available/home-made lighting works OK if you've invested heavily in fast glass.  Combine slow/cheap glass and bad lighting, and they'll have a very short quick journey into bad video land.  Instead of a cheap sliding aperture zoom (zooming is close to useless in anything but run-n-gun event video where every moment counts and you don't have time to compose your shots as carefully), they might look at picking up a couple cheap but decent primes, like a 35 f/2 ($300'ish) and an 85 f/1.8 ($400'ish).  The 85 is especially good for it's price.  If they go with a used T2i instead of the newer T3i, they might make their money go farther.  Buying used in general could seriously save them some dough

There's also all the peripherals like memory cards, NLE editing software, etc...

If they really do have great writing ability and creativity... that will be the most valuable asset in their bag, and can overcome a slew of gear-related obstacles.

IMHO

169

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III for Sport

« on: April 13, 2012, 11:40:03 AM »

Very nice

Despite shortcomings, you caught some great shots that were fast moving.  I am wondering what percentage were keepers would you say?  Also, It would be nice to see the pics without any pp to see exactly how much you can push in photoshop.

Thanks.

sek

I shot four polo matches today using a Canon 5D and a lowly 100-400L lens. I often shoot important matches with a bigger lens, but my luggage weight limit is being eaten up by my other big lens, the Nikon 200-400/f4.

Anyway, let me preface this by saying that I am not a photojournalist. I don't shoot for newspapers or magazines; rather, I shoot for clients who like big bold prints and who pay to see their faces in the shot. That being said, how I shoot is relatively similar. On this bright day I shot in manual at around 1/2000 wide open using auto ISO. Here are some observations.

1. Image quality is stellar. I just can't get over how good the images are. What I get out of the 100-400 is much better than the 1D4 and simply no contest with the 7D. Moreover, the files are extremely ROBUST. By this I mean that they are highly amenable to extreme Lightroom adjustments without beginning to look like crap. Impressive as hell.

2. 6 fps is barely adequate. The swing of an arm happens in a fraction of a second and the length of time between clicks means an entirely different picture. I think to do it right you need minimum 8. Ten is borderline overkill, and you start getting quite a few of exactly the same shot. I think beyond 10 is a recipe for filling your hard drive needlessly.

3. The autofocus is "jumpy" and a bit frenetic. I just don't know how better to put this. Over the course of the day I tried ever different autofocus preset and it remained jumpy. It would latch onto subjects, then unlatch. This all happened very quickly, but I found myself missing shots because of the hair-trigger nature of the autofocus. Maybe I'll get used to it. I don't know. As of right now, I'm not entirely happy with it. Additionally, I do not like the way the autofocus zones are laid out and really wish I could change them. In portrait mode using action the zones just don't work for me.

4. Reach. Obviously I miss the crop factors of the 1D4 and 7D a LOT on a huge polo field. This is partially remedied by the fact that the files are bigger, which gives you a touch more room to crop, but also the quality of the files is so damned high that you can chop more and still retain quite a bit of sharpness. A down side is also that I miss a lot of shots because no matter how you slice it, your giving up a huge number of millimeter equivalents by choosing full frame. You get fewer shots, but the shots you do manage to get are better.

I'll attach a shot of Sapo Caset from Lobos, Argentina. I know several of you will disapprove of the oversaturation and the nature of the crop. I attach it to show how amenable the file was to Lightroom. This was shot in noon sun and the face was entirely in shadow. I pushed shadows to +100  to recover the face nicely and highlights to -75 to get rid of the harsh glare on the whites. This is the kind of shot that clients love.

Anyway, cheers. Those are my musings on using the 5D3 for sports. On a 10 point scale I'd probably give it a 7.5. It was definitely serviceable. I'm pretty happy with it. The truth is I got it more for the "social" photographs of the games. The second attachment is of Adolfo Cambiaso, the #1 player in the world. This was shot under a gloomy tent. I NEVER would have been able to get this shot with the 1D4 or 7D.

170

Lenses / Re: Question re: image quality 24-105 Kit lens with new 5D Mark III

« on: April 04, 2012, 08:10:17 PM »

Wait too long and they will stick you with a refurb.

Not good when you pay for new.

sek

My 5D III &  24-105 are currently with Canon Service Center, Irvine CA. I posted the softness issues last week - some peeps were making joke of the post    

 "hey my 5D III doesn't make coffee" etc....

 Anyway, I should have the body & lens back soon - stay tune for update. I think you should give Canon another shot before return it.

171

Lenses / Re: Looking for advice.

« on: April 04, 2012, 08:04:05 PM »

How about sending camera and lens in to Canon to service and calibrate, spend the rest on another lens?

sek

It sounds like your 50mm lens needs repair or replacement, I've had severalof them, and they had a very high keeper rate.  The lenses are cheaply made, and can have cracked internal parts that limit their focus range or speed.
 
Same with the 1.4 version, it is prone to damage if not treated carefully, but is easier to manually focus.
 
The 17-55mm is your best bet, get a refurb and sell it if you go to FF.  You will need different lenses for FF in any event, because of the crop difference.  If you use 50mm on crop, you will need 85mm on FF for example.
 
Its sharper than most all of the low cost primes.
 
Good Luck!!

172

Lenses / Re: 85mm f1.2 II or 70-200mm f2.8L IS II

« on: April 02, 2012, 01:18:56 AM »

I have this lens on a 5DII, and haven't noticed it. I also have a 300 f4L is, and a 4005.6L.

These are all long heavy lenses with a lot of torque on the mount.  You should be supporting the lens and not really only holding the body.

If the camera guy says it is fine, it likely is.

Need a little help...I'm new to canon and I just bought a canon 5d3 with a 70-200 2.8 ii.  I've only had it a week, but I'm worried about the way the lens connects to the camera. It screws on just fine, but when the 70-200 is on the body and I'm walking around carrying it, it will slightly...very slightly...feel like it's a bit loosely connected to the body because it will "jiggle" ever so slightly with each step if I carry it in a verticle position(lens pointing down) and I'm holding onto the body in my right hand by the grip.   And if i hold it the same way and just gently shake it up and down(repeat, gently) i can feel this slight "jiggle" sensation in the connection.   I went back to the camera shop I bought it at and tried their demo lens on their demo 5d3 and i could feel the same sensation, so that made me feel better but the problem is that a i've never felt any of my other lenses do this...the guy at the camera shop says its normal for long heavy lenses to do this versus smaller lighter lenses


Help please..any thoughts

173

EOS Bodies / Re: Comparing my 60d with my new 5d3 not seeing much of a difference.

« on: March 31, 2012, 10:24:40 PM »

Another possibility would be to try to hook up with a photographer who is more advanced and have him put it through its paces for you.  Try photography meetups on the web-people love to help in these meetups.

Although there will be an occasional clunker, I went to a camera store today, and they told me they had no returns on all the 5DEIII's they sold.

sek

Those are valid comments but either way I know enough to say that the difference is not that noticeable to me so far just shooting around the house. The camera definetly addresses some noise issues I suffered from the 60d and i had a chance to shoot a video of my daughter today with the all-i comp. it was unbelievable and blew away the 60d. I have only used it a day. I guess i was just looking for some benchmark suggestions but i would love to grow with this camera and the 5d2 af system just won't work for me. I also think the raw conversions will get better as the camera has been out a little while so I am still on the fence. I did go out with the family today and came back with great shots aside from a few user errors. I will update again when i have a chance to post tommorrow how its going. How can I post samples here to show you?

174

EOS Bodies / Re: BG-e11 Hand Grip Gripe

« on: March 31, 2012, 09:00:33 AM »

What will you be shooting when you go?

I'm headed to the Serengeti in August, and hope to have a 5DIII for the trip.

sek

I was just at BIC Camera in Shinjuku Japan. They told me the official release date for the grip is April 25th.

I pre-ordered my grip at a Dutch store; this week I received an email from the store in which they told me the grip would be available on July 30th, 2012!!! 

Having used a 1D for 4.5 years now, the 5D really feels 'not complete' without the grip, so I'm hoping I can pick up a grip from outside the Netherlands as I have a nice trip planned to South Africa... in July!

175

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's bad marketing - big mistake

« on: March 29, 2012, 10:22:43 PM »

That cartoon is so funny.  I am a plastic surgeon, and it is like dealing with some of my patients!

Glad to share to the misery.

sek

Ok, I'm going to apologize for the threadjack, but I'll use the fact that I really don't see this thread as going anywhere useful as an excuse.

...I've never had so many brides ask what camera I use as I've had in the past few weeks. Its crazy!

And, personally, I find it kind of offensive to judge me by my equipment rather than my ability.

This was posted here a while back, seems relevant to your concerns:

Wedding Photography

176

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's bad marketing - big mistake

« on: March 29, 2012, 10:11:53 PM »

I am not sure I agree with you, I am on the sidelines waiting to decide.  However, I don't think your argument is logical in that you won't upgrade from a 40D because it isn't a D800, and you won't switch to a Nikon.  Shouldn't you base your decision to upgrade on what you will stick with- Canon?  You should compare canon offerings to determine if the camera is limiting your photography, and decide on that?  Just makes more sense to me.

I won't switch to Nikon, and am waiting a bit to pull the trigger on the 5DIII.

I live in Belgium and am an amateur photographer, but have been shooting Canon cameras for many many years now.  My current camera is still an EOS 40D, yes.  Didn't want to upgrade to a pro model until I knew a bit more about the beautiful art of photography.  Didn't want to upgrade to 50D, 60D or even 7D, because the difference in final image quality was too small for me.  Been seriously upgrading on lenses though the past few years.  2012 promised to be the year of taking things to a higher level.  I had very high hopes for the 5D Mk 3.

After reading a lot and looking at many pictures I think Canon is making exactly the same mistake as Nikon did a few years ago with the introduction of their D700.  I think that was a far better and far more sophisticated tool than the 5D 2 in allmost every respect.  Except for resolution (and video).  The 5D 2 had allmost twice the resolution of the D700 and that was what people wanted at that moment.  Being the lesser camera than the D700 they still sold truckloads more than Nikon with their D700.

Now we see the same thing happening with the D800 and the 5D 3.  I am absolutely convinced that the 5D 3 for the majority of people will be a far better and more versatile camera than the D800.  Except for resolution (and maybe sharpness).  But, just like a few years ago, that is exactly what people want at this moment.  My guess is that Nikon will be selling truckloads and truckloads more of the D800 than Canon of the 5D 3.  Let's not forget that the whole media landscape currently is about high, higher and highest resolution.

Nikon and Sony, 2 of the biggest multinationals in photography equipment, have picked the card of high resolution.  That alone should say enough.  If you want to sell a lot of your product, than give the people what the people wants.  As the Romans already knew.  That's the most basic rule in marketing.  Canon doesn't seem to be willing to accept that as a fact.  If and when the market dictates the need for high resolution cameras, than it's very foolish and dangerous to neglect that.  The 5D 3 may be as good as it gets, but taking a look at photos from the D800 makes my stomach turn with envy.  Never seen anything like this from a DSLR.  The amount of detail is simply from another planet and makes the 5D 3 look rather pale.

I am convinced of the fact that a good photographer needs to study the composition of his photo before taking it.  But I can assure you that many of these so called very good photographers will be cropping on the D800 photos like never before, applying the rule of thirds, etc. in post processing and presenting stunning photographs.  Of course they will never admit this, but nonetheless Nikon gives them the perfect tool to do this, without being noticed by the majority of people.

I, for myself, will not be turning to Nikon, because I have too much invested in Canon glass and I'm not making any money out of my photography.  So I won't buy the D800.  Guess I will be sticking with my 40D for another while.  I have the money, but I won't buy the 5D 3 either, because next to each other the photos of the 5D 3 aren't worth looking at when compared to those of the D800.  We're not even talking about the price difference here.  I am a faithfull Canon customer, but very disapointed in Canon's marketing strategy.  Sticking to 22 Mp will cost them a lot of money.  But that's only my opinion.

177

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: This article is seriously making me question my 5DIII purchase....

« on: March 29, 2012, 09:52:22 AM »

If you want to ditch your gear, I will be willing to buy at fireside sale prices!

On another note, others have been talking about out of the box settings.  What are opinions regarding optimal settings, especially for wildlife photography?

Assume that I will love the camera warts and all.

sek

Seriously...
Please switch to Nikon!
Sell all you Canon-gear.
Buy a D800 and then join nikonrumors.com... log on and complaint about how you might think Canon is better.

That way we don't have to hear the complaints about a camera you haven't even tried yet.

If you HAVE a 5D3 and it $ucks badly then, please! DO tell us because it might be something wrong with it.
If not. Many of us still haven't gotten our cameras.
Many of us have been waiting years for this one, not for the Nikon-replica.

someone sounds like a serious fanboy...and your justifications are completely invalid.

That video is for fanboys. Not worth even discussing seriously.

178

EOS Bodies / Re: How much better is the 5d3 from the 5d2 in terms of IQ and iso from real owners?

« on: March 26, 2012, 11:56:32 AM »

Although not exactly the answer to your question, I think you should consider this.

I upgraded from 50D to 5DII.

I was struck by the much lower frame rate, and the less able focusing.  This for me is a real disappointment.  Images however are awesome.  I like wildlife photography, and the camera is fine for slow or no-moving targets.

I will be getting a 5DIII shortly to fill the gap, and I will take the 5DII along as a backup camera, and to have a second lens mounted on it for in the field, as it is a great camera.

So those things you should consider, in the context of what you shoot.  There is a cost differential, so decide what is important to you.

Man in terms of ISO/low light it's an insane improvement, I mean ISO 12800 looks totally reasonable IMO, even 25600 really.  The thing can essentially see in the dark.  The AF is amazing, I have missed only a handful of shots out of a couple thousand.  But yes there is something about the colors that just look excellent, I think the resolution is great and I've been using the Mark II for almost 2 years now.

179

Lenses / Opinions for Short teles for 5DIII?

« on: March 23, 2012, 12:00:27 AM »

I am going to get a 5DIII in the next several weeks (can't wait).

I have a 17-40 f4L, but not thrilled with it (good enough at ~f6)
I have the 70-200 f2.8 is II, and a couple of long primes.

I like wildlife photography and need an occasional shorter lens for closer work.

So the question is, which would be the best lens to replace the 17-40 .  I am interested in image quality, and let's say that I have about $2,300 to spend.  The choices I was considering were:

24-70 f 2.8 II
24-105 f 4 (kit)
A macro even?
Any other recommendations?

Thanks so much for your input/considerations

180

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Got 5D III today from Adorama, shutter messed up

« on: March 22, 2012, 10:56:58 PM »

I agree.

Why hassle with it and be without your camera for any longer than needed.

I wouldn't. I'd just send it back and get a replacement/take business elsewhere.

+1

+2