Jump to content

Camera & Photo Chat


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

How many actuations? Do you know of anybody coming to Perth metro in the next few days/weeks? :P I may be mildly interested, but don't want it shipped over :P.

No clue on activations as far as know no reliable way of checking that as cards been carryovers from previous cameras. Was something tried to check on the 40d and searching online there's no way to really check that can find.

Don't know anyone going your way. But not sure I'd Trust them anyways and what happens if they damage or loose it ?

I could ship as did last thing sent you. Would be bomb proofed. Sent with insurance incase a truckie sat on it you'd be covered. Let me know.

I have the receipt and it's still got Amex coverage till sept which might help the sale as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That was the whole thrust of my side-by-side comparison - the difference between APS-C and FF.

Stop playing with the new gimp, and start playing with the new DSLR.. :P

[quote name=:)' timestamp='1336102436' post='1802165]

I could ship as did last thing sent you. Would be bomb proofed. Sent with insurance incase a truckie sat on it you'd be covered. Let me know.

I'm still just mildly interested.. Will check around if I know anybody going over to melbourne..

I do agree with what spearmint said though.. 2 bodies, 1 FF, 1 crop.. If go serious on this hobby, one needs both...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop playing with the new gimp, and start playing with the new DSLR.. :P

I'm still just mildly interested.. Will check around if I know anybody going over to melbourne..

I do agree with what spearmint said though.. 2 bodies, 1 FF, 1 crop.. If go serious on this hobby, one needs both...

That GIMP comment has some dark undertones. The RAW converter I've been using (dcraw) doesn't yet handle 5D3 RAW files. There is an alternative (Darktable) but I've only had a few sessions with it and not sure how well it integrates with GIMP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That GIMP comment has some dark undertones. The RAW converter I've been using (dcraw) doesn't yet handle 5D3 RAW files. There is an alternative (Darktable) but I've only had a few sessions with it and not sure how well it integrates with GIMP.

Gee.. Hadn't thought of that... :( How's the Digic5+ on the 5D3? Is it any good? Try shooting in JPEG instead?

While I'm pro RAW, I'm kindda turned off by it now.. With my camera it does produce better result, but modern cameras may do a good job now?

RAW files, it's so much work... :(

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Moderators

ok below is response I got from Teds when I sent them a query re their canon price challenge, and quoted them dwi's $3,335 AUD delivered to the door price.

Hi there,

The best price I can offer for this camera is $3599.95 .

I can also include a 5 year Total Care Package for only $149.95 .

If you'd like to go ahead with the sale please give us a call on 1800 186 895, please note this quote is valid for today only.

Why buy at Ted's?

Don’t forget, Ted’s offers all these great services with every purchase…

Cheers!

Ted’s Websales Dept

www.teds.com.au

Ted's Web Enquires

P: 03 8779 5581

F: 03 9645 7283

Toll Free: 1800 186 895

yeah so basically they cant do any better. anyways decided to take advantage of their special price which is pretty close to the us price, so went past there from work and grabbed one before the special offer ended today. also grabbed a teds 5 year warranty as well for the piece of mind given how pricey the thing is :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee.. Hadn't thought of that... :( How's the Digic5+ on the 5D3? Is it any good? Try shooting in JPEG instead?

While I'm pro RAW, I'm kindda turned off by it now.. With my camera it does produce better result, but modern cameras may do a good job now?

RAW files, it's so much work... :(

That's just the comment I expect from a person who thinks that digital music is fit to listen to! :wacko::winky:

[quote name= :)' timestamp='1336120415' post='1802262]

yeah so basically they cant do any better. anyways decided to take advantage of their special price which is pretty close to the us price, so went past there from work and grabbed one before the special offer ended today. also grabbed a teds 5 year warranty as well for the piece of mind given how pricey the thing is :)

Yes, I was asked whether I wanted the extended warranty. I didn't go for it. (Crosses fingers!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just the comment I expect from a person who thinks that digital music is fit to listen to! :wacko::winky:

You calling me lazy? :P Guilty... ^_^...

Seriously though, you or al, show me some full rez pics taken with 5D3...

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Moderators

Congratulations Al

Got any photos to show us? :)

thanks spearmint

just one quick pic of the backyard is all. am impressed the increased width of the full frame.

post-2123-0-57708500-1336133247_thumb.jp

~

Yes, I was asked whether I wanted the extended warranty. I didn't go for it. (Crosses fingers!)

yeah given the price of the thing I thought some peace of mind might be a good thing. he misquoted it for $129 for 5 years so ended with $30 discount for the extended warranty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Gee.. Hadn't thought of that... :( How's the Digic5+ on the 5D3? Is it any good? Try shooting in JPEG instead?

While I'm pro RAW, I'm kindda turned off by it now.. With my camera it does produce better result, but modern cameras may do a good job now?

RAW files, it's so much work... :(

curiously I dont know what the preset its on. but out of box when download pics of the card it actually loads up two forms of each pic one RAW around 30Mb and one jpeg around 8Mb. the raws clearly look heaps better. infact I was wondering why there were two of each pic and why in each case one was washed out vs the other. then realised the more richer looking pics were Raws. theyre a killer for size though !

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=:)' timestamp='1336133757' post='1802314]

curiously I dont know what the preset its on. but out of box when download pics of the card it actually loads up two forms of each pic one RAW around 30Mb and one jpeg around 8Mb. the raws clearly look heaps better. infact I was wondering why there were two of each pic and why in each case one was washed out vs the other. then realised the more richer looking pics were Raws. theyre a killer for size though !

You should be able to alter the JPEG (saturation, brightness, etc)? Have two pics prob coz you shoot RAW+JPEG?

Will be nice to use dcraw (or LR) and compare the RAW->JPEG vs JPEG from Digic5... Purely for interest sake...

So I'm guessing your firm on selling the 7D? I'm still weighing my options, give me an offer I can't refuse... :hyper: :hyper:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

You should be able to alter the JPEG (saturation, brightness, etc)? Have two pics prob coz you shoot RAW+JPEG?

Will be nice to use dcraw (or LR) and compare the RAW->JPEG vs JPEG from Digic5... Purely for interest sake...

So I'm guessing your firm on selling the 7D? I'm still weighing my options, give me an offer I can't refuse... :hyper: :hyper:

went to bed quite late last night reading and learning and mucking around with the 5D. the low iso capability of it is astounding ! but wow so many settings. heck some of them probably on the 7D too and just never discovered ! :D

yep 7D up for sale

FS Canon 7D DSLR, Mint with box, manual, accessories and original receipt

Item : Canon 7D DSLR, Mint with box, manual, accessories and original receipt

Location: SE Melbourne

Price: $1,000 plus postage (please contact me for an estimate anywhere in australia)

Item Condition: Mint as new, perfect working condition, Comes in original box, original receipt, All manual, accessories, charger, cables, software, original packaging etc are all included.

Reason for selling: Upgrade

Payment Method: Pickup - Cash, Paypal, COD, direct bank deposit

Extra Info: can be found here

http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/EOS-Digital-SLR-Cameras/7D

photos to follow,

Note this item is in as new mint condition and been very well cared for. Am the original owner and this camera I bought locally, have the original receipt and is genuine canon australia supported. Also note in purchasing I paid on amex for additional warranty which I would make sure any potential purchaser is covered for till september this year. I paid $2,500 for this originally to buy new today it has a rrp of $1,650. Cheapest have seen it go for a legitimate canon australian model is $1499. So quite a saving here for a mint example here that is as new.

Link to post
Share on other sites


[quote name=:)' timestamp='1336133599' post='1802313]

thanks spearmint

just one quick pic of the backyard is all. am impressed the increased width of the full frame.

Thanks for posting the image. It looks great straight out of the camera.

Welcome to the world of FF. The 16-35 is my most used lens on the FF body, with the 24-70 coming in second.

Besides the extra width, I think you'll also enjoy the increase in dynamic range from the new sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to alter the JPEG (saturation, brightness, etc)? Have two pics prob coz you shoot RAW+JPEG?

Will be nice to use dcraw (or LR) and compare the RAW->JPEG vs JPEG from Digic5... Purely for interest sake...

So I'm guessing your firm on selling the 7D? I'm still weighing my options, give me an offer I can't refuse... :hyper: :hyper:

That is not as easy as it seems. The RAW->JPEG performed by the camera depends on the WB and other parameters you select. If you use the Canon software these parameters are communicated to the software and the JPEG produced from the matching RAW image "should" be the same. If not using the Canon software, then the whole comparison is not possible.

The whole reason for capturing in RAW is so that you can tweak those parameters

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not as easy as it seems. The RAW->JPEG performed by the camera depends on the WB and other parameters you select. If you use the Canon software these parameters are communicated to the software and the JPEG produced from the matching RAW image "should" be the same. If not using the Canon software, then the whole comparison is not possible.

The whole reason for capturing in RAW is so that you can tweak those parameters

:poke: Perfectionist... Do see your point though....

Well, enjoy the weekend guys... :wub: :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Thanks for posting the image. It looks great straight out of the camera.

Welcome to the world of FF. The 16-35 is my most used lens on the FF body, with the 24-70 coming in second.

Besides the extra width, I think you'll also enjoy the increase in dynamic range from the new sensor.

yeah was just a quick shot out the camera, caught a bit of morning sun,

post-2123-0-11781600-1336178264_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-87475800-1336178231_thumb.jp

again just some quick shots, havent taken a lot of care to be honest, was just trying see what the metering on the camera is like.

spearmint I think your right re the dynamic range of the sensor. I'm definitely noticing a richness/depth to the pictures its taking, and ability light and shade is good I think. so far have used my 17-40, 24-105 nad my 50 1.4 loving the adiditional width and also my 50 1.4 I must say though been away from it a while is a lot more useable a lens. the 24-105 is much more versatile. and the 17-40 taking just so much more which is all great both indoors and out :)

ps treb, re raw, have gone back to jpeg, but only because raw is such a space gobbler. but I have to admit the difference in raw vs jpeg is stark ! I think am going to be using RAW a lot more !

Link to post
Share on other sites


A while ago I started recording in both RAW and JPEG. I use the JPEG as a guide to the colours I saw.

I do this because I was doing some processing on an image months after the shot was taken. My problem was that I couldn't remember the hues. As it was a particularly subtle but spectacular sunrise, it was difficult to get right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

we headed for the hills today guys and took the 5D3 and 24-105L with me,

post-2123-0-57685400-1336213401_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-99696300-1336213348_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-66009400-1336213356_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-86510900-1336213369_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-83797600-1336213363_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-35478000-1336213377_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-01200600-1336213384_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-41901800-1336213388_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-88093100-1336213395_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-49824600-1336213407_thumb.jp

found the 24-105 pretty versatile but wish had taken my macro lens with me !

I also for the first time found I struggled with a couple of things. one is focusing and also length ! I think its the 8 years or so of using a crop camera got used to a certain amount of telephoto. felt I wanted to get a bit closer but then got caught in being too close to focus hehe.

definitely a case of getting used to full frame :D

with focusing, need to get used to the default focus methods on the 5D3, theres a few to choose from so matter of picking what best suits at times.

on other hand thing I like is the mode selector on the 5D3 has a lock on it which is good as dont bump it by accident as did at times on the 7D.

love the camera though. that it has the exact same body as the 7D I think helps as feels exactly the same. Not like something new to get used to in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Congrats on the new toys Al & GB!

Feel the width!!

thanks mm, definitely getting the size of it :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good results Al

Certainly has nice contrast and saturation.

I took a number of photos today, but the weather was pretty feral most of the day :(

RedHillMay2012-6.jpg

RedHillMay2012-7.jpg

RedHillMay2012-8.jpg

All taken with the 16-35 while it was raining :(

Edited by Spearmint
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

looks like a nice vineyard there spearmint, caught some lovely autumn colours.

yeah pretty filthy weather today. we had a few little strolls through a garden and around the place where took a few snaps but yeah mostly indoors for most of the day !

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=:)' timestamp='1336214214' post='1802558]

with focusing, need to get used to the default focus methods on the 5D3, theres a few to choose from so matter of picking what best suits at times.

Would like more info on that pls, since you and GB are 7D owners... This is the one thing that stopped me buying this camera - same scene, same focus length, sometimes it tracks the foreground, sometimes it tracks the back...

The AF is quick and accurate (certainly much better than my 5D anyway).. Just that it has a knack of picking the wrong region in certain cases... Versus 7D which seem to track my eyeball..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

some macros with the 100L this morning in the garden,

post-2123-0-21083000-1336263313_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-95723100-1336263318_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-73203900-1336263322_thumb.jp

post-2123-0-00500800-1336263327_thumb.jp

read up a bit more of focusing options, and using the macro let me experiment with those. also where was missing length with my close shots yesterday, today with the macro its the opposite and appreciating the width of the full frame. to be honest am finding it easier using the macro on the full frame 5D3.

interestingly I played around with both raw and jpeg as well. out the 5D3 the raw's have a purple tinge to them the jpeg is actually more inline with the actual colour tone. some flowers for instance where actually more on the red side went a bit more pink/purple with the raws :) anyways back to using jpegs as otherwise I'd need to upgrade hard drives soon to something 6 times bigger !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

now one other point to add, I've stumbled upon something a bit of a suprise. the 5D has a shallower depth of field than the 7D !

I've been wondering about this with with the macro shots where was finding I was increasing depth of field from f8 I'd probably use upto f13. doing a little search on the web reveals something interesting to support this !

http://shootinthesho...ss-always-more/

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

spearmint out of curiosity is this something notice between your crop and full frame nikon as well ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

That link apparently has some malware thingy (not too sure if real)...

~

not on mac os-x, but am happy to remove the link in my post if a risk. I found it a very interesting read.

~

FF always have shallower depth of field and bokeh than APS-C, thus better bokeh (Wanna go MX? :P).

yeah not something was ever aware off. more a suspicion last few days, good was able to confirm to be true, otherwise would have had me baffled.

where better bokeh on FF, the deeper depth of field is a bonus for video,

whats a "MX"

ps have reposted text from the link above

HD capable DSLRs seem to be everywhere these days, with projects ranging from low-budget feature films to primetime network television programs taking advantage of the cameras. They offer HD imaging with cinematic 35mm depth of field in a tiny package at a bargain-basement price. What's not to love?

As an HD DSLR owner myself, I will be talking a lot about these cameras on this blog, but in this post I would like to focus (no pun intended) on that cinematic depth of field. After all, this is really what sets these cameras apart from pretty much any other HD camera even remotely in the same price range.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the term "full frame sensor". I would like to try to clarify this concept, specifically in terms of how it relates to what are no doubt the two most popular HD DSLRs, the Canon 5D Mark II and the Canon 7D.

Many people prefer the 5D Mark II to the 7D because of its full frame sensor, but just what does that mean? It means that the sensor is the same size as a full frame of 35mm film, right? Well, yes and no. It's important to understand the difference between 35mm still film and 35mm motion picture film. The full frame that is referred to in this case is a frame of 35mm still film, which is not the same size as a frame of 35mm motion picture film. Take a look at the image below:

35mmmotionstill.jpg

On the left is some 35mm motion picture film, and on the right is some 35mm still film. They do look pretty similar, and they are both 35mm from edge to edge, but they are not the same. For instance, you may notice that the sprocket holes are shaped differently. And there is another difference that should be clear to you right off the bat, and that should make sense when you compare the respective shapes of the cameras they are designed for:

cameras.jpg

That is, the motion picture film is vertical, and the still film is horizontal. This means that in the case of the motion picture film, 35mm refers to the width of the film, and in stills world it refers to the height of the film. In the image below, you can see the relative size of a full frame of 35mm still film and the size of the 5D Mark II's HD frame.

35mmstillframes.jpg

And just how big is a frame of 35mm motion picture film? That's a little bit harder to say. Many different size frames are used for various aspect ratios and release formats, as you can see from the image below. While the Canon 7D's HD frame size might not match any one of them exactly, you can see that it comes close enough to any number of them to be called a 35mm motion picture or Super 35 sized sensor.

35mmmotionframes.jpg

Most people working with these cameras understand that the depth of field of a given format is inversely proportional to the size of the imager (film frame or digital sensor) used to record it. In other words, the bigger the sensor, the less (or shallower) the depth of field, and the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field. (I will explain why this is in a future post, as this is another often-misunderstood concept.) Traditionally, digital video cameras have had very small sensors, which meant video images with seemingly infinite depth of field -- everything seemed to be in focus. HD DSLRs have finally brought large sensors, and with them cinematic depth of field, to users who can't afford to shoot their projects on 35mm film.

But which of these cameras have "35mm depth of field"? Well, it depends if you are referring to 35mm motion picture depth of field or 35mm stills depth of field. As shown in the diagrams above, the 5D Mark II, with its much larger "full frame sensor" has much shallower depth of field than the 7D, but it is not the depth of field you are used to seeing in movies shot on 35mm film -- it is, in fact, much shallower than that. There actually is a motion picture format that is shot on horizontal 35mm film. It's called VistaVision, and was used in the 1950s and '60s. It is occasionally still used for effects work, and the cameras look like this:

friesvista_l.jpg

However, back when VistaVision was used to shoot entire movies, super-shallow depth of field was not really the primary goal, as you can see from this frame of a famous scene from the VistaVision film "North by Northwest":

0593.jpg

For more examples of the deep-focus VistaVision photography on that film,

click here. The shallow depth of field craze came about much later, I think partly as a reaction to the deep depth of field that has come to be associated with the look of video. In any case, while there are plenty of movies shot on film that do use shallow depth of field to excellent effect, none of them were shot with a frame size anywhere close to the size of the 5D Mark II's "full frame" sensor. They were in fact shot with a frame size very close to that of the 7D's "Super 35" size sensor.

Does that make one camera or the other better for filmmaking purposes? Not necessarily. It is, of course, subjective, and many people do prefer the super-shallow depth of field of the 5D Mark II. However, the 5D Mark II does have a very specific unique look to it, and when I see something shot on that camera, I know right away. There's nothing else it could have been shot on. I feel the 7D, with it's Super 35 depth of field, looks much closer to the images we are used to seeing at the theater. I think that well-shot 7D footage can more easily be mistaken for footage that was shot on 35mm, the Red One, or other Super 35 digital cinema cameras. For that reason, for most projects that simply want to emulate the look of film for very little money, I do tend to prefer the 7D over the 5D Mark II. I suspect that some of the bigger budget projects that are using the 5D Mark II, like "House," are not using it for that reason, but rather to take advantage of the unique look of that camera's super-shallow depth of field, and in that case, the 5D Mark II is definitely the way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit pressed for time so a brief post.

One big plus for the 5D: the position and size of the DOF preview button. By far the best of any camera I've had.

One thing that I have to get better at: Controlling the AF points and regions. I haven't had time to read the manual yet (this whole exercise has been a rushed).

In the meantime, this is a side-by-side comparison of the 7D and 5D. Taken with the same lens, at the same focal length and with the cameras mounted on a tripod that I didn't move between shots.

post-56431-0-94456900-1336293201_thumb.j

Edited by gone_bush
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

will experiment re dof preview, agree gb re myself as well need to get better handle of af points and regions. only been doing some brief reading of manual myself so far.

did do a quick back to back friday with 7D and 5D. I did with static indoor object. also like you, same lens left on same focal length and with camera mounted that didnt move between shots..

post-2123-0-51698900-1336295025_thumb.jppost-2123-0-65966900-1336295015_thumb.jp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, not quite sure what to say. :unsure:

Realistically, only of any use when in AV mode - which I am most of the time. Also not of much use when focused at infinity as just about everything will be in focus.

I use it when I'm focused in the near- to mid-range to ensure that what I want, and only what I want, is in focus.

With the 7D, the button was small and hard to locate "by feel". The button on the 5D3 comes "to hand" much easier.

Hope that helps.

Edited by gone_bush
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

hehe thanks gb, will check out.

one bloody amazing thing have found re the 5D3. is the lens aberration correction it does. basically it recognises canon lenses and then loads up canon supplied correction data for say my 17-40mm f/4L for peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration. Does this for my 24-105 f4L as well. doesnt have this correction data for either my 50 1.4 or the 100L macro. but I guess thats just a matter of time and could come through on a firmware update ?

this ken rockwell guy here is saying it will make mid range canon lenses like the 28-105 or the 20-35 both of which have owned and are very nice like more top end lenses. not sure about that think he might be getting a little carried away as reckon the L series are still better but anyways an exciting thing I think !

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is the best digital SLR ever made by Canon. It just started shipping at the end of March 2012.

Almost everything about the Mark III is a little better than the 5D Mark II, which is far better than the original Canon 5D.

The biggest reason I replaced my old 5D Mark II with the new 5D Mark III is because my new Mark III automatically can correct many lens flaws, especially lateral color fringes.

The 5D Mark III is Canon's first full-frame camera to correct lens color fringes.

My lightweight plastic lenses on my new Mark III now often outperform my best L lenses on my old Mark II. If those big old L lenses, like the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II, had any lateral color fringes, the older cameras were powerless to correct it. Unlike most of the fluff reviewers spew out, lateral color fringes are very visible in real prints. My Mark III makes them go away, so long as I have anappropriate lens profile loaded.

Cleaning my heavy L lenses from my bag and replacing them with lightweight plastic wonders is making my 5D Mark III quickly pay for itself, and saves me from having to carry too much weight.

1.) Automatic correction of lateral color fringes

This is huge: Canon's

5D Mark II couldn't do this, while all current Nikons can.

This lets you use older, less expensive lenses and potentially get better results than you could with the best L lenses on both older 5D models!

The 5D Mark III's auto color-fringe correction is letting me get better results from my cheap lenses, like the crummy and weightless 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5, as compared to what I got from my expensive 16-35mm f/2.8 L II on my old 5D Mark II. The Mark II had no ability to correct the 16-35's flaws, while the Mark III can.

An old Canon EF 28-105 USM II (I got mine from eBay for well under $150, delivered) performs great on the new Mark III. You don't need the heavy old 24-70/2.8 L or 24-105/4 L IS lenses we used to, unless you feel like paying for them and carrying them around. The 28-105 USM II weighs nothing, focuses instantly, and I can zoom it with a finger from my shooting hand so I can shoot one-handed!

The 5D Mark III can help turn sow's-ear lenses into silk purse lenses, meaning you no longer have to hump the newest heavy zooms around when older, lighter lenses can be made to perform better, at least in terms of color fringes, than the best L lenses did on the 5D Mark II last month.

Because of Canon's previous inability to do this, most shots made with anything but

insanely good fixed lenses had visible color fringes on the sides. It always drives me nuts when I see this in magazine photos; it's obvious. Canon's worst current lenses are their popular 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and 17-40mm L, which are relatively loaded with corner (lateral) color fringes. These are all too obvious at high resolutions and in magazine reproduction.

The one gotcha is that you need lens-specific profiles loaded into your 5D Mark III to do this, while Nikon has done it automatically with any lens of any brand you put on it. The 5D Mark III has profiles for only few lenses in it, so you'll have to load them manually, and hope that Canon has profiles for each of your lenses, or this feature doesn't work.is saying it will make mid range canon lenses like the 28-105 or the 20-35 both of which have owned and are very nice like more top end lenses. not sure about that think he might be getting a little carried away as reckon the L series are still better but anyways an exciting thing I think !

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=:)' timestamp='1337400904' post='1806765]

hehe thanks gb, will check out.

one bloody amazing thing have found re the 5D3. is the lens aberration correction it does. basically it recognises canon lenses and then loads up canon supplied correction data for say my 17-40mm f/4L for peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration. Does this for my 24-105 f4L as well. doesnt have this correction data for either my 50 1.4 or the 100L macro. but I guess thats just a matter of time and could come through on a firmware update ?

I was reading something in the owners manual for my 60D that it supposedly does something similar.

Seems strange that a model like the 60D has this feature but the 7D didn't......... :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I was reading something in the owners manual for my 60D that it supposedly does something similar.

Seems strange that a model like the 60D has this feature but the 7D didn't......... :huh:

probably because the 7D was introduced a year earlier pete in 2009 ? quite common in anycase for makers to sometimes have features introduced in new models. the 1Dx for instance brought in the new auto focus system which has had trickle down to the 5D3.

who knows what the 7D/60D replacements due will have.

the lens corrections is a first for full frames apparently for canon, the 5DII only did darkened corners but the 5D3 does correction of colour fringes as well. there is also in camera distortion correction as well. but not something used myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must stridently disagree with that whole article!

Firstly, lens correction has always been available during post processing (at least in my Linux workflow on RAW images).

As for chucking the L's out and using cheap lenses: What about the quality of the glass? If that is unimportant, why not just knock the bottom out of a Coke bottle and use that? It sure would be a lot cheaper.

The automatic correction is nice, but will only apply to JPG images. If you're using RAW, that correction will still need to be applied in the post processing stage.

Sorry for being a wet blanket, but just calling it as I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

totally agree with regard quality of glass, the specific example lenses he quotes I know all too well. and while it any correction it might do to edges wont do what L glass brings. that to me is pretty clear. difference between correcting for lenses than having better lenses in the first place.

and yes good point re post processing and raw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...