Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Wow Alex! Nice first set!
The first shot is not leveled which bothers me I think,I really like/love your second shot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexniedra
5D Mark II, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.
1/13 sec., f/5.0, ISO 2000 @ 24mm (I'm surprised I could handhold this
Are you sure you used the EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM lens? My guess is that you secretly test the new version with IS, but I will keep my mouth shut [:#]
Again nice set! Oh and the lighting on the last shot...beautiful! Could be even better when the sun-rays where even more visible.
Have fun, but I'm pretty sure I don't have to tell you that [H]
Jan
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Congrats on the new camera! Nice photos ...I especially like the ones of the church! ISO 4000 ...makes me cringe to think what that would look like with my 7D!
Denise
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
You're off to a great start with your new 5D Mk II! Those church shots are impressive! You are going to LOVE using the 5D Mk II on available light photography. Just jack up the ISO and go! I have even hand held as low as 1/5 sec and got reasonable keeper rates but that was using the IS on the 24-105 F4 L IS. It takes a bit of practice but you will be amazed what that sensor can see!
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
ISO 4000....my jaw dropped at the quality. Have fun with your new toy! [:D]
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
If it were me I would be careful about pushing the ISO so high. It's nice to see the camera can do it without noise getting out of hand but with the exception of the last two shots all others are a bit over exposed. Notice the inconsistant color of the church interior from shot to shot. #5 (vertical) is probably the closest to reality. High lights of the stained glass and doorway are blown out and I'll bet the histogram confirms this. I have shot many many pictures in many churches so setting a custom white balance and getting consistant exposure is key.
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
I must say that I'm not entirely with you on your analysis Tom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
If it were me I would be careful about pushing the ISO so high. It's nice to see the camera can do it without noise getting out of hand
Agreed on this part, and Alex also look out for the tweener ISO's. ISO 2000 for example looks lower than ISO 3200 and so you might expect lower noise levels, but that isn't true. That only counts for true ISO values: 100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400. ISO 2000 for example is a picture taken with ISO 3200 and processed 2/3 stop underexposed in camera-processing. It might not technically precisely work like this, but the idea is sound. So you get the idea [;)] Therefor I personally have set my ISO to only use full stop numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
with the exception of the last two shots all others are a bit over exposed
I'm not sure what your idea is of over/underexposure, but the lastoneactually seems underexposed to me. I can't imagine a shot like that one exposed properly with those settings: 1/250 f11 ISO500. With those settings and lighting I would assume this shot is taken early or lately during the day, but we don't see the actual level of light that was available at that point. Mostly because for having those settings, a pretty decent amount of light is needed to expose naturally, which we don't really get to see. I do like the shot, but I don't think it is "naturally" exposed. But I guess this shot was intended this way and proper exposure is very subjective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
Notice the inconsistant color of the church interior from shot to shot
I agree that custom white-balance or post-processing white balance adjustment would be a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Wertman
High lights of the stained glass and doorway are blown out and I'll bet the histogram confirms this
I don't think this is an honest challenge since the camera would never be able to capture the actual dynamic range that is available there. You must lose some detail in either the darker parts or the lighter parts of the picture. If I were to shoot my own room or a church or whatever else indoor with a window viewing outside and I would expose for the interior it would seem obvious to me that the windows and everything else of the exterior would be blown out. The camera just can't handle such a wide dynamic range. HDR would cover this part pretty good I think. But with those shutterspeeds and without a tripod I wouldn't take my chances [A]
I guess my idea of proper exposure is different than yours, so just look at my idea as an opinion and not the absolute truth.
If you want to, I'm really interest in a shot of the interior of a church or something with consistent exposure and white balance so I would really like to see an example from you. Perhaps it will change my opinion.
Jan
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
ISO 2000 for example looks lower than ISO 3200 and so you might expect lower noise levels, but that isn't true.
I'm not sure this is correct, Jan. Photon noise is a function of sensitivity and the amount of light hitting the camera. When you set your camera to ISO 2000, it uses a slower shutter speed and thus lets more light in than it would have if you had used ISO 3200.
The problem with fake ISO's isn't that you get too much noise, but rather, you lose range (see below)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
ISO 2000 for example is a picture taken with ISO 3200 and processed 2/3 stop underexposed in camera-processing.
The camera also "overexposes" the picture by 2/3 of a stop as compared to an ISO 3200 shot. Thus you lose highlight headroom.
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Congrats on your purchase, Alex.
I really want to go full frame. Just waiting to graduate. After 8 years of post high-school studies, I think I deserve it. Ha!
Keep shooting! Then post.
Dave.
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
The camera also "overexposes" the picture by 2/3 of a stop as compared to an ISO 3200 shot. Thus you lose highlight headroom.
To be clear, here is the whole story behind ISO 2000:
- Sets the camera to ISO 1600 (but displays "2000")
- Adds a hidden -1/3 stop EC to the autoexposure meter.
- After the photo is taken, it increases brightness of the raw file by 1/3 stop (with a linear digital push)
<div>The net result is that you lose 1/3 stop of highlight headroom, just as you said. You can simulate ISO 2000 by setting ISO 1600, -1/3 EC, and then increasing brightness in post. The only difference is that when you do it yourself, you can increase brightness in a way that doesn't clip highlights.</div>
<div></div>
<div>It's the same story with all the "plus 1/3" ISO settings: 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000.</div>
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
If you want to, I'm really interest in a shot of the interior of a church or something with consistent exposure and white balance so I would really like to see an example from you. Perhaps it will change my opinion
Feel free to peruse around any of the inside church weddings at www.tomwertman.com. I try to maintain consistent color throughout the ceremony and capture color in stained glass as well. Highlights can get blown out but not to the extent of these samples on this thread.
Tom
Here is one example.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.75/Cruz-038-copy.jpg[/img]
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
To be clear, here is the whole story behind ISO 2000:
- Sets the camera to ISO 1600 (but displays "2000")
- Adds a hidden -1/3 stop EC to the autoexposure meter.
- After the photo is taken, it increases brightness of the raw file by 1/3 stop (with a linear digital push)
So it is the opposite direction from what Jan and I were saying...
But then, don't you lose 1/3 stop in the darks instead of in the highlights? Doesn't doing a linear digital push leave you with no data at the low end of the raw file? Or do you mean you lose 1/3 stop of highlight headroom as compared to iso1600 underexposed by 1/3 stop (but not as compared to a "correctly" exposed picture?
Anyway, it bad.
If canon would just leave the raw alone, the world would be a better place.
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
But then, don't you lose 1/3 stop in the darks instead of in the highlights?
Normally it would mean you lose 1/3 in the highlights *and* some in the shadows, but in this case it's only highlights because two of Canon's flaws cancel each other out in the shadows. I'll explain:
If Canon allowed their engineers to design the camera, then they would choose the correct design design where raw files have a bit depth appropriate for the noise level. In that case, mucking about with the raw data like this would have negative consequences in the deep shadows by causing quantization error. Such posterization would probably cause the loss of even more than 1/3 stop, but that's in shadows much darker and deeper than most photographers ever go, so in practice most people wouldn't notice even if it caused the loss of a full stop. Of course, if you were going to choose a sensible design you wouldn't allow this sort of mucking about in the first place.
In any case, the reality of the situation is that Canon cameras are clearly not designed by the engineering department, but the Marketing department. So instead of a sensible raw file design (11 or 12 bits), they use 14-bits. At normal ISO settings, all those extra bits go to waste. But on the 1/3 stop ISO settings, where Canon mucks about with the raw data for no reason, the extra bits prevent quantization error. So the two flaws cancel each other out. Of course it would be better if we had neither flaw, but oh well.
If Canon had a *really* good design, like Nikon's compressed NEF, then mucking with the raw would have *really* bad effects, because then it would affect *all* tonal levels instead of just shadows. That's precisely what Nikon does and there are some NEF files floating around that show the damage (posterized skies, etc.). Nikon seems to combine brilliance with stupidity, while Canon is more of mediocrity with mediocrity. At least we have variety. [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Doesn't doing a linear digital push leave you with no data at the low end of the raw file?
Technically, no. That's because raw files don't go from white to black, they go from white to noise. You just put black wherever you want (most people choose a spot that is far away from the noise). Because of this, the net effect is that it basically just decreases the resolution that it can quantize with throughout all the tonal levels. In Canon cameras, photon shot noise will completely hide the loss in resolution at all tonal levels except for the deepest shadows, so that's the only place where the negative effect could be seen (if it had a more appropriate bit depth).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Or do you mean you lose 1/3 stop of highlight headroom as compared to iso1600 underexposed by 1/3 stop (but not as compared to a "correctly" exposed picture?
On these ISO settings, Canon literally takes the top 1/3 stop of values and deletes them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Anyway, it bad.
If canon would just leave the raw alone, the world would be a better place.
Agreed. And if the engineers could somehow find a way to trick the Marketing department into thinking they were designing the cameras one way, but secretly do it the correct way. Oh, I can dream...
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Nice shots Alex. Keep them coming.
Wally
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
I'm not sure what your idea is of over/underexposure
Too much lost detail in the white shirt in the first two shots is a good indicator of over exposure.
Tom
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
They're really all great!
I like the Cathedral Shot #5 a lot.
Also shot #1 and #2 are screaming out to be reprocessed in Black and white.
I would love to see you re-post them in B&W if you agree.
Rich
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
They're really all great!
Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
Also shot #1 and #2 are screaming out to be reprocessed in Black and white.
Good suggestion. I'll repost those when I have the chance.
Among other things, Daniel, Tom and others, thanks for your help regarding the 5D II's noise performance. This series was literally my first real outing with the new body, so, having come from a 40D background, I was out to see what the camera could really do. I will also point out that I forgot to include the exposure compensation information when uploading the pictures. The final shot of the rock formation is intentionally underexposed. That was the look I was going for (and please apply that rule of thumb to the rest of the set).
I'll also point out that all of my posted images are adjusted (exposure-,contrast and saturation-wise) to taste. My exposure levels may not be "right-on" - and many times I tend to push contrast (especially in the barn shot) - but if slight over/underexposure or increased contrast results in an image that matches the vision I had in mind when I took each shot, I'm happy. And so is my family when they see prints. [:)]
Thanks again for your feedback and supplementary information.
Alex
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Johnston
Congrats on your purchase, Alex.
I really want to go full frame. Just waiting to graduate. After 8
years of post high-school studies, I think I deserve it. Ha!
Keep shooting! Then post.
Dave.
Thanks alot, Dave.
I say go for it. You have worked hard, and you certainly deserve it!
Now I feel weird about this whole thing - I'm in my final year of high school. Just saying. [H]
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Here's one more from the other day... I grabbed this shot as I rode past the scene of a car accident (I believe everyone was OK), where some firefighters were leaning on the guard rail and seemed to be exhausted after a long day of hard work.
Check it out:
5D Mark II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, 1/1000 sec., f/2.8, ISO 200 @ 200mm. Minor sharpening and lowered saturation in Lightroom 2.0. I kind of like the fact that you can see the "TORONTO" embroidered into the back of their jackets - Sort of cool.
C&C welcome.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.26.94/GardinerCrash_2D00_1.jpg[/img]
Re: 5D Mark II - First Shots
Ah the Gardner Expressway! Living in Rochester NY we get to Toronto often. I love the city. Great shot. Judging your work and comments you made regarding your technical prowess of the camera I would say you have a nice future ahead of you as a photog if you decide to pursue it.
Tom
