Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
betty boop

Camera & Photo Chat

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

Share this post


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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys I am super impressed wiht the low light and high iso capability of hte 5D3. where the 7D I had before was quite impressed with in this aspect the 5D3 is really quite a step up. I dont know if it is the larger sensor of the 5D3 or newer processing in the new digic chip.

I'm finding the 5D3 goes off into silly high iso's and the result is quite amazing really in low light. and I have noticed video as well. for me this is pretty important as lot of my use is hand held shots, indoors and in low light.

the other evening with the kids running around chasing each other in the lounge room, with just some low wattage lamps for lighting in the room, I grabbed some shots and video and really quite surpised the result. rich sharp and not blurred or washed out and not grain city !

smile.png

ps for anyone looking for reviews on the 5D3, looks like dpreview have done one here,

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=:)' timestamp='1337856796' post='1808435]

guys I am super impressed wiht the low light and high iso capability of hte 5D3. where the 7D I had before was quite impressed with in this aspect the 5D3 is really quite a step up. I dont know if it is the larger sensor of the 5D3 or newer processing in the new digic chip.

A combination of both, but in general it's really the larger sensor... Not only is it lower noise, the noise somehow looks "less digital", and more like film grain... Ever try shooting in complete darkness yet with the 5D3? :P

So what AF mode do you use now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


AF is for wimps! Real men use manual focus. :lol:

To be honest, of late that is what I've been doing (MF) as AF and bokeh / limited DOF are almost mortal enemies.

Also, as the software I've been using to convert my RAW images has not been updated to process the 5D3 RAW format, I've had to change. I now use Darktable (homepage appears to be screwed ATM). I think its along the lines of Adobe's Lightroom but, not having used or even seen Lightroom, I can't be sure.

Darktable appears to be in it's infancy - I've already had one hack at the source as the UI needs a bit of tweaking. That said, it is a LOT easier to use than GIMP / Photoshop as the changes you make to am image are non-destructive. What you see is a list of the modules you've used and, if at any time you want to see what the image looked like at a certain point in the workflow, just click on that module.

The whole philosophy is based on film processing. Loosely speaking, folders are called "film rolls" and the workflow is termed "developing". It really does make sense - but only if you've got a film / negative background. To those that have only known digital cameras, this would appear to be some archaic mumbo-jumbo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AF is for wimps! Real men use manual focus. :lol:

Indeed, can't argue with that... Having said that, given a chance, if AF works, I'd use AF :P... Lazyness rulz!

To be honest, of late that is what I've been doing (MF) as AF and bokeh / limited DOF are almost mortal enemies.

Do you find the FF DOF too shallow now?

The whole philosophy is based on film processing. Loosely speaking, folders are called "film rolls" and the workflow is termed "developing". It really does make sense - but only if you've got a film / negative background. To those that have only known digital cameras, this would appear to be some archaic mumbo-jumbo.

That workflow sounds like lightroom.. I've been using that for real now trying to process my current crop of pictures, and am really considering purchasing it, for my workflow it's really a good software. And it does lens corrections as Al said above, e.g. fix barrel distortions and vignetting with the 24-105...

Syncing GPS to pictures is really a PITA (I don't think it can be done and it's wasting too much of our time atm.), I think my RTC on the old 5D is completely gone.. Worse becoz we have 2 cameras but only 1 GPS device. Much prefer the GPS info to be appended when the picture is taken, rather than sync it up PP...

Edited by myrantz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you find the FF DOF too shallow now?

No.

And it does lens corrections as Al said above, e.g. fix barrel distortions and vignetting with the 24-105...

Darktable does lens correction automatically. It detects the lens make / model from the EXIF data (presumably) then applies the necessary correction.

Syncing GPS to pictures is really a PITA (I don't think it can be done and it's wasting too much of our time atm.), I think my RTC on the old 5D is completely gone.. Worse becoz we have 2 cameras but only 1 GPS device. Much prefer the GPS info to be appended when the picture is taken, rather than sync it up PP...

Yet another downside to Windoze - with my Linux workflow, it's a breeze. :winky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another downside to Windoze - with my Linux workflow, it's a breeze. :winky:

My clocks are off.. Have to be a PITA no matter what.. :(

OTOH my Windows OS (and my internet connection in general) have been getting worse lately.. Will be getting a new PC eventually, when the time comes will try out Darktable and see how it goes... For now just need to rush out these pictures and put 'em on facebook :ninja:...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


[quote name=:)' timestamp='1339077643' post='1811278]

http://www.dpreview....-sensor-compact

oh yes ! this one is going to be a real hit I reckon !

Personally appreciate the bigger sensor, hopefully they don't defeat that by packing 20MP :(.. And IIRC Sony sensors have built in noise reduction which could make it worse...

Don't see why P&S would need 20MP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The need xMP, where x is as large as possible, so that Hardly Normal salesman (aka The Digital Camera Experts) have something to lure the brainless twits with!

Meanwhile, over in the audio department, some poor fool is listening to how many watts a HT system puts out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The need xMP, where x is as large as possible, so that Hardly Normal salesman (aka The Digital Camera Experts) have something to lure the brainless twits with!

Meanwhile, over in the audio department, some poor fool is listening to how many watts a HT system puts out.

LOL. So true... I like the Muteki though, so many boxes, so many speakers hee hee... :P

I'm not dissing that P&S, maybe it'd work.. But dunno, 12MP and it may well be a great camera...

Anybody interested in the pancake 40mm on CR? Red dot = EF lens right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

intersting thing the 40mm pancake, supposed to be a "STM" not sure what that stands for but it says something about AF for movies so not sure if thats a new feature.

for a light compact thing, canon rumours is saying quality wise it exceeds the non L 50mm's which is saying quite a lot !

if not too pricey might grab one at some stage....but not right now !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name= :)' timestamp='1339197219' post='1811616]

intersting thing the 40mm pancake, supposed to be a "STM" not sure what that stands for but it says something about AF for movies so not sure if thats a new feature.

for a light compact thing, canon rumours is saying quality wise it exceeds the non L 50mm's which is saying quite a lot !

if not too pricey might grab one at some stage....but not right now !

Good catch.. Didn't really read it properly, think it's more suitable for video... linky but can still work as a normal lens I guess (prob silent ____ motor? No idea ;p)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

might be a red herring, but I reckon this pancake is a huge sign canon is very soon have a compact, mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. would be excellent for travelling :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Been off the forum for a while, but a couple of things led me to check in an see what's being discussed.

Firstly, the new 650D (Rebel 4Ti) seems like an interesting beast for a beginner body. The new touch screen and Hybrid AF are interesting features. Does the 5DIII or 1D-X have these features. Seems to point to Canon having a compact mirrorless just around the corner.

The 2nd thing is, JB have managed to get Canon to reduce prices (like Nikon) to match global pricing and it looks like they are disbanding their Grey Import business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome bakc Diesel. Jbs canon dslr prices on their website haven't budged in the least that can see. No different from few months ago was constantly monitoring.

A good move from jb though. their twin sourcing always bothered me. What was I buying a legitimate or grey import ? A bit of pressure on importers to not fleece us always a good thing. Ps teds has a canon price match thing going on but it is just a gimmick am afraid.

ps the 40mm pancake launched to me signals that canon most definitely have a mirror less compact on way. I'm most interested especially if will take standard eos lenses. Be a great traveling option to the 5D mk 3 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...