March 05, 2015, 09:49:38 PM

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 - bp

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
EOS Bodies / Re: New Cinema EOS Above the C300?
« on: April 10, 2012, 11:33:43 AM »
If true, it's obviously not aimed at the same segment that would be considering a FS700 - this would be aimed at the high end  - F65/Alexa/etc.   Canon does have a gaping hole in their lineup in this range, so it makes sense.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue
« on: April 08, 2012, 12:26:17 PM »
Perhaps the reason that this shows up with the cap on is because the sensor is actually really really sensitive, more so than on older models, and that is why it seems to show up on the high end gear only.
IE: The same minor leaks as on all gear, but now the sensor can see it.


Actually... this is probably the best explanation I've heard so far.  The 5D3 does seem to be MUCH more sensitive to dark situations than any other body I've ever had the pleasure of trying.  I'd be very curious to see if the 1DX also does the same thing in idiotic lens-cap-on tests.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Light Leak Issue
« on: April 08, 2012, 12:22:35 PM »
Thanks for testing so thoroughly Craig.  Basically the same results I found when trying to "leak" into an actual lens-cap-off exposure.  I just can't force myself to get concerned over P-mode shots of the back of the lens, because I only do that when I'm REALLY drunk

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 08, 2012, 12:01:06 PM »
Dan Chung reported that the 5DIII consistently under exposed by about 2/3 stop compared to the D800. Could this be why?

That's not entirely accurate.  Saying it "underexposed" would imply that the Mk3 made a mistake, but that's not what he said.  What he said was "To make it even harder to do direct comparisons the 5D mkIII seemed to be around a stop to 2/3 of a stop darker than the D800 at any given ISO setting."   It's not really surprising that two cameras with different metering systems interpret the same scene differently - but he never inferred that one camera had it right while the other was wrong.  Just that in comparison, one tended to darker than the other.

Also, one of the comments below the article, a user reports that in HIS comparisons, the Nikon tended to be darker than the Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D Mark III Light Leak?
« on: April 08, 2012, 09:47:27 AM »
Mine is experiencing the same issue, too :(
Made me worry for a while :p
Then, I tested my D3s... the same issue showed up!!
Am I doomed or it's just a negletible issue? :D

And the Nikon D300 also.
Terrible now I can't take any good pictures with the lenscap on !!!!!

Well, fortunately now people have something to blame underexposures on.  I too was concerned at first, until I did a lot of testing in/out of shade while changing the variables (the biggest of which seems to be the viewfinder in my testing with a tripod, pointed at the same scene, and covering/uncovering various parts of the 5d3). 

Frankly I find this all ridiculous.    Exponentially more light leaks in through the viewfinder, even with your eye up to it.  I get no change in exposure with lens cap off and the viewfinder completely covered, and allowing sunlight directly on the LCD vs. in shade.  However, if I uncover the VF, I see tiny changes - as with every other camera I've ever used. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Error 80 - 5D Mark III
« on: April 08, 2012, 09:38:04 AM »
I get the Err 80 with one specific CF card.  A 16GB Kingston 133x.  I also have 5 other identical cards, same brand/size/everything and they all work fine.

For me, it's not related to batteries or even a specific make/model of card, but rather just with ONE card period.   If you can't reproduce it, you can't explain it.  I just don't use that card in the camera anymore and everything's fine.

EDIT:  I revisited that same card that's giving me issues - it's not an Error 80 - it's Error 02.  I tried doing a reformat in a card reader connected to the computer - did the "slow" version which took forever.  No change - still can't seem to write to it

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 5DMK3 Video Zoom
« on: April 06, 2012, 12:51:01 PM »
It's a shame they didn't add it since when shooting video it's the quickest way to make sure you have critical focus if you lack a HD monitor on your rig.

Huh?  Not sure I'm following this.

They did (of course) still add the ability to look at 10x magnification in live view to check focus.   You just can't record at that magnification.  The T2i/T3i have the ability to record a low resolution video using only the center portion of the sensor, which is what the OP is referring to.  Some HD purists call it "gimmicky" primarily because it only records in standard definition, not 1080 or 720, so they find it to be useless for their highbrow purposes.   I've played with it on my T2i, it's pretty impressive - I could see inside the eyes of a spider whose body was about as big as a grain of rice

I was surprised to see that my 5d3 didn't have that feature - although I probably wouldn't ever attempt to use it in a professional shoot due to the poor resolution, it would still be fun to play with.   Which may be why Canon decided to leave it out - just one more "silly feature" for the stills-only crowd to gripe about having to pay for

Are you talking about switching recording modes just to check focus?

excellent thought!  perhaps you'd like to experiment and let us know what you find out!   :D

As far as video or stills - it's the same parts, but with stills your mirror is only up (exposing the sensor) for brief moments.  I suppose if you happen to take a still at the exact moment a laser passes over your lens/sensor, it could happen. 

I thought this was common knowledge by now.  But I guess its also just possible I troll around more DSLR video related forums than some.   Has happened plenty of times.  Sorry to hear about your sensor though, hope Canon will fix it under warranty.  If they haven't put any verbiage specifically warning against using around lasers, it should be covered.

Laser light Kills Canon 5D Mark II

laser 5 d mark II sensor KILL

Lovely shots!

Oof, that lens... calls to me.  If it wasn't for the price tag on it

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D3E?
« on: April 05, 2012, 02:39:07 PM »
Moire and false color only affects a very small number of still shots and video footings

I don't know if you've done much video with previous models, but IMHO, you may be underestimating how often moire would rear its ugly head. 

It certainly would be nice to have the option to turn it off.  But if it's an all-or-nothing decision... Frankly, in terms of video, you couldn't pay me enough to remove the 5d3 AA filter.  I've never once (in my days of shooting video with the 5d2/7D/T2i) had a paying client ask why the image wasn't any sharper - however, I HAVE had to answer "Why is the collar of his shirt doing that weird stripey pattern thing? That's really distracting".   

Granted - I'm not a high-end cinema DP, and don't pretend to be one on forums unlike many, and I'm not even strictly video-only - I'm closer to 50/50 stills and video.   The sort of shooting I do is usually for corporate online or 1080 flat panel display use (i.e. kiosks and tradeshow displays) and wedding video.  It's not sexy, but it pays the bills and my stuff is rarely intended for the big screen (hey, we can't all be Steven Spielberg).  I'll be working on an indie short in a couple weeks shot with 2 5D3's which will hopefully get some big screen showings, but for the stuff that actually pays the bills, the 5D3 video quality so far is still proving to blow them away (at least on the ONE paying project I've shot with it so far)... and never having to even worry about moire is HUGE.

That's not even mentioning the still shoots I've done with it, with fantastic image quality with plenty of crisp detail and keeper rates that are so far beyond that which I ever got with the 5D2 from the massive AF improvements...   I'm a very happy camper with the 3 - but that's just me!

Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: April 05, 2012, 01:07:05 PM »
Yeah, you're probably right.

Back to the original topic though - honestly, before I picked up the 70-200 MK2, I woulda just checked the "Primes" button in the poll without a second thought.  Longtime prime freak - you just couldn't get the same level of IQ (+contrast, color, everything) with ANY zoom.  I owned the 70-200 f4 IS (which, despite the limitation of f4 is VERY sharp), and I'd rented the 70-200 2.8 IS mk1 a couple times, trying to convince myself that I needed it, but frankly, the MK1 was always soft.  I was utterly in love with my 100L and the 85L II

Then the 70-200 MK2 came out, I rented it, and was completely blown away.  It was as sharp as my 100L in side by side tests, and the 100L is a VERY sharp lens. 

At this point, I only use the 100L for macro (rarely), and probably rely the most on my 70-200 II.  It's truly an amazing piece of glass.  For wide stuff though, primes all the way.  35L is great, and the 24L II is my sweet sugar momma.

Lenses / Re: Prime VS Zooms.
« on: April 05, 2012, 12:50:21 PM »
some primes are way better than some zooms. For example yesterday I took some photos with a 24-105 and then took the same with a 400 f/2.8.  The ones with the 400 f/2.8 were a noticable improvement both in terms of contrast and IQ.

Uh... OK, wait - you're comparing an $1100 f/4 zoom to an $11,000 f/2.8 prime?   ... $10K difference in price and 295mm difference in reach?   Interesting.

I do know what you mean though.  The other day, I took a picture with my 5yo son's LeapFrog 1MP camera, and then took the same pic with my 5D3 and 85 1.2 II, and I was stunned at the difference.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 at one week: a few surprises
« on: April 04, 2012, 03:36:28 PM »
...However, I think it would be a mistake to conclude that 5D3 doesn't improve on image quality when compared to the 5D2.  Better focused images improve image quality and better exposed images improve image quality...

I think this is the part that really hits home for me as well.

I've sat there with both 5D2 and 5D3, doing comparison shots using the same lens and getting perfect focus through live view, etc... etc... and yeah - the comparison between the two shots is shockingly similar.  The MK2 can still produce amazing images if focus and exposure settings are perfect.  My MK3 is ever-so-slightly sharper (some people say their MK2 is ever-so-slightly sharper - I think it's simple variance between copies).  BUT out in real world situations, you don't have the luxury of taking your time and getting perfect focus with live view... My keeper rate in actual shooting situations has improved so dramatically, it's like I'm playing in a whole different game.  Especially so with wide aperture lesnses

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11