Bad 5D Mkii or is Nikon that much better?

[dreidesq]

Hello everyone,

My virgin post on here.

I recently had a tutorial with a photographer I admired. I didn't realise that when I got there he was all Nikon D3 and Nikon lenses and I was all Canon 5Dii and L class.

It's probably that I'm a really bad amateur photographer and not understanding stuff, but I'm confused about one technical issue and need your help please.

We were recreating one of his shots and he gave me his camera settings which I dialled in, his shots looked gorgeous, clean, in focus and bright using his Nikon D3, 50mm, 200th at f11, iso 200.  When (under his instruction) I took the exact same shot with my 5D Mkii with my 50mm, 200th at f11, iso 200, mine came out 3 stops darker and contrasty. WTF?

I ended up spending the next ten minutes re checking my settings and modes and I couldn't see anything wrong.

At points he pointed out that he didn't even need to look through the viewfinder to get it in focus and still get a good shot, which he did in a Austin Powers style by looking at me and pointing the camera away from himself at the model all while talking to me about shooting styles. Bingo his shot was excellent. Although my shot's came out the same contrast level and harsh while his were silk smooth.

His camera performed flawlessly and mine seemed to be 3 or four f stops and focus steps behind. The dynamic range of his camera was exceptional, all I got was what comes out of a horses bottom, IMO.

Come to think of it I'm always stopping my camera up when I know it's a darker environment but just been doing it automatically for so long I though it was just how the 5d2 was supposed to be. Is that right?

Based on this session alone I'm thinking of switching to the dark side. The thing that stops me is the amount of good L class glass I have invested in Canon plus I'm hoping Canon will announce the 3dx with 16 bits of dynamic range soon. I'm not sure I'll get much for my 5d2 now the 6d has nicely under cut it. Thanks Canon, lovin' your work. Not.

Bad Canon 5d2 or is the Nikon D3 that good?
Anyone else out there who had a D3 that switched to Canon because Canon was better?
Is the 5D2 better compensated 2-3 stops up?

Thank you in advance for any advice you may have.

BTW - I have followed this post for set ups. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/users-guide/index.htm

[janne]

Are you sure you haven't dialed in any negative exposure compensation? And could you possibly post an example picture for us to see?

[Nishi Drew]

Maybe your lens has an ND/CPL or other filter on it?
I've been around two other shooters who had no idea they had CPL filters on their lens they were using,
and didn't even know what a polarizer did... (ironically for this post they were both Nikon users).

Now, not to be crass, but reading what you put here I feel you should learn how to use your camera before even thinking of switching systems, you'll more than likely throw away investment and be at a loss. And of course you're with a guy who shoots Nikon so how you feel is understandable, while the D3 is Nikons top pro model and the 5D a mid level camera. I was considering moving to the dark side myself with the D600, but I think I'd rather save up for a MkIII instead, switching systems is rarely beneficial. You have L glass that you'll have to get rid of, and won't make back your money, and it's getting used to a new camera all over again. Finally, shoot RAW and you can adjust exposure in post quite a bit, though nothing that you should rely on.

Also also, where were you taking these shots at, if this were outside then in sunlight looking at the LCD you won't be able to tell exposure correctly.

Cheers

[Flake]

Just reading that it makes me wonder whether a Nikon fanboy has set you up to fail, or perhaps worse, that as a teacher he just doesn't know enough about cameras - which is more common than you might think.

Not all Isos are equal , nor are apertures, they're rounded to the nearest so there will be differences.  The bigest concern here is that in seeing that the shots weren't turning out the tutor didn't suggest that you change the settings to get a better picture.

If I were you I'd be asking the guy for my money back!  Even the Canon G1X can produce better images than the D3 and that comes not just from my experience, but from a pro friend whose a real Nikon fanboy, but chooses Canon for compacts.

In a studio setting you either set the camera, or the power of the lights, anyone in that situation with experience would have known about fine tuning so when you have a dark skinned model the settings change.  The attitude of shooting while not looking just screams that this guy is so full of himself, that he's never going to let some one elses gear be as good as his.

How do you know he was using f/11 btw?  without checking his settings you wouldn't know, and he could have been on f/8 !

[Nishi Drew]

Just reading that it makes me wonder whether a Nikon fanboy has set you up to fail, or perhaps worse, that as a teacher he just doesn't know enough about cameras - which is more common than you might think.

Not all Isos are equal , nor are apertures, they're rounded to the nearest so there will be differences.  The bigest concern here is that in seeing that the shots weren't turning out the tutor didn't suggest that you change the settings to get a better picture.

If I were you I'd be asking the guy for my money back!  Even the Canon G1X can produce better images than the D3 and that comes not just from my experience, but from a pro friend whose a real Nikon fanboy, but chooses Canon for compacts.

In a studio setting you either set the camera, or the power of the lights, anyone in that situation with experience would have known about fine tuning so when you have a dark skinned model the settings change.  The attitude of shooting while not looking just screams that this guy is so full of himself, that he's never going to let some one elses gear be as good as his.

How do you know he was using f/11 btw?  without checking his settings you wouldn't know, and he could have been on f/8 !

Ha, I know pretentious jerks like that. He could be trying to convince you to switch systems so he could dump his old used gear on you later on :p
And now that I think about it, if this is a studio setting with flashes, then sounds like his cam is set up with the lighting/strobes and yours just wasn't. Seems like something went real sour with this "exercise"

[dreidesq]

Thank you for the reply.

I just checked the camera settings and they were 0ev. We did not have any filters on the front of his or my lenses.

Have a look at the 5 initial shots I took, hopefully I've made it easy to see what I had to do to get close to what he had.
http://bright.vg/5d2vsnikond3

He was far from being pretentious, he is a very nice funny chap. I would hate to think I gave that impression of him.

We were both using his Bowens light in his studio and both set up with remote triggers, though now I write this could that have been the problem?

He also owns and has used/owned Canon equipment and ended up changing his equipment for Nikon as it was better for him and his style of shooting. He was not selling me his old gear and certainly wasn't telling me to change to Nikon. He was as confused as I about the settings.

This is the Photographer
http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/user/eymc275

This is my work.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/redtree

I don't want to sell my Canon equipment (LOVE the lenses) but I have always felt I have had to compensate somewhere on the camera to get it to do what I wanted to achieve where other photographers seem to do (while I'm standing beside them and there shots are straight from their cameras) with ease on other systems.

[Jotho]

Thank you for the reply.

I just checked the camera settings and they were 0ev. We did not have any filters on the front of his or my lenses.

Have a look at the 5 initial shots I took, hopefully I've made it easy to see what I had to do to get close to what he had.
http://bright.vg/5d2vsnikond3

He was far from being pretentious, he is a very nice funny chap. I would hate to think I gave that impression of him.

We were both using his Bowens light in his studio and both set up with remote triggers, though now I write this could that have been the problem?

He also owns and has used/owned Canon equipment and ended up changing his equipment for Nikon as it was better for him and his style of shooting. He was not selling me his old gear and certainly wasn't telling me to change to Nikon. He was as confused as I about the settings.

This is the Photographer
http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/user/eymc275

This is my work.
http://www.redbubble.com/people/redtree

I don't want to sell my Canon equipment (LOVE the lenses) but I have always felt I have had to compensate somewhere on the camera to get it to do what I wanted to achieve where other photographers seem to do (while I'm standing beside them and there shots are straight from their cameras) with ease on other systems.

Did you go reverse? Did he set his camera to the settings that worked on your 5D2? Did he fall apart because of over exposed white blurry images? Idea here, independent of equipment, I don't think you can compare exact settings like that. There are too many things to factor in. If you're not happy with the most sold pro/advanced user camera ever, then maybe it is time to change brand.

[Flake]

Did you actually pay good money for this 'course'?   The lighting is really bad!  Very harsh & not flattering.  On picture 6 the 5D MkII is the better picture - the background is white, which is what you need for a cut out, on the Nikon shot it's a kind of magnolia colour.
I still can't understand why a supposedly competent photographer would look at the results on another camera and not know that it needed adjustment.  To let you carry on when you weren't happy is not a good sign.

There are shooters around who are not as knowledgable as they should be.  They set up a camera based on settings learned from others, and when it looks right they stick with those.  The fact that he was confused about the settings speaks volumes.

[dreidesq]

Did you go reverse? Did he set his camera to the settings that worked on your 5D2? Did he fall apart because of over exposed white blurry images? Idea here, independent of equipment, I don't think you can compare exact settings like that. There are too many things to factor in. If you're not happy with the most sold pro/advanced user camera ever, then maybe it is time to change brand.

Hello there,
Nope didn't try the reverse as we both were confused at why my camera differed so much with identical settings.

All I'm hoping for is to figure out if my camera is and has always been a bit flaky or if the 5d2 needs +2ev or open up 3-4 stops to expose correctly like other peoples Nikons?

regards
david

[dreidesq]

"Did you actually pay good money for this 'course'?"
I paid for the course.

"The lighting is really bad!"
Very harsh & not flattering.
There is a reason for that which I did not mention at the beginning as I did not think it was relevant.
The whole point of the first exercise was not lighting it was interacting with a working commercial model which I have never done before. (only friends and family)
So he set up a one light setting to get us started so I could talk to the model and hopefully not be as timid as I normally am.


On picture 6 the 5D MkII is the better picture - the background is white, which is what you need for a cut out, on the Nikon shot it's a kind of magnolia colour.
Apologies for any confusion, there are no Nikon shots posted. Only my 5d2, The "Nikon like" shots are to help you understand what came directly from his camera. BTW he and I also had the same 4100k warm tone settings.

I still can't understand why a supposedly competent photographer would look at the results on another camera and not know that it needed adjustment.  To let you carry on when you weren't happy is not a good sign.

Answer as before, the purpose of this session was for me to get to know the model and lighting be very simple, he just wanted to see how I would react to the model and what I would do being thrown in at the deep end. I'm very shy and I think he wanted to see what I would do. The initial shot took me by surprise as I assumed like for like settings on cameras would produce the same results. Judging by his reaction so did he. Give or take a 1 stop and slight colour variation. He suggested the corrected settings after the first shot, the second and third were closer to what it should be and then by the fourth he told me to start shooting and forget about the lights and camera settings and just interact with the model. Which I did.

There are shooters around who are not as knowledgable as they should be.  They set up a camera based on settings learned from others, and when it looks right they stick with those.  The fact that he was confused about the settings speaks volumes.
So are you suggesting that if I have the exact same settings as someone else's camera in an identical manner that 3-4 stops of dropped light is normal?

Regards
David

[old-pr-pix]

Hope you got something worthwhile out of your session and didn't spend too much time on exposure differences.

First shot shows almost o.k. exposure on photographers left side (I'd open it up 1/2 stop - which is what photographer suggested) with significant fall-off going to subject right.  A relative hot spot is on the wall behind the two subjects.  Seems there is no fill on subjects right side-- no reflector/fill card.  As mentioned above, lighting isn't great and source appears too small to allow much subject movement with consistent lighting.  Subject movement may be part of the issue - check shadow definition.  As subject moves the lighting is different. (compare shots #3 & #5 shadows)
   
Not all cameras and lenses are calibrated the same.  There are various websites that report effective ISO sensitivities of various sensors and differences can be significant.  Plus, F-stops are just geometric ratios and don't reflect actual differences in light transmission.  Cine lenses use T-stops which are much more accurate reflections of actual light transmission... obviously at much higher cost to produce.  Your camera/lens might be off in one direction, his off in the other.

Unless there was a lot of ambient light, changing the shutter speed should have minor effect within the 1/60 to 1/200 range.  Hence, shots #1 and #2 differ by only ~ 1/2 stop in effective exposure.

A flash meter might have helped to illustrate the changes in illumination as the model was positioned closer or further from the background -- assuming you were not moving the light source for various shots.

Shot #3 has clipped highlights - the issue isn't contrast per se, it's over exposed.

[dreidesq]

Thank you old-pr-pix,

Sorry I'm a bit thick, what does that all mean?

I moved from f11 to f5.6. His camera stayed on f11.

Of this scene I took 6 shots in total. It was only for me to be able to talk to the model.
Any technical knowledge or tuition was not needed or required for this shot other than trying to figure out why my camera came out a lot darker than his. Once I'd play with the settings to match what he was seeing on his Nikon I took 6 shots and during that time I spoke to the model during that. All out of my comfort zone.

The shots from my camera came out dark and his looked much much lighter. The histogram on his camera from the very beginning reflects what I was trying to achieve in shot 4.
The lighting, model, photographer, camera and myself did not move position. The photographer and I were standing in the exact same spot while shooting the model.
The studio lighting never changed or was played with.

It was 10 am in the morning the sun was out and it was not cloudy, the blinds were drawn.
The photographer shot his shots at 10.01am I shot mine 10.01am 20secs later. My first shot was very dark.
My reaction was eh? what?
I showed the photographer my screen and he went eh?
Try this setting.
I put in his recommendation.
My second shot was a little better, but I still went eh?
I showed the photographer my screen and he went eh?
Try this setting.
I dialed in his recommendation.
My third shot was much lighter and I was happier. As I was beginning to think I broke my camera or was being a nonce.
After the fourth shot, the photographer asked if I was happy to continue.
His instructions were right now forget about the settings and lighting this is about how you react with the model, let me see how you talk to her and I'll have an idea of how you deal with that and I'll show you what I do.

I wasn't trying to win awards in composition, or be technically genius.

I'm just confused to why I had to open up my camera to f5.6 to match his.
Any clue or did you answer that in your technical detail?


Why is my camera darker when I match his settings?
Is my camera bad or is that an a typical Canon 5D2?

Regards
David

[old-pr-pix]

I take it you were comparing your LCD display image with that of his Nikon during your session -- did you happen to check to see the relative brightness settings of both cameras' LCD screens?  If you had downloaded images from both camers to the same computer then looked at the images on the same screen you might have had a different impression.

To me it seems your shot #2 could be opened up about 1/2 stop or so -- histogram seems to indicate that as well.  Your #3 & #4 look too hot on my monitor (unless you were specifically going for high key look) and the histogram indicates that as well.  IMO I'd say f-8 is about where you should be, not f-5.6.  One stop difference between two cameras isn't too hard to imagine.  If you are still concerned your 5DII is way off, and don't have a good light meter, try checking it using the old sunny-16 rule.  (Bright sunny day, outside exposure should be f-16 at 1/ISO shutter)  It won't be perfect, but it will tell you if you are multiple stops off.

By "shadow definition" I'm talking about the position of the shadow and the crispness/softness of the shadow line behind the model.  Note that in #2, #3 & #4 the shadow is notably to the subject's right side (camera left) and is fairly soft edged.  In #5 the shadow is much closer to directly behind the model and has more distinct edges.  Given the light was not moved, this implies the subject was much closer to the background in that shot.  Closer to the backdrop implies further from the light source.   In turn that implies an exposure change needed to accomodate.

I think your 5DII is probably fine.  Your may have been out of your comfort zone and distracted by minor differences.

[dreidesq]

Thank you for your reply.

I take it you were comparing your LCD display image with that of his Nikon during your session -- did you happen to check to see the relative brightness settings of both cameras' LCD screens?  If you had downloaded images from both camers to the same computer then looked at the images on the same screen you might have had a different impression.
I was going off the histogram from both cameras and I was trying to emulate what the photographer had.


To me it seems your shot #2 could be opened up about 1/2 stop or so -- histogram seems to indicate that as well.  Your #3 & #4 look too hot on my monitor (unless you were specifically going for high key look) and the histogram indicates that as well.  IMO I'd say f-8 is about where you should be, not f-5.6.  One stop difference between two cameras isn't too hard to imagine.  If you are still concerned your 5DII is way off, and don't have a good light meter, try checking it using the old sunny-16 rule.  (Bright sunny day, outside exposure should be f-16 at 1/ISO shutter)  It won't be perfect, but it will tell you if you are multiple stops off.
All I've noticed in the past with my 5D2 is if I shoot 50-250 iso and if the dark areas on the histogram are past on on the last line on the left I get horrible grain and noise if I try to push it up in lightness for any reason. I assumed that when I saw the photographers histogram whacked way up like that that I should be too. As the reason for this session was not technical and I was worried about talking to the model, never thought to ask why. It was a blip on the radar of enjoyment at the time and was still in the dark hence the questions.

By "shadow definition" I'm talking about the position of the shadow and the crispness/softness of the shadow line behind the model.  Note that in #2, #3 & #4 the shadow is notably to the subject's right side (camera left) and is fairly soft edged.  In #5 the shadow is much closer to directly behind the model and has more distinct edges.  Given the light was not moved, this implies the subject was much closer to the background in that shot.  Closer to the backdrop implies further from the light source.   In turn that implies an exposure change needed to accomodate.
I think the model may have moved about a step back, though in the grand scheme of things that was probably a good thing as I opened up the aperture her moving back meant the highlights wern't blown that much.

I think your 5DII is probably fine.  Your may have been out of your comfort zone and distracted by minor differences.
OK thank you for your time and info.

Regards
David

[ishdakuteb]

"...I took the exact same shot with my 5D Mkii with my 50mm, 200th at f11, iso 200, mine came out 3 stops darker and contrasty. WTF?..."

honesty, you are cracking me off when you are saying 3 stops darker (that means whatever slightly brighter than mid gray will become close to black).  imo, one of the following could be the cases:

1. you have bought a lemon used camera, or
2. you do not how to use it properly, or
3. you have a bad instructor (go look for another one, hopefully your instructor is not cliff mautner.  as if he is, then he is trying to tell you to buy nikon.  but i do not believe that he is going to do that... and keep in mind that jerry ghionis has used canon 5d classic for years.), or
4. when he took a picture, he turned light on.  when you took picture, he turned light off
5. tbd by people in this forum

i am not a pro photographer, but a dslr learner.  i love to learn and analyze images/style/technical relates (try not to spend lots of money since my wife already starts complain).  however, you can post your and his out of camera JPEG here and i can probably tell you why... but darker than 3 stops, please give me a break.  both canon and nikon outcome good images.  in day light, i probably can use canon t3 (yes, t3 not t3i) to output almost identical images comparing to your 5d mark II with one exception (dof)

i have been learning how to use a dslr in the past six months starting off from a t3, move up to 7d and buy a used 30d to help me to learn light every day after work, and recently order a 5d mark III to support low light learning and shooting at this weekend.  i shoot at everything that has color and start to learn from there.  i learn by picking brain from online sites.

attached is the image that i have shot with 30d (out of camera jpeg) the other day to show my friend.  it could be brighter and cooler, but:
1. i will violate shutter speed, and
2. 50mm is sharp at 2.8; therefore, i am not willing to use 1.4 unless i have to
3. no more room to set kelvin temperature (minimum is 2800)
4. lazy to adjust white balance shift (i could adjust it by go further to blue and magenta to low down red tone)
5. iso already hit max, etc

note:  could be more cooler color temperature...

if i can shoot that low light situation (one tungsten light bulb in my room) with 30d, i believe you will have no problem with your 5d mark II