November 20, 2014, 09:42:32 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 - V8Beast

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 70
721
EOS Bodies / Re: My first real shoot with the 5DIII
« on: March 31, 2012, 09:11:26 PM »
V8Beast, could it be that you have highlight tone priority, and/or auto lighting optimizer settings enabled? If so, try shooting with them disabled That might be the cause of your under exposure problem.

I have both highlight tone priority and auto lighting optimizer disabled. I have the camera set to record raws to the CF card, and jpegs the SD card, and both sets of images have the same problem :(

As for the under exposed flash images, I was thinking maybe the 550EXs are too old to properly interface with the 5DIII. That, however, wouldn't explain why the metering is off when I'm not using flash.

722
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: March 31, 2012, 08:38:39 PM »
Great shots! I'm finding the metering on my 5DIII to be quite inaccurate in evaluative mode. It routinely under-exposes by 1 to 1.5 stops. Has anyone else experience similar issues?

723
EOS Bodies / My first real shoot with the 5DIII
« on: March 31, 2012, 07:27:14 PM »
First the results:














Now some commentary. This car wasn't running right, so I didn't get to put the AF system through the ringer, but overall I like the camera. That said, I do have some concerns with, of all things, the light meter. I don't have a 5DII, so I can only compare it to my 5DC. I almost always keep the metering in evaluative mode. For some reason, I had to bump the exposure compensation up 1 to 1.5 stops all day long. Even in scenes that aren't contrasty by any means, the light meter seems to freak out whenever it seems any whites, grays, or silvers.

I don't expect miracles from a light meter, and as an old film fart, I still bracket. Even so, for my shooting needs, I find the metering on my 5DC is more accurate. The 5DIII seems overly sensitive to highlights as far as metering is concerned, which could be a good thing depending on what you shoot, but I'm not crazy about it thus far.

The same thing plays out when use a couple of 550EXs off camera for fill or accent lighting. In this arrangement, both the ambient and flash output is underexposed. I was cranking up on the flash exposure compensation 1 to 1.5 stops all day. Metering was inaccurate in both AF and manual focus modes. Me no likey :(

I'll have to play with the different metering modes more until I pass final judgement, but I'm less than thrilled with it so far. Hopefully it's just user error.

Has anyone experience similar issues?

724
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 30, 2012, 11:43:25 AM »
So if I'm reading things correctly, this thread has become a technique vs. gear debate? Here's my worthless take, from observing how the industry has changed with the advent of digital in the last 10 years.

1) The big tech head photographers - those that know everything there is to know about everything from DxOMark test standards to film emulsions - often produce very underwhelming work.

2) The artsy-fartsy "seat-of-the-pants" photographers - some who don't even know how many megapixels their camera has (that's not a joke!) - often produce the best work.

Nonetheless, the best photographers are the ones that are a combination of #1 and #2. Not only do they have the natural artistic qualities that can't be taught in a book or in a classroom, they also supplement those abilities with booksmarts which ultimately enhances their work. These chaps have managed to strike the ideal balance between the technical and artistic elements that are required to produce outstanding photography. That means you have to always work to improve your technique, but you also have to stay on top of the latest and greatest technology, as technology offers new venues and opportunities through which to push the limits of creativity.

I've witnessed many photographers that were the class of the field during the film era that flat out got left behind after the digital revolution. They refused to embrace digital for as long as they could, and once they did, they were WAY behind the curve. Competitors had already refined their post processing skills, and learned to refine their technique in the field to best utilize the flexibility of digital. Maybe the purists thought the digital guys were silly tech heads, but ultimately, many purists got left in the dust.

There will always be those that produce underwhelming images with overwhelming equipment, and those that produce overwhelming images with underwhelming equipment. It's all about finding a balancing act between both extremes. IMHO, it's the photographers that continually hone their technique as new technology opens new creative possibilities for them that will rise to the top.

725
EOS Bodies / Re: I think I got a sharp one
« on: March 30, 2012, 11:08:18 AM »

LOL your mirror could use a good cleaning, but the pictures seem very good indeed.
[/quote]

Concur.
lol
 ;D
[/quote]

I keep my mirrors dirty on purpose. Otherwise I get distracted by how handsome I am every time I switch lenses :D

726
Lighting / Re: If you have a 5DIII and the Phottix Odins....
« on: March 30, 2012, 11:03:18 AM »
not only that but 580ex2 will fire at 1/8000 sec with HSS turned off at full power
using the odin thats massive being able to fire 580's at full power at high shutter speeds increases the
usage by orders of magnitudes.

That's crazy. I don't even know how that's possible, as I didn't know it was possible to use HSS at full power, but I'm not complaining. I'm definitely going to pick up some Odins.

Thanks for the great feedback my mate from down under :)

727
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D III RAW @12800 w/ NR in LR4
« on: March 29, 2012, 11:56:49 PM »
People love my bird shots...and most of them see mere PRINTS, which probably have about 6 stops of DR at most!

Who cares about prints? It's all about blowing your images up to 100%, and popping wood over all the detail you can see :o

728
Lighting / Re: If you have a 5DIII and the Phottix Odins....
« on: March 29, 2012, 10:47:15 PM »
Thanks! Much appreciated!

729
EOS Bodies / Re: I think I got a sharp one
« on: March 29, 2012, 10:44:36 PM »
What's the price on the 1D?

I think it's against forum rules to post anything like that :o

730
EOS Bodies / Re: I think I got a sharp one
« on: March 29, 2012, 10:14:50 PM »
Just noticed the in-camera lens correction in action in these two shots. The image was spot focused on the mirror, so don't freak out, it's not soft :) The top is the raw, and the bottom is the jpeg. The camera do a decent job of correcting the vignetting, which is most visible in the bottom right of the frame.

Raw


Jpeg

731
EOS Bodies / I think I got a sharp one
« on: March 29, 2012, 10:07:23 PM »
I won't get to put my 5DIII through the ringer until tomorrow, but since I had to take a few snaps of my 1DII which I'll be getting rid of soon, I did get a chance to at least take it out for a test run. All images are out of camera raws converted to jpeg in CS5. Neither lens used has been micro adjusted yet.

Focus point was the "Canon" logo using automatic AF selection. Shot with 24-105L at 105mm: f/8, 1/125, ISO 100


Focus point was on eye cup using zone AF selection. Shot with 24-105L at 105mm: f/8, 1/180, ISO 100


Focus point is where the label reads "Complies with the Canadian..." using auto AF selection. Shot with 70-300L at 260 mm, f/8, 1/180, ISO 100


Old film habits die hard, so I usually manually focus for stuff like this. For the sake of testing out the AF system, however, I tried out auto, zone, and spot AF selection, and had pretty good luck with each of them.

Each one of these were also shot as jpegs in the "Standard" picture setting, which is set at "3" for sharpening on a 0-7 scale. Not surprisingly, the jpegs were just a hair sharper, but not any sharper than the raws once a smidgen of unsharp mask was applied. There was just as much detail, particularly in the rubber grip areas, in the jpegs as in the raws. Based on some reports, it sounds like the jpeg processing is obliterating the detail in camera, but these images escaped unscathed.

This is obviously a very small sample set, so I really need to take the camera on a real shoot before drawing a more definitive conclusion. Considering that the 24-105 at zoomed to 105mm isn't the sharpest lens in the Canon catalog, I'm pleased with the preliminary results.

732
Lighting / If you have a 5DIII and the Phottix Odins....
« on: March 29, 2012, 03:29:55 PM »
....could you please do a quick test for me? I'm about to order some Odins up, but maintaining high speed sync functionality is critical for my shooting needs. Some people have noticed that the PocketWizards will only sync up to 1/160 or 1/200. I'd like to know if the Odins can sync at 1/1000 shutter speeds or faster.

733
EOS Bodies / Re: This web site is making me question why I lurk here
« on: March 29, 2012, 02:26:40 PM »
What I find most interesting is the crappy quality of 90% of the photos that  these anxious  obsessives have posted here to get feedback. I'm talking about crappy composition, worthless lighting, impossible focusing situations, horrible white balance and basically most norms of decent photography violated in the service of complaining, worrying or hand wringing. 

You mean to tell me that people getting hard-ons over their poorly lit, terribly composed, and otherwise uninspiring snap shots - just because they can see amazing detail in their girlfriends' hairy arm pit when pixel-peeping at 100% - doesn't impress you ;D

734
It simply means that for the supposed extra two stops of DR of the D800, the only brightness values that can actually be resolved are EV(-12 1/2), EV(-13) and EV(-14). Anything between EV(-12) and EV(-14) is quantized into one of these three EVs, so there is hardly any detail left, and certainly no gradations. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neighborhood_watch_bw.png, that is pretty much what is captured between EV(-13) and EV(-14).

From a use case perspective of using the extra DR to recover shadow detail, the 2-stop advantage in this context is nonexistant. And as such, using it as a metric for a sensor "score" is simply wrong IMO.

From the bantering that ensued after you post this, if I understand correctly, the D800's 2-stop DR advantage over the 5DIII might show up in the highlights, but it is most easily measured in shadow detail that's difficult to see outside of a lab test? If so, this would explain why I'm having such a hard time distinguishing much difference in DR at all between the two bodies based on the sample images that are now trickling out.

Some claim the Nikon's advantage is closer to three stops. That equates to 8x the volume of light. If you quote figures like that to most photographers, many of which aren't so technically inclined as far as things like DxO are concerned, they're going to expect a significant and obvious difference in perceived DR when looking at sample images. Just think about what happens to an image when to slap on a 3-stop ND grad filter in front of your lens. You go from not being able to see any clouds in the sky at all, to having the clouds pop out at you with very rich detail.

Thus far, I am not seeing this type of difference in the samples from the D800 and 5DIII. Consequently, I'm not going to go poopoo on Canon sensors just because they perform better in real-world scenarios than some lab tests suggest :)

735
So if we make our interpretation a bit more conservative, DXO is claiming the D800 somehow magically gains around some 7500-8000 discrete tonal levels (or luminance levels) by the simple act of DOWNSAMPLING (as they claim, anyway)? Fishy. And even if that WAS somehow possible, whatever you "gain" is artificial...the camera itself is still the limiting factor when you press the shutter button and capture a scene, in which case the D800, according to DXO's "screen DR" results, captures somewhere around 13.8 stops of DR.

If I understand correctly, DxO claims an increase in DR by the simple act of downsampling an image? This would seem to favor big MP cameras, and I question the legitimacy of the subsequent results.

From a standardized testing procedure, I fully understand that they downsample to level the playing field between sensors of different resolutions. On the other hand, I can't possibly see how this scenario applies to actual shooting technique in real life. Obviously, if you buy a 36 megapixel camera, part of the appeal is the massive resolution. I can't see why you'd pay money for all those pixels, just to downsample an image and throw them away. However, this is precisely the scenario that DxO is simulating, is it not?

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 70