Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Which lens lineup for 5D3?

« on: June 12, 2012, 02:16:06 AM »

I'm not sure what's worse... asking for lens advice without indicating what you shoot, or giving lens advice without knowing what's being shot. 

17

Software & Accessories / Re: 5dmIII RAW processing - LR4.1 vs Aperture 3 vs DPP

« on: June 09, 2012, 08:21:26 PM »

Also, question to those that use apeture.  Do you edit your RAW in Apeture...and then export to TIFF. It almost sounds from others' posts here...they export to TIFF then do post processing. I thought you did your post in RAW...and then exported to TIFF or jpeg for printing...etc?

TIA,

cayenne

You can do all your processing on the RAW file in Aperture.  You only need to export to a TIFF if you want to edit it further in something like Photoshop.

18

Software & Accessories / Re: 5dmIII RAW processing - LR4.1 vs Aperture 3 vs DPP

« on: June 09, 2012, 04:11:59 PM »

I recently compared DPP with Aperture processing of my 5D3 RAW files and there was no difference in the initial RAW conversion. So i can rest easy knowing Aperture is interpreting the RAW data correctly.  How the adjustments work after that is a whole different thing. I do not like DPPs UI or the way it's two sharpening modes work (introduce noticeable artifacts too easily).  I'm too invested in Aperture to consider LR.

19

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Patent: 24-1060mm Zoom Lens

« on: May 30, 2012, 10:04:33 PM »

Oh c'mon... It looks like the EF 24-1000 f2.8 L IS USM Zoom we've all been waiting for! 

20

Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III

« on: May 28, 2012, 07:16:06 PM »

You should read again - the primes 85L and 135L offer superior bokeh and a thinner dof at non-tele range if you want it, it's non-replaceable by the 70-200/2.8.

The 70-200L and 70-300L are completely different lenses, too:  The 70-200L is the most flexible, lower-light event- and wedding lens out there with superior sharpness over the 70-300L - how much you will notice it will depend on your subject. The 70-300L imho has the better size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination and tradeoff. Btw, one of the best things about f2.8 is that the af works better than at f5.6 in lower light, at least on the 60d.

There are plenty of threads on "other forums" where a lot of folks sold their 135L in particular after acquiring a 70-200 II and some even parted ways with their 85L II.   The Bokeh of the 70-200 with rounded blades is apparently nicer than the 135 and not many people have use for the razor thin depth of field that results from f2 at 135mm.  That's the kind of territory where an eye is in focus while the nose and ear are not.  But that's getting off-topic.

I think everyone has summarized the 70-300L pros and cons nicely... it's a nice set of glass in a very convenient package and the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 make up for it's otherwise unappealing max apertures.

21

Lenses / Re: 70-300L on 5D Mark III

« on: May 28, 2012, 02:04:05 PM »

I had the 70-300 non-L and upgraded to the 70-300L when I had my 7D and the upgrade was definitely worth it.  The L is much sharper and has much better contrast and saturation than the non-L.  The image stabilization is also significantly better - you can see it at work as soon as you press the shutter half-way - it's impressive.  The build quality difference is night and day better.

However, now that I've moved to full frame, I find myself wanting to try the 70-200 II so I think I'm going to rent it one weekend and do a shoot off.

From what I've read the 70-200 II renders primes in that range unnecessary (eg. 85 and 135).  And it's ideal for portraits.  The question in my mind... is the 70-200 II noticeably better than the 70-300L in image quality, and is the f2.8 worth the added bulk and weight.

On the other hand, the 70-300L would be much better on a Safari or other wild-life shoot.

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III & 1D X Black Focus Point in AI Servo Information

« on: May 24, 2012, 04:27:02 PM »

If you came from the 7D, you know to get around this limitation by using the joystick to move the focus point which would trigger the red illumination.  If the focus point was already where you wanted it, you wasted two pushes of the joystick to confirm... if it wasn't... there was no real cost to this.  I know it's no consolation to those that miss it, but you do get use to doing this after awhile to ensure your focus point is correctly positioned.

Having said this, if you can press the shutter half way, and move the joystick to trigger the red illumination and not affect your exposure, I'm not sure why the camera can't do this on it's own without impacting exposure. 

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II/24-70L II OR 5D III/24-70L

« on: May 17, 2012, 04:57:06 PM »

A sharp lens is only good if your body nails focus. If you do any shooting in fading or low light, or sports or other moving subjects, the 5D3 combo hands down. If you're shooting with strobes in a studio or landscapes on a tripod then clearly the 5D2 combo is king.  The fact is no one can give you any kind of worthwhile advice without knowing what, where, and when you shoot. 

Don't necessarily limit yourself to f2.8 glass either. The 24-105 f4 can be a killer piece of glass with 3 stops of IS and when combined with a 5D3 body.... about 4 stops higher ISO (that translates into a LOT of action stopping shutter speed) compared to what you're use to.

The IS has absolutely no benefit for subject movement.  It only helps to correct camera movement allowing one to shoot at lower shutter speeds.  It provides no 'action stopping' advantage.  The camera itself does not provide 4 stops improvement in high ISO performance over the MkII.

Agreed.  I did not say anything contrary to that.  The 24-105 f4 DOES provide 3 stops of IS that the 24-70 does not (FWIW).  AND the 4 stop advantage in ISO I mentioned is in relation to his existing T1i camera.   And that's 4 stops of ISO that can translate into very good shutter speeds that will easily stop action.

For the OP's benefit... I came from a 7D with 17-55 f2.8 IS to the 5D3 with 24-105 f4 IS, and frankly, I don't want the 24-70 f2.8.  It doesn't help hand holding in dark venues like cathedrals and other similar dimly lit attractions that don't allow tripods.  And when you're in those kinds of situations, you seldom want the narrow DOF that comes with f2.8 anyway.  And, I can achieve a very similar DOF shooting portraits at 105mm @ f4 that I use to be able to achieve with the 7D at 55mm @ f2.8.  And that extra ISO the 5D3 provides over my old crop ensures I always have a decent action stopping shutter speed for shooting people in bars or restaurants.    If you really want a narrow DOF for artistic shots and subject isolation, then even f2.8 is not usually good enough at wide angles so you need a fast prime for that kind of work.  Compliment your 24-105 with a fast 50mm or 35mm (whatever suits your preferred field of view).  The other benefit to the 24-105 is the weight... it's a lot less tiring after walking around all day in a new city.  Let's face it, the 24-70 is a studio lens.  It's meant for work on a tripod or in studio lighting or both.  It's not an ideal walk around lens.

Last but not least, I cannot emphasize the importance of a good focus system enough.  The 7D was no slouch on focus, but my keeper rate in dimly lit situations went from about 50% to 95% when I upgraded to the 5D3.  The 5D2 is not going to offer you much improvement in this regard, if any.  I strongly encourage you to buy the most advanced focus system your budget can allow... and then start putting good glass in front of it.  A shot that's in focus from a cheap lens is much more useful than a shot that OOF from an expensive lens.

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D II/24-70L II OR 5D III/24-70L

« on: May 17, 2012, 03:18:19 AM »

A sharp lens is only good if your body nails focus. If you do any shooting in fading or low light, or sports or other moving subjects, the 5D3 combo hands down. If you're shooting with strobes in a studio or landscapes on a tripod then clearly the 5D2 combo is king.  The fact is no one can give you any kind of worthwhile advice without knowing what, where, and when you shoot. 

Don't necessarily limit yourself to f2.8 glass either. The 24-105 f4 can be a killer piece of glass with 3 stops of IS and when combined with a 5D3 body.... about 4 stops higher ISO (that translates into a LOT of action stopping shutter speed) compared to what you're use to.

25

EOS Bodies / Re: Please explain this (5D III's so called high ISO performance)

« on: May 17, 2012, 03:07:20 AM »

I wouldn't choose money as a test subject...  it's a like taking a photo of a dot matrix print out... Who would ever shoot this?  And then analyze and draw conclusions from it?  The photos I've taken of real people at extreme ISO look great. The noise is palatable and easily cleans up without loosing a lot of detail with he right processing.

Here's 16,000 ISO...

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Post Processing...PC vs. Apple, Photoshop vs. Aperture...???

« on: May 17, 2012, 02:34:12 AM »

If you haven't tried a Mac, I highly encourage you to at least check it out at your local Apple store or wherever you can get your hands on one.  After using Windows for nearly 20 years, i found the Mac to be a breath of fresh air... the platform is just much more refined than Windows.  Simple things like the touch pad and gesture capabilities on a Mac laptop are just night and day better compared to the limited postage stamp touch pad on most Windows laptops.   Same goes for displays... I could go on and on.

Then for photo library management and RAW processing, I suggest you trial both Lightroom and Aperture to see which one you like better.  I use Aperture and it doesn't leave me wanting much except better noise reduction adjustments which I've picked up in a plugin (Nik Dfine).

27

EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!

« on: May 04, 2012, 12:47:40 PM »

Hello VirtualRain,
I just wanted to make sure before I get too excited. So please correct me if I am wrong,

So in terms of dealing with dark areas, Lightroom is bad for CR2 files right ?
and we should use DPP or Aperture instead. Correct ?

As skitron says above... the fact is that all of the RAW converters used in this thread (including LR) are able to get amazing detail out of the darkest shadows revealing an awesome dynamic range on the 5D3 and debunking bullsh1t that says otherwise.

Use the RAW editor you know best.

The title of this thread should be changed to "Unable to get good DR out of your 5D3?... learn how to use your RAW editor!"

28

EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!

« on: May 04, 2012, 12:06:23 AM »

Here's what I was able to do with Aperture 3.2.3... differing from above in the use of the "Black Point" adjustment to eliminate the crushed blacks in the corner, a slight bump in exposure to move the whole histogram to the right slightly, and the shadow "Radius" adjustment to eliminate the dark shadow transition/halo effect, and a slight white balance adjustment to give it a more neutral tone.

I didn't even come close to maxing out the shadow slider... there's still plenty of room to move here, but the contrast starts to suffer.

I then used a dodge brush on top of all this to write my alias.

Bottom line, there is WAAAY more dynamic range in these RAW's than I ever thought possible.


Larger size:  http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v45/p611876565.jpg



Here's a 100% crop of the dark corner area...

Larger size:  http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v38/p744623374.png

Here's the same area after applying Nik Dfine NR and a tad bit of sharpening...

Larger size: http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v41/p562140851.png

Matt... you need to sweep the walk!

29

EOS Bodies / Re: LR4.1 RC to blame. Check this out!

« on: May 02, 2012, 08:09:11 PM »

So I'm confused... is LR causing issues with pulling shadows or not?

30

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d3 not soft anymore?

« on: May 01, 2012, 04:26:00 PM »

Matt, very very interesting!... When you say you "duplicated the background" in CS5.5... what do you mean by that?