I wonder if the new firmware doesn't actually make things a touch sharper after all, maybe comparing HDMI vs new internal is the same but maybe new internal is sharper than old? Fine edges seem to get mosquito noise sort of, maybe part of making it sharper. I need to shoot with the new, rollback and shoot with the old and compare. Maybe they did sharpen it up a bit? It is a different look than the 'raw' though, less fine micrcontrast still and yet maybe more aliasing than old video or the 'raw' video buffer?

EDIT: the artifacts, fine detail shimmer and such seem to be something going wrong in Premiere Pro (h.264, High, 5.1, 40Mbs CBR; USM/sharpen/colorista tools) since both the original Ninja recorded files and ones recorded by the 5D3 with new firmware DO NOT have that weird stuff going on. So whatever that is it is definitely not the fault of the 5D3 and/or new firmware.

EDIT: EDIT: well other than in one file where there is some weird black band that pops on and off across a few letters of white text in a weird way on one file, that is on the original
MORE EDITS: actually that weird stuff is in all the files, slight bumps to cam and almost like a bit of 5D2 line skip sorta aliasing jitter, just without sharpenin git wasn't as easy to spot

At the moment, i must be excused for any errors i make. I am also watching Shakira on The Voice. Very distracting!

amarelux said:

I live in Southern California and buy some of my gear from Samy's Camera. They are a reputable dealer and have knowledgable staff. If their price is higher than B&H, ask for a price match.

www.samys.com

Click to expand...

+1 on Samy's camera....a friend of mine is a store manager. I get to try out new gear quite often. I always feel like a kid in the candy shop when I'm there ;D ;D ;D

I've played with the Ricoh GR. It's amazing

I recently made a trip to Manhattan (first time in the US!) and Antigua. I had a great time!

marvinhello said:

I believe you...

Click to expand...

Well, that's enough for me...

Obviously I'm telling the "truth" as I know it, even if it turns out to be incorrect. But I wouldn't come out and say it if I had "read it on the internet". I feel my sources are pretty credible.

Regardless, when @MNS1974 said you need to send your camera in for a service upgrade, the bits kind of fall into place for me.

But I agree that it's lame when you do your homework and talk to the right people and they can't give you up to date information.

We'll see what happens, but my bet after today would be that you will have to send it in at some point.

And on a personal note, the fact that florian has gotten his updated camera is very good news for me as they seem to be rolling them out again.

Take care.

Plainsman said:

It should have been out two years ago so presumably they have had a team of engineers for all this time trying to tweak it to an acceptably high standard.

Click to expand...

That is acceptable standard for $10k ... no doubt the prototypes that were talked about were great as they were, but obviously Canon doesn't want to release a mk2 in 2015 and is determined to make this one special as in "especially profitable" - and this only works if lots of people buy it so it has to be stellar.

neuroanatomist said:

pwp said:

Why on earth would you want to replace the original foot? It's perfectly fine.
Is there something I'm missing here?

Click to expand...

To attach the lens to an Arca-Swiss type clamp on a tripod/monopod head. You can attach a lens plate to the bottom of the Canon foot, or just use a replacement foot with an integrated dovetail - the latter is lighter and less bulky.

Also, although not sure this is the case for the 300 II, IMO with the 600 II (and I suspect the 500 II), there is something wrong with the Canon foot. They used the same forward-sweeping design as on the MkI versions, but the MkII is lighter, and a fair bit of that weight loss comes from the elimination of the protective meniscus lens in front of the front optical element - that makes the MkII less front heavy. When mounted on a gimbal with a heavy (1-series or gripped) body and a 2x TC, the center of mass is actually slightly behind the foot mounting point - and the Canon foot is base is well forward of that point, so the combo cannot be properly balanced on a gimbal. I've read that some people 'solve' that problem by using Canon monopod foot (included with the 600 II), but mounting it backward from the normal direction. The RRS replacement foot extends behind the mounting screws, allowing the lens+TC to be properly balanced.

Click to expand...

True on the 500 II as well with a 1.4/2x and stock foot.

And likely a test of the lens OFF of a camera body since the limiting factor of most decent lenses is the chip.

Pi said:

East Wind Photography said:

That's because the test chart is designed to reveal the limits of the lens at the test distance. Doesnt matter if you move the chart further away. Likely the test chart wont show anything.

Click to expand...

It would but you need software which would still analyze it. The slanted edge test allows you to vary the distance to some degree. An edge is an edge at any distance but you do not want the whole chart to be viewed at an extremely narrow AOV, so there is some practical limit how far you can get. This requires a curious tester, not the typical businesses type.

Click to expand...

Edwin Herdman said:

jasonsim said:

Perhaps Sigma will be out with their new 120-300mm f/2.8 OS Sport lens before long and throw in a 2x converter with it.

Click to expand...

What's this mean? I've had that lens combination since it came out. Do miss the focus limiter switch of the new model but don't miss the price. Only thing I don't like is the inherent clumsiness of detaching a 2X TC, and the rather offputting OOF blur performance in some shots.

Other than that, though, sure 400mm f/2.8 would be a grand improvement but I actually do often find the zoom useful at times in wildlife shooting (usually going from extreme close - i.e. roughly 240mm before factoring in crop factor - to extreme long, roughly 560mm again before the crop), and the weight of the 120-300mm + EF 2X Extender III is already close enough to unmanageable handheld that I would think twice about going to a 400mm. Of course I don't spend hours sitting in blinds; I just walk all over the place and try to get closeups of critters. Works surprisingly well on many things.

ha, Canon.

Click to expand...

I had a Sigma 120-300 OS and I've found it very lacking when compared to Canon's offerings. I ditched it for a 400mm f2.8 L IS and there is no comparison. Like many Sigma's with HSM, I found the AF to be a little erratic and a bit hit and miss for fast moving objects. It was too large and heavy for what it was. The focal length was well short of the stated 300mm, nearer 280mm at infinity. Focus 3m away and it's nearer 240mm....which was appalling. If I popped a 2x converter on it and A-B compared focal lengths with my 400mm at 4m , I found them to be very close in focal length....which means where guys are thinking they have a 600mm f5.6, it's actually closer to a 400mm f5.6. This focal length is better realized in a number of options...even a 2x on a 70-200 f2.8 II L offers a better focussing, better IS, lighter, smaller and cheaper options. Optically there was little between them (70-200 vs 120-300) but my 400L is better all round except weight. Even without a converter, at it's closest focus distance, the sigma gains only 40mm over the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II....which is a tiny increase at such a long length. I think this Sigma lens is a missed opportunity and that's a real pity.

I seem to be one of the few who could really give a stuff about the new 200-400 f4 L IS lens. If I had the money, I'd either replace my 400 L IS mk I and upgrade to a mkII or consider the new 500mm f4 L IS II as my light and portable option....have you tried one? It's SO bonkers light!

You could try using color calibration. I use a color checker passport. I get on ok with it but not everyone has the same results.

Awesome, great advice, thank you.

I think I'm going to buy it... use it... and sale it for a profit. I looked at DPreview and the Sigma is mind blowing how good it is at f/1.4. It's messed up.

Having said nice things about my 24-105, I tried it today on my 5D3 and I noticed that IS was noisier than when it was on my 5D2! But even on 5D2 it was noisier than it used to be :-\

the easiest way to do it is to click 1:1 in lightroom do a print screen, crop that image out and then you can post that in the forum with the resized full image.
thats how i do it here anyway and it works ok

i shoot raw but agree with Ken

Dave_NYC said:

Rienzphotoz said:

Dave_NYC said:

Load up the Mars One astronauts in 2023 with all that freezer Kodachrome and tell them to shoot to their heart's content, on the basis that the astronauts apparently have as much chance of coming back as the film they're shooting does. Send 'em both out Major Tom style I say.

Click to expand...

???

Click to expand...

'Scuse, sometimes I'm really not clear. Have to work on that

My point is: if the hoarded rolls of kodachrome in freezers are never going to be developed, might as well up the ante on the mystery of what exactly was shot with them. Sending it out Major Tom (ala David Bowie) on the Mars One mission would have it exit stage right on a more stylish note than it just being dropped in the rubbish bin over the years, unused.

Click to expand...

Ok I get now ... but I see those Kodachrome rolls being sold for good money on ebay and elsewhere (even though they aren't in "working" condition)

These are tough times to decide which direction to go with new camera bodies. There are so many options right now for incredible image quality, it's astounding. The promise of newer cams becoming available makes it even more difficult.

I have been using a T3i for a couple years and like you, I'm frustrated with Canon's soft image. I invested in a number of great lenses and I'm stuck for the time being. The combination of some great glass and the incredible usability of Magic Lantern are keeping me put for the time being.

If I weren't vested in Canon glass, I'd be looking closely at the new DMC-G6 from Panasonic. It has virtually every spec I have been looking for in a new Canon body. Super sharp moire free GH2 sensor, 1080-60p, focus peaking, onboard time lapse, sweep panorama, 2.4x ETC zoom. The only thing it lacks is clean ISO 3200 low light ability.

http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/g6/index.html

For the price of a 5D3 you could get the G6, Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 IS and a Voitlander 25mm f/0.95. This combo would give an equivalent focal length of 24 - 168 at f/2.8 if you include the ETC mode all with IS. Then you have the 25mm f/0.95 for pretty nice low light capability up to ISO 1600 or so. It's super light weight and will work on your glidecam easily. Add a nice light weight carbon tripod and fluid head, maybe a slider down the road and a Zoom or Tascam for audio, a couple small LED lights and you'd have a perfect gorilla setup that all fits in one small backpack.

You can almost do this whole and complete setup for the cost of a new 5D3 with a kit lens. If I were you right now, I'd stick with the 60D, add Magic Lantern and work on your audio and lighting kits. Over the next 6 months cams like the 70D, 7DII, this Panny G6, BMD Pocket cam and maybe others will all be out and available to better judge image quality and usability.

In the end of the day, audio, lighting and story telling are orders of magnitude more important than sensor resolving power. For now I'm sticking with the one I brung to the dance and will keep working on my craft rather than chasing the holy grail via my wallet

Cheers,
Pete
https://vimeo.com/petecarney

sleepnever said:

I'm curious, just because I don't know any better, why those like Neuro, would take the 135 or 200 f/2 w/o IS at that focal length over something with it?

Click to expand...

Because of this?

I have two 1D Mark IIN's.

I think I know what you mean, all the non-active AF points are very difficult to see unless straight on in some situations (in broad daylight they're near impossible to see regardless). This has never affected me though, it has never bothered me and only that you bring it up now do I see the issue. I don't see why you'd need to see the other AF points apart from the active one. You should know your camera well enough to just be able to move the AF point in the general direction until you find the best AF point for your needs. I'd find it extremely distracting to have the entire viewfinder covered by all those AF points... wouldn't be able to see anything behind them.

Though it's not useable for video yet (and may never will be if the 5Dmkii can't handle it), this is a pretty awesome direction and is getting me excited.

RAW "Video" on Canon DSLRs with Magic Lantern

I also had a problem like yours.. See here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=4736.msg96090#msg96090

In my case I think it was solved when I switched from my old 4GB CF card to a new Sandisk Extreme 32GB CF..

pini said:

Have you guys heard about the 24-70 f4? I just don't understand this lens... Does it have better IQ then the 24-105 f4?

Click to expand...

It does other than right around 50mm. The price is awfully high on it for f/4 though. It seems a bit over-priced at this time to me.

neuroanatomist said:

I suggest avoiding on-camera flash like the plague, unless there's a white ceiling or wall off which to bounce that flash. For pics of two people, a fast lens isn't as helpful as you'd think - yes, you can keep ISO down with f/1.4 or f/1.8, but DoF will be thin, and prom couples would prefer to both be in focus, I expect. Of the two options, I'd get the 430EX II, but get it off-camera with a light stand, umbrella, and 'dumb' wireless triggers.

But I'd recommend neither. A one-Speedlite portrait isn't going to make many people happy. My advice - rent. Lensrentals.com has a two-monolight kit (with stands, wireless triggers, one softbox and one umbrella, for $133 + $35 shipping for a 5-day rental.

Click to expand...

+1

You need to be in control of the lighting, or you may not like the results, and may make a few enemies.
Speedlites can shoot into or thru a umbrella, and they are portable, but having the right lighting for portraits is critical.

To put it bluntly, it makes the shots that used to seem impossible, seem easy.