Probably was some kind of battery powered LED lighting is my bet. Probably only thing you can get that small and provide decent amount of light on batteries. Unless I'm missing something else, I'm no expert on lighting.

This topic has been moved to 5D MK III Sample Images.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7039.0

That is not moire, nor is it noise...its posterization. This kind of thing is often the result of image processing and compression, and can be seen frequently in JPEG images less than around 90 quality that have areas of smooth gradient (like a sky.)

I can't be sure what causes that, however I do believe I remember seeing some threads in the past about similar problems with the 5D II as well. I noticed that you have High ISO speed NR enabled... You might want to disable that. You might also want to disable the CA correction. Those are all post-processing effects, and they may be affecting the saved image. I know the Image Quality EXIF value says "RAW", however I am suspicious it might actually be a native-size form of mRAW (a form of YCC encoding, and definitely not an actual RAW format.) To actually apply aberration, peripheral illumination correction, and noise reduction, the output image couldn't be in a true RAW format, and if the data is encoded in some form, then that could be the source of the posterization.

gmrza said:

Rocky said:

Let me restate my position:
1. The Canon mirrorless will be a compromise. it will not satisfy everybody.
2. If FF mirrorless is so easily done, why there is only one FF mirrorless., M9 by Leica. Are Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax all dummies???
3. I want a FF mirroless also . But it is and will be either out of my reach or with features that I do not like.
4. What I really want is a reasonable priced Copy of M9, I would even be happy with a reasonable priced copy of M8. Both must be with M mount.

Click to expand...

Realistically, even if the M9 were cheaper, the market for rangefinder cameras is limited, because most people want a camera with AF. - Leica has effectively stayed with the rangefinder design as a way around the fact that nobody has developed an effective AF system without a mirror. - Even Nikon's 1 series seems to be less than perfect in respect of phase detect AF.

I think so far none of the mirrorless offerings has really offered anything really revolutionary, because there have been too many compromises involved - particularly on AF, image quality and view finders.

I think most more serious photographers want a view finder for most of their work. I for one don't care whether the view finder if optical or electronic. What I care about is that it works. EVFs have left a bit to be desired thus far.

The NEX 7 has probably come closest so far in terms of these compromises, but it is hobbled by being a Sony with the inherent lack of available lenses and accessories. - A good Canon or Nikon mirrorless would benefit from access to a huge selection of lenses (via an adapter), good flash equipment and other accessories, which Sony cannot.

I would be prepared to settle for an APS-C sensor in a mirrorless camera, but it would also need a decent viewfinder, decent AF and an adapter for my EF lenses plus the ability to use an ETTL Speedlite.

Click to expand...

Well said and agree. Another reason why M9 stays with the range finder approach is to allow owners of the M lenses to use most of their lenses on the M8 or M9. Without AF, the M8 or M9 can actually faster than AF as long as you do not wide open the lens and use "zone focusing". The reason why I will (or can) settle with M9 or M8 copy is that I am not a fan of long lens. 135mm is my upper limit that I use less than 5%. 28mm to 90mm are my major focal length. 35mm is the focal length that I use mostly.

Yep, I know about the FAT32 limitations. I've been doing video long enough to remember when you couldn't have a sequence any longer than 17mins because the OS could deal with anything bigger. And the very early days when even shorter DV tapes cost a fortune. In fact I don't think I've ever used a tape longer than 32 mins in my digibeta come to think of it.

Yet, funnily enough, I got by then, and get by with the 12 minute limitations. Yes there are caveats, but interview isn't one. When are you ever going to have a 12 minute uncut interview in a programme? If you can make a cut in editing then you can just as well make a cut in shooting. Some answers will be three minutes, some 30s some an hour. It's not really all that much of a pain to stop and start recording. I really think you are overstating the issue.

And if the person goes off on a tangent and you are running low on time... what do you mean time? Time allocated to do the video? Running time on your battery? (Surely why they sell spares?) Recording time on your media (could as easy be tape, could as easy be xdcam, could as easy be Sd cards)? Surely a preperation issue.

And if your subject goes off on a tangent, then it's up to the producer to get them back on track, it's interview skills. Diplomacy goes a long a way, as does technical preparation and researching your questions properly and briefing your subject. If you are doing your job properly the recording cap really shouldn't be an issue in practise. It takes 2s to take a break between questions and stop start record. It takes 10s to switch cards. If your subject is going great guns then they'll be cool with going back a sentance and starting again.

Thank you guys for the information. I'm leaning more towards the TS-90mm that I can rent for the day from my local rental shop.
PWP, you indicate that the 90's sweet spot is at f9 what type of light do you use? If I use speedlites, how far from the product should it be set-up? Also, umbrella or softbox is best to diffuse light? One more thing, shooting at the lens sweet spot, I'm assuming you're using a tripod with a trigger?

What do you guys also think about shooting with a 50mm 1.4? It's a good sharp lens, with it's sweet spot at f2.0

This will be my first product shoot and I would like to go in pistols loaded, any help from you guys would greatly be appreciated. I'm more than comfortable shooting for this Mag given that I've shot several times for them and they know me.

Thanks again for all the information you can provide

Thanks guys.

I started to have a bit of luck the other day without a flash. It was daylight in my garden which helped alot! So ill get a flash for indoors. I used shutter speed of 500 and get for some good photos at f 1.8 nad f2!

Thanks

Hey!

I'm doing a shoot of the Strawberry/Rose Moon tomorrow before dawn and would like to know out of all my lenses in my sig, which is the better FL to use. Plus any advice on lunar photography (S/S, AF , Meter mode) will be helpful. btw I will be shooting around 4:30-5:30 MST.

Thanks!

Thanks very much for all of the suggestions, people. Some really interesting ideas I'd not thought of - like buying a Canon 7D and using the crop as extra reach. I must say, a second body would be quiet useful at sports and other types of events when the moment can be lost while changing a lens.

I've been really impressed from the sharpness I've seen from the 400mm prime. I think my plan is now to get hands on my 5D3 and try a converter on my 70-200mm. If that isn't sharp enough then I'll try out the 400mm prime and see how it goes with that reach and no IS. If it's crying for IS then the 100-400mm will be the way to go.

These things are never that easy.

I'm also having to trade my 10-22mm EF-S for a 16-35mm. Perhaps the cost of this upgrade as well as getting above the 200mm range is actually making the 7D seem like an even more attractive option. I could use my 5D3 with my 24-70mm then either have my 10-22mm or my 70-200mm on a 7D.

paul13walnut5 said:

Shame as the 28mm 2.8 non-is is one of my favourite lenses. [/color]

Click to expand...

I agree!

I do have the EF24mm f/2.8 and the EF28mm f/2.8 lenses. I used them for B&W photography. When I was printing A4 to A4 size I did not quite like my EF28-70 f/2.8 so I stopped using it and started using my fixed focal length lenses. The 2 lenses mentioned above were my favorite.

If the phenomenon is repeatable, you'll have absolutely no problem making an exchange.

PW

I purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII earlier this year and have been very pleased with the images.

I usually put this on the 5D MKII because I like how close up I can get to the performer (very useful for getting good shots of the drummer!). The 24-70 is used a lot less now, I find it doesn't give me the intimate shots I like.

General observations from my experiences (take with a pinch of salt):

• I have cranked the ISO up to 6400 when needed.
• In general the ISO ranges from 1600-6400 depending on how lit the venue is and which band member is the subject.
• I try to shoot around 1/125, but will drop to 1/60 if needed.
• I usually use Spot metering, try to aim the center point at the skin of the performer, then lock focus.
• I generally never use flash; most bands/venues don't allow it anyway. I feel flash ruins the mood/atmosphere.
• Some venues have crazy stage lighting, sometimes you have to study the lighting patterns to know when it is possible to get a usable shot.
• I use an ST-E2 for focus assist in dark environments.

Shot at 6400 ISO, 1/100, 2.8 aperture.

That's why I brought it up. I wish there was a "view" with a larger image and histogram somehow superimposed.

My older camera has no brightness adjustment.

jonathan7007

thanks

Mt Spokane Photography said:

The user has more affect on the editing of raw than the software. iphoto is going to be more user friendly than DPP, but also limited.

For the long run, I'd get Aperture or Lightroom, DXO is also good, and there are others equally good. The advantage of raw is in the wide range of editing tools available, so after spending that much on a camera, get a good editing tool. Aperture should be great for a Mac user.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the advice.
I"m planning to get Apeture (and FCPX for that matter too), but was just wanting to work with what I had before I made those purchases. Just paid last months bills....with the new camera, so waiting a short bit before buying more tools.



Thank you!

C

For IQ, I don't htink you could go past the new G1X.
i bought one for my wife to use, and even though I've only started to use it, the IQ of the pictures is outstanding.
The focussing is very quick in reasonable light and very accurate too, and the high ISO performance is very, very good too.

Man there is a tremendous difference between the T1i and a 5DII, I mean it'll be a brand new world for you. Your 24-105 will suddenly feel very wide and you'll be able to shoot at much higher ISO's, get much more shallow DOF, etc. Plus the build quality is night and day different, it's the difference between prosumer and professional. Get the 5DII, there are so many more benefits on top of the problem you wanted to solve in the first place.

awinphoto said:

PhilDrinkwater said:

To be honest I'm disappointed about the attitude here. We aren't talking about a light leak which affects virtually no one ever - we're talking about a feature which is still not right in *3* generations of cameras.

I'm not talking about sending my camera back, switching brands or even moaning if canon made me pay for it: but this is an important feature for me, a 1d is too loud and I don't want to switch brands.

By moaning, maybe someone will notice and give me what *i* want in the camera considering its just a firmware tweak?

Click to expand...

Assuming it is just a firmware tweak, and I think you said you can do that in a few minutes or so... why dont you email canon and while you are at it, send them your resume.... surely what canon needs is forward thinking and innovation that they lack...

Click to expand...

Of course it's just a couple byte tweak, all it has is some code that stores the limit as 1/250th when it could store it the limit as say 1/2000th, all you do is change the list of options it offers you and add a few more numbers to the list. It probably would take them about 1 minutes of coding to fix. Adding EC in M AutoISO might take a bit more, but likely not much, unless the camera has some sort of mode/dial based interrupt system and they have it set up in some messy way, then it might become a little involved.

My S100 GPS used to reliably reacquire the satellites after a few minutes from startup. Then after owning (and loving) it for a month the GPS refuses to acquire, even after restarting the GPS service. Now I turned on GPS logging, and it reliably acquires GPS again (but is using power while off).

I use this camera so much I think I'll just leave the logging feature on, so the GPS stays locked, but has anybody else noticed this behavior?

Good, I may take advantage of it.

Past trends really mean nothing. Its sales that drive a product. If sales are good, and Canon is making a profit, it will stay for a while.

Of the three, only the S100 will comfortable fit in your pocket - unless you're a lot bigger than an average guy.
My S95 is same size and performs well under most circumstances. Only other small camera I've had was the
Leica D-Lux 3 but it was slightly bigger. Under most circumstances no significant difference in viewing the
images or printing them up to 11X14.

You can get a good 35mm film camera for less that $50.00, and a really good one for less that $200. If you
venture into medium format, the cost goes up but nothing compared to ten years ago. If I were going to
start with medium format today, I would buy a Pentax 645 and two or three lenses. They are very reasonable
on Ebay - camera less than $400, lenses about $200 apiece. The reason I would pick this is the film system
was good, but all accessories are compatible with the Pentax 645 digital. That way if you decide to switch
media, you already have an investment in glass and can start right away. I'm not sure about Hasselblad or
Mamiya digital offerings as they are way out of my price range

drat!

That's nice. What video editing software, lens, and rig (shoulder?) setup was used?