October 24, 2014, 11:45:52 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 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 69
736
Like V8's observations, i find the D800 to be too flat looking... Nikon users are going to have to either add contrast to the scene in post or in camera... and if they do it in post, i'm sure they'll quickly notice all that lovely noise creep into their images, even low iso. 

I thought I was just crazy, but it seems that are at least two of us that share this sentiment :) Ultimately, the D800's flat looking images, and the need to bump up the contrast in post, would bug me a heck of a lot more than the 5DIII's disadvantage in DxOMark-reported DR. I find the tonality lacking as well. The 5DIII's files just remind me more of the "look" I'm accustomed to during the old days of shooting color slides. That might be a dumb reason to some considering the Nikon's advantages on paper, but for me how an image looks in print (and on screen) is all that matters.

That said, from a technical standpoint, I'm curious why this is the case with the D800's files. What difference in sensor or processing technology between the two accounts for what the two of us perceive as flat looking images out of the Nikon?

Quote
While the IQ wasn't earth-shatteringly improved over the 5d2, I have noticed more leniency in low iso... you can raise or lower exposure in post and not get the noise that you would before.  For those who do a lot of photoshop work, that can be very key.

Have you received you 5DIII yet? If you have, I wanted to ask if you've experience the soft images in DPP that others have noticed.

737
EOS Bodies / Re: How to Edit 5D MK III Raw files in Lightroom(Windows)
« on: March 26, 2012, 05:54:37 PM »
I am concerned as the preview in DPP is significantly sharper than the same file viewed in bridge or opened in ACR 6.7 I really hope Adobe sort this out ACR seems to soften the image detail just is gone that is clearly visable in DPP preview then there is the actual processing in DPP smearing images.

Does this also happen in CS5? I've opened up a few 5DIII CR2s in CS5 using ACR 6.7, and the IQ looks as expected. Then again, these aren't my images since my 5DIII isn't here yet, and I don't have any 5DII file to compare them to, either, so I really don't know what I'm talking about :)

738
Hmm assistants you say? I think I just discovered where I have been going wrong. I need Kate Beckinsale as my photo assistant. Her magical glow will perfectly fill in shadows in all my scenes, no matter their scale. Hmm yes that's the ticket. Thanks. There is something somehow very appealing about this way to reach 15 stops dynamic range, something that I feel would be lacking were I to use a D800 instead.

I said assistants, not models :) An assistant is usually some smelly, hairy, overweight dude that's hung over from the night before :)

As far as reflectors go, I don't ever see them going away, regardless of how much DR improves in the coming years. There's just a certain quality of light you can achieve with them, and I use them to manipulate highlights, reflections, and light volume more often than I use them for fill light.

Check out this video taken by a super high end commercial photographer. He's shooting with a Phase One P65, which does quite well at 13 stops of DR, according to DxOMark. What do you see 2:40 into the clip? That's right, a reflector :)

chmil. 

On a side note, that Phase One shutter sounds sweeet ;D

739
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mk3 - A few complaints
« on: March 26, 2012, 12:17:26 PM »
1) Raw files in DPP preview look sharpand show lots of detail, when i preview in bridge with ACR6.7 installed they are noticably softer and editing in DPP much softer, opening in PS also softer than the DPP preview. Colour all looks really good, The detail has to be in the file, as it displays in the DPP preview so i'm not too concerned about the senor being a lemon. I feel its almost entirely related to the processing software not being right rather than a sensor thing.

2) the jpegs look awefull IMO, like heavy handed NR is being applied to iso100 files. sure NR the hell out of 25600 iso images in camera but there should be 0 NR applied to iso 100 jpgs. If i took a 5D2 raw file at iso 100 in topaz denoise and applied an overall noise reduction value of maybe 60 this would be similar to the jpegs out of camera, my typical use of denoise values are around 20-30 if i'm correcting 1600 iso to 3200 iso, i may sometimes pop a value of 5 on a portrait as it does a nice job cleaning up skin in a very subtle way that is not noticable as being post processed. (these are observations based on the standard settings the camera comes with, I dont work with jpegs at all other than to flick to people for a quick preview and usually i will downsize those to 1024x768 anyway if i'm going to email them. On my 5Dmk2 i record medium jpegs which are 10MP for this purpose on my 1Dmk3 i leave the jpegs full size which is also 10 or 11 MP.

Overall I'm very glad I didnt sell my 5D2s just in case, I really hope these issues get resolved soon as I'm going to china soon and really wanted to put this thing through its paces. At least i know i can rely on the 5Dmk2s anyway. I wont be shooting any paid work with the 5Dmk3 untill i'm 100% happy it can meet the 5Dmk2 standard though.

Thanks for the details. Your samples definitely look softer than I'd expect. Given the differences in IQ in different software platforms, it does seem like the info is in the raw files. On one hand, this is a relief since we can probably rule out a turdish sensor. On the other hand, it's a shame Canon shipped the 5DIII out without the software to support it.

I've never rushed out and bought a new camera in the first wave of shipments, but apparently issues like this are pretty typical with new releases. It stills sucks, though.

740
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mk3 - A few complaints
« on: March 25, 2012, 11:20:43 PM »
wombat:

1) Are the raw files just soft, or terrible in other respects?

2) Is it the smearing of the details that makes the jpegs so bad?

I hope this is just an issue with the DPP software.

741
EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 08:56:13 PM »
Here is a quick screenshot from Aperture. I was shooting RAW+JPEG. Photo on left is in-camera JPEG (one of the better ones) and photo on right is CR2 converted to DNG. Notice the missing detail in the white petals.

It looks like the in-camera processing is adding lots of contrast to add more color, contrast, and "pop" at the expense of detail in the midtones. I agree that it seems quite aggressive. Just out of curiosity, where did you have the jpeg presets (contrast, saturation, etc) set at for this shot?

742
EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 08:39:29 PM »
I posted these raw comparisons in a couple of other threads
https://rapidshare.com/files/265985045/045C0110.CR2
https://rapidshare.com/files/2949940123/IMG_8491.CR2

I feel the 5D2 is sharper still

I saw these posted earlier but didn't look at them as closely as I did today. They don't look too bad, although they are on the soft side. They did sharpen up nicely with a subtle unsharp mask, though. Maybe my standards are just low :)

It sounds like the jpegs are real turds, though. Can anyone put up some sample jpegs? I'd like to see how bad the in-camera processing is.

743
EOS Bodies / Re: So frustrated with new 5DmkIII - returning it!
« on: March 25, 2012, 08:28:23 PM »
Me too!  I was having such high hopes!  Hopefully a different unit will be better!
I'm very keen to hear how you new unit goes because so far I'm concerned about the IQ of the images too
I'll probably wait unti proper raw converters are out before i look at taking it back
I think canon need to get a firmware update out STAT that fixes the horrid in camera jpeg processing too
I think i'd be happier with jpegs out of a rebel than this thing puts out

Ouch. Sounds like your 5DIII is performing like a dud so far. What specifically about the IQ is so bad? If the jpegs look worse than a Rebel, I'm hoping I'm not in for disappointment when my 5DIII shows up this week.

744
That you two are still arguing around this point puzzles me greatly.  You both have valid arguments and understand the limitations of the equipment.  From my point of view, you both are in agreement, even if it's from different perspectives. :)

I have no beef with LetTheRightLensIn. Anyone who can tolerate my bad jokes on the internet if cool in my book :) Seriously, though, he makes some good points even if we have to agree to disagree on other points.

Quote
I wish I had a FF Canon body that performed like that cheap little Nikon for low ISO IQ!
If V8 Beast had such a camera, he could simplify his shooting by being able to leave some of those reflectors in the van. :)

Nonsense. I quite enjoy trying to train an assistant on how to catch the sun at the correct angle with a reflector without having it get blown away in the wind :D Good times.

745
If an entry-level FF camera pans out, it would certainly explain why Canon priced the 5DIII at $3,500. It would make for a great backup body as well for those using a 5DIII as a primary body. Maybe this will be the mega-resolution FF body people are waiting for. It would make a lot of sense to pack it full of MP, regardless of whether or not it improves or degrades IQ, since it would have to lure those accustomed to getting 18 mp Rebel for $500.

746
EOS Bodies / Re: LensRentals.com RESOLUTION TESTS
« on: March 25, 2012, 02:51:55 PM »
The reason images might look slightly soft (i.e. not tack sharp) with a high resolution sensor like the D800's or the 7D's is because the sensors are outresolving the lenses at most apertures.

That makes sense. That said, the guy commenting on the LensRental website was complaining about the measures that must be taken to avoid vibration-induced softness, whether it's due to a long shutter speed, camera shake, mirror vibration, long focal lengths, or all of the above. If you jump up to a high MP sensor as in the D800 and experience softness due to any of those issues, anyone who understands the most elementary of photography techniques should be able to figure out what went wrong. If you can't, why on earth would you buy a $3,000 camera? To criticize Nikon about this, as if they're responsible for someone who gets in over their head with equipment they obviously don't know how to use properly, is just silly.

747
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5Diii ISO and Portrait Tests
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:57:27 PM »
This thread is useless without the model's phone number ;D

748
The big question is, how do you market an entry-level full-frame camera? If I'm an entry-level consumer that equates image quality to megapixel count, I'd expect a $2,000 camera to have substantially greater resolution than a $500 Rebel.

749
EOS Bodies / Re: LensRentals.com RESOLUTION TESTS
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:48:09 PM »
According to this test, if you're a portrait photographer, or someone who shoots at wide open apertures, the 14 megapixel advantage of the D800 over the 5DIII is negligible? I rarely shoot wide open, but I just want to make sure I'm interpreting the data correctly.

Too bad they didn't get to put the 5DIII through the same battery of tests. If I carried through with my D800 purchase, which I'm not at this point, the 70-200 VRII was going to be my primary workhorse lens, so it's interesting to see how poorly the performed compared to the primes. Plus, with long lenses I usually shoot stopped down to f/8 or f/11, negating the D800's resolution even more.   

750
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600EX-RT Flashes now in stock
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:09:42 AM »
I walked back to 300' (the other goal post on the field) and was able to shoot nearly 100% of the time assuming camera and flash were used at a normal shooting height.

Thanks for the comprehensive writeup. I wasn't too impressed with the advertised range of these flashes at first, but it looks like Canon  had underrated them. A 300-foot range is very impressive. Yes it's pricey, but Canon's new RF system eliminates several third-party add-ons from your camera bag, which also means there are fewer batteries to worry about.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50] 51 52 ... 69