dvarnav wrote:
Lightroom2 and CS3 works with 5D MarkII
LR2.1 will not work with the mkII RAW, CS4 will do mkII RAW (with latest RAW update) but not CS3. You will have to convert RAW files to DNG for them to work in CS3.
We will have to wait for LR 2.2 to do mkII RAW files.
timnosenzo wrote:
Sorry if this has been asked already, but what were your noise reduction settings for those pictures?
The ISO 100 picture is without NR. The second picture @ ISO6400 is straight out of the camera. The last was run through Noiseware progessional at the default settings.
bobbytan wrote:
Using a fast prime lens helps, as the wider aperture means more light in the VF. Also, you may want to consider an extra bright focussing screen - maybe a screen from Brightscreen - although they are kind of expensive.
Isn't the viewfinder info artificially lit? I've shot in sunlight and darkness and never noticed a difference.
cheve wrote:
Would someone please identify exactly what's wrong/bad about the 100% crop of the "bridnest"? I am not a professional and did not find anything jump out at me when viewing the crop at my LCD.
thanks,
Bad Chromatic Aberration - colored edges (probably the lens) and over sharpened. Might also be too much jpeg compression causing data loss.
rji2goleez wrote:
The ISO 100 picture is without NR. The second picture @ ISO6400 is straight out of the camera. The last was run through Noiseware progessional at the default settings.
Regards,
Bob
I am sorry to say it but they all look really bad. In the iso6400 ones detail is destroyed and even the iso100 one looks pretty bad especially the lights.
dnenciu wrote:
I am sorry to say it but they all look really bad. In the iso6400 ones detail is destroyed and even the iso100 one looks pretty bad especially the lights.
I really hope is the raw converter used.
The ISO 100 image doesn't look bad to me, but I agree that the two ISO 6400 images look soft and lacking in detail. But this could be due to bad technique and camera shake .... or it may have been shot handheld with a consumer-grade zoom lens. I am pretty sure the 5D II is not the problem.
dnenciu wrote:
I am sorry to say it but they all look really bad. In the iso6400 ones detail is destroyed and even the iso100 one looks pretty bad especially the lights.
I really hope is the raw converter used.
Sorry to be blunt, but what are you smoking? Those ISO 6400 shots are the cleanest I've seen yet from the 5DII. Ignore the operator error-induced soft focus on most of the photo, that's not what the point of the photo was.
Remember, all the shots are handheld . . . nothing scientific here. I was probably shaking with the anticipation of the new toy. However, to me, if you compare ISO6400 here, I think it's much better than ISO1600 on the Mark I and maybe on par with ISO800 versus the mark I. That's a 4-8 fold increase in sensitivity. This is not a scientific test whatsoever but I see how much this camera has to offer.
bobbytan wrote:
The ISO 100 image doesn't look bad to me, but I agree that the two ISO 6400 images look soft and lacking in detail. But this could be due to bad technique and camera shake .... or it may have been shot handheld with a consumer-grade zoom lens. I am pretty sure the 5D II is not the problem.
The ISO 100 image was shot with an EF24-70 f/2.8L USM lens (according to the exif info) which is not a consumer grade zoom. The biggest problem with the image is the bad color fringing around the lights and on the pier (far left side). That can be corrected with Photoshop to a point. I tried a +6 red shift which helped on the left of the image (pier), but was too much on the right side. There does seem to be some NR going on, even thought it was apparently off - kind of strange.
The ISO 6400 has some banding in the shadows and a lot of color noise. That has nothing to do with camera shake or bad technique.
As all we know if want to see the quality of a camera we should inspect the Raw output and not the jpg out. So GregM5 is it possible to give us the RAW file of the ISO100 shot ? The reason that I am asking is that I see some Jpg unwanted corrections that I want to be sure that it is not form the RAW file.
GregM5 wrote:
The ISO 100 image was shot with an EF24-70 f/2.8L USM lens (according to the exif info) which is not a consumer grade zoom. The biggest problem with the image is the bad color fringing around the lights and on the pier (far left side). That can be corrected with Photoshop to a point. I tried a +6 red shift which helped on the left of the image (pier), but was too much on the right side. There does seem to be some NR going on, even thought it was apparently off - kind of strange.
The ISO 6400 has some banding in the shadows and a lot of color noise. That has nothing to do with camera shake or bad technique....Show more →
Exactly what I am talking about.
I can get better quality shots at iso6400 from the 1dmk3. It's all about NR. What people don't realize is that with NR you loose detail. The iso6400 shots look like P&S iso800 shots. I would not use them for much.
I would like to see somebody with good technique working an iso6400 RAW file.
I can get better quality shots at iso6400 from the 1dmk3. It's all about NR. What people don't realize is that with NR you loose detail. The iso6400 shots look like P&S iso800 shots. I would not use them for much.
I would like to see somebody with good technique working an iso6400 RAW file.
i don't think you should expect much better than the 1dMKIII at the pixel level, the tech was too good already for a major revolution, but with the larger sensor area, it should end up better noise per IMAGE.
dnenciu wrote:
I am sorry to say it but they all look really bad. In the iso6400 ones detail is destroyed and even the iso100 one looks pretty bad especially the lights.
I really hope is the raw converter used.
Thanks for posting these. The NR on the ISO 100 shot is a little disconcerting. Especially since you had NR turned off. Bob, can you try shooting a few raw images at ISO 100 and posting a 100% crop of detail. Thanks again...
