Well, looks like ALO is an in-camera adjustment, akin to curves, that is intended to optimize brightness and contrast. Like everything else with this camera, it appears to be a complicated adjustment. What I've read says the intention is to add efficiency to workflow for shooters submitting jpgs. But the adjustments are available with RAW files as well when converted in DPP, where the various ALO settings can be applied (or turned off). So in that sense it's just like Canon's picture styles. ALO is available in all shooting modes. When shooting bursts, however, the camera's 'decision' about the ALO adjustments is based on the first shot and then locked for the duration of the burst, so if the lighting changes, subsequent images may be under- or over-exposed, depending on how things change throughout the burst. The white paper actually suggests that when shooting in M mode, photographers should expose with the ALO adjustments in mind (e.g., expose for the background when shooting a backlit subject) rather than adjusting exposure in the typical way to account for the complexity of the scene.
Looking at my gymnastics RAW files in DPP and playing with the ALO settings, it definitely appears that the adjustments are beneficial for such high-contrast shots. Those are adjustments (shadow/highlight) I typically make in post, so I can see how efficiency might be added to the workflow.
One more thing to play with. Again, thanks for the heads-up, Deborah.
Hey thanks, Bryan. Temptation is my middle name....
Matthew: I held the translucent plastic lid in up against the front of the lens (had the hood on) so that I'd be shooting through it. Set the camera in M mode for an exposure that would give me a somewhat slow shutter speed (looks like it was 1/5 second). Registered that shot to set custom white balance. Worked very well--better than anything else I've ever tried in that arena.
WOW RUSS! What a difference a little tweeking of settings makes. These look really great. I know with all these new cameras coming out, the new settings are sometimes mind boggling at first. Looks like your getting right back on target and ready to roll. Keep up the great work.
Matthew,
I got the lid from a large container of dishwasher soap that comes in the form of individually wrapped solid rectangles. It's just a little less transparent than a gallon milk jug. I shot toward the court. I've heard of people using coffee filters, and I know I read about this lid method somewhere.
Thanks, Bob. The more I read about this camera (both Canon publications and user reports), the more I realize just how very complex and customizable it is. I do think I'm getting closer, but since each shooting situation is likely to require some tweaks, it could take a while.
I was originally alerted to disable ALO because it could do strange things to skin tones. Seems that for raw shooters, it presents another problem - the histogram you see is not what you get.
Russ, great images and thanks for sharing your IV experience. How would you care it's performance to the ID MK3? I am on the fence with this camera and would like anyone's input about the comparison. Thanks in advance!!
Thanks, Paul. No video. I imagine I'll get to that some day, but not any time soon.
nadine: Thanks. I've never even held a 1DIII so I can't help you there. Closest I've come is my 1DsIII. I'd say the IV is a bit faster to acquire focus and a bit better at tracking, though honestly, I haven't shot enough with the IV to be certain of such differences. Of course the frame rate and buffer size are enormously different. Also, it doesn't seem to me that there are as many combinations and permutations of custom functions with the DsIII as with the DIV, so the learning curve is more steep.
Really like mine, the AF is great. I'm shooting in a HS gym and lighting isn't quite as good but happy with the shots. Learned to make sure the calibration in LR is set to the same style as the camera, think LR defaults to Adobe. I white balance with an expodisc and results are much better with the IV than the III in bad gym light.
I’m curious why you choose to shoot at 3200 ISO and f3.5 1/1000, f2.8 1/1250 SS? As good as the new bodies are at high ISO, they are still better at lower ISO and while it doesn’t make much difference for web viewing, it does make a difference for print.
I have been going back and forth on whether to shoot 1600 ISO and 1/640 SS and deal with occasional motion blur or bump up to a slightly higher ISO and shutter speed but haven’t considered 3200 for College arenas with decent light even though I routinely shoot 3200 or higher outside under lights without hesitation.
I don’t shoot Canon but the same principle applies to that other manufacturer.
Don’t mean to get your thread OT but I had been interested in others preferences for the past few weeks.
I know you didn't ask me, but to be honest you will notice less iso in print then on the web.
When printing it pretty much erases high iso noise.
Last thing, 3200 ISO on the Mark IV is the same as 1600 ISO on the Mark III basically.
I was posing the question more as a Sports Forum topic rather than an equipment comparison. I understand the Mark IV and D3S have superb High ISO capability.
I had just found 1/640 SS sufficient for a 70-200 lens with occasional motion blur on the hands or feet and 1/800 eliminating motion blur for basketball most of the time. I can see bumping the ISO in order to stop down a bit and I am open to testing 3200 but go back to the original premise; even if 3200 ISO is very good, why not shoot at 1600 or 2000 if it is even better and you want to increase your chances of that double truck?
These are just options I’ve been weighing and haven’t arrived at a firm conclusion so I was interested in Russ’s thoughts, and yours as well, but perhaps a topic for another thread since I don’t want to hijack this one.
I can't say I've yet developed a firm strategy in this regard, so I can't answer your question definitively. BUT, if ISO 3200 is as clean as it appears to be, I believe the extra shutter speed definitely is worth it. When I shoot gymnastics, for example, 1/640 is about the bare minimum and I'll have motion blur for faster-moving action. 1/800 is better, but if I can shoot at 1/1250 or 1/1600, I believe that would contribute to the overall sharpness of my photos. Same thing with a smaller aperture--1/3 to 2/3 stop could make a meaningful difference. So I'm with you in thinking that the lowest possible ISO likely is best, but the noise quality of these newer cameras has me also thinking I might finally be able to get the shutter speeds I've been longing for. Verdict is still out, but at the very least it's worth exploring.
