mjmetts wrote:
I really want to thank everyone for their input. At this stage, the 7D sounds like the right camera for me to move up to. I can save to complement it with a 5D3 some day which will hopefully have similar speed features, but it seems like the right fit for my style of shooting.
I just sent payment for a 7D in the B&S forum
I think you're going to really enjoy using your 7D. By all means, READ THE MANUAL when you get it. There is a lot to learn about the AF and you need to know it in order to get the most out of it. Too many people have been disappointed in the 7D's performance because they didn't learn the camera properly and assumed it was the camera (although there were some issue with a relatively small number of cameras early on) and not their lack of knowledge. I really think that as more people learn this camera's finer points we'll start to see some pretty incredible pictures from it. Congrats!
My 5D2s mostly do not exhibit the pattern noise that Brainiac's do, at least when my exposures are near to correct. However, I do not "push process" in post (which will bring out the banding), or use crazy high ISOs. 3200 is the highest I would ever shoot normally, with 6400 to be used in a real pinch. On the 7D, one stop less.
To reduce post processing on certain kinds of client jobs when 10Mp is sufficient, I'll often shoot sRAW1 on the 5D2, which further reduces noise. Using in-camera/DPP NR, it's very clean at ISO 1600, and still pretty good at 3200.
When shooting full RAW I generally do post-processing in Neat Image at any ISO higher than 400 for best sharpness. I have the Pro+ version which supports batch processing in Photoshop and is Smart Object friendly.
adimage wrote:
I would also look at 1d mk III for the kind of needs you have.
Yeah, they seem like great cameras, but two things bother me about them:
1. The built-in grip. I shoot with my cameras casually as well as professionally and I don't like the bulk of the 1d series.
2. The odd sensor crop. I know a lot of people are very happy with the sensor crop of 1.3, but it's strange to me. I've shot with it before and didn't like it all that much.
garyvot wrote:
The 5D2 is the best low-light camera I have used.
My 5D2s mostly do not exhibit the pattern noise that Brainiac's do, at least when my exposures are near to correct. However, I do not "push process" in post (which will bring out the banding), or use crazy high ISOs. 3200 is the highest I would ever shoot normally, with 6400 to be used in a real pinch. On the 7D, one stop less.
The 7D is capable of one stop more, not one stop less, as my posted examples show. If you don't use your 5D2's in the same circumstances that I do, then how can you say that yours perform any differently? If you're suggesting that your 5D2's are somehow different to mine, I don't believe it, unless you can show some evidence. The banding I get is not a result of incorrect exposure on my part, but a result of the fact that I can't take the shutter any slower without losing all usable definition in the image. There isn't really any difference between "pushing" 6400 iso by one stop, and setting 12800 iso. In very low light it is not what nominal iso you set that determines performance, but rather it is the amount of light available, the aperture, and the shutter speed which affect the amount of light hitting the sensor. Given maximum aperture, let's say f1.2, and slowest possible shutter speed (let's say 1/60th for shooting people talking), then getting fussy with your exposure isn't going to make any difference. You just need everything you can get, and then you will still rely on processing and noise reduction to get a usable image.
...I'll often shoot sRAW1 on the 5D2, which further reduces noise.
...per pixel, which is irrelevant. Best results in low light or high iso arise from shooting full rez raw and applying your best noise reduction algorithms _before_ downrezzing to sraw size. It is a misconception that sraw reduces noise in your image. It will only reduce noise in your pixels, when compared to an equal number of the much more numerous pixels in a full rez file. In other words, sraw seems less noisy because you don't zoom in as far - the age-old error. 'Pixel-binning' makes it harder for NR algorithms to do an accurate job, not easier.
Since, as you say, in your photography you rarely exceed iso 3200, you therefore seldom leave the sweet spot of the 5D2, and may be less aware of the banding frustrations than photographers who more often use the camera in extremes of low light and contrast.
jrsforums wrote:
Not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain?
Yes - the non-optional screen in the 7D is not suitable for accurately focussing lenses of f2.8 and wider. Like all Canon stock screens it shows more depth of field than there is, and therefore it is not possible to tell if you have placed the focal plane accurately on the required subject. Since AF often fails in low light, and one often needs to use very wide apertures, this is a major obstacle to using the 7D successfully in very dim shooting conditions.
I also find that manual focus accuracy varies across the screen. It is a far cry from the fairly usable S-type manual focus screens available for all other pro and prosumer Canon DSLR's.
Im editing this because I've had something on my mind for a while. Its Brainiac really,
Brainiac, I've admired your photographs and your technical knowledge for some time now. Its clear you know what you are doing and have very high standards.
In all sincerity then, presumptiously I am sure, I think you are really wasting your time on the 5D2. You are using your camera in technically very demanding ways that its designers clearly didn't anticipate, and frankly you cannot expect a mid price full frame camera to do as well in every respect as the 1D series you should be using. That's why you are sometimes getting banding, pushing in post which the camera doesnt like.
I think the 5D2 is a great low light camera, but it isn't working the way you need. Life is short, blood pressure rises all to easily. Sell your 5Ds and go back to the 1D series, it will save you alot of worry. You are a pro, stop piddling around with semi professional kit, because clearly, you can tell the difference and it is bugging you.
Cheers David, but I'll use the kit that suits me best and right now, that's a pair of 5D's and a 7. I'll also post about the limitations of that kit. When I was using 1 series I used to post quite often about the limitations I encountered with those cameras. This is a gear forum, and as far as I'm aware, there's still no rule about discussing the weaknesses of gear as well as its strengths. I understand that people don't like flaws in their own choices of gear being discussed because we all spend a lot of money on this stuff and the decisions often involve some emotional commitment - handing over thousands of dollars always hurts. But that's exactly the reason why I discuss my gear openly, and I sincerely hope that sometimes that's useful to people here, just as all of your opinions have been very very helpful to me.
As it happens I like to work with 3 cameras, and I no longer have the physical strength to do that with 1 series. It's just not an option. The depreciation would be a bummer too, at UK prices. Nor did Canon provide any warning with the 5D2 that it was in any way inferior in image quality to the 1Ds3 which I previously used. They stated quite clearly that it was better. Regardless of that, I would still choose to use it, because it's the best lightweight body for manual focus which is compatible with my glass. I don't think there is any rule that a pro must use 1 series. I hardly ever shoot sport. I have always used the most affordable and appropriate gear that I could find, and I can honestly say I've never been happier with my kit. I can still speak of its limitations though, while working within them, just.
In the world of film making people are getting the 5D2 and its successors to do unanticipated things. Canon has just issued a firmware update addressing a specific example of that. Should those people keep quiet about how to get the best results out of what is, for film making, a very limited body? I don't think so. Discussing the limitations of this kit, and how to work around them and use it well, is good practice.
mjmetts wrote:
It's interesting that this is a 5D peculiarity though. The 1Ds series and all of Nikon's full-frame bodies have a much better spread of AF points.
not that much better, they are all still much farther in
basically the AF sensor design for 35mm lenses is pretty much fixed and it doesn't matter what sensor size you plop behind them, they can't be made any wider without issues cropping up so the smaller the sensor behind it the farther out the AF points will be
mjmetts wrote:
Yeah, they seem like great cameras, but two things bother me about them:
1. The built-in grip. I shoot with my cameras casually as well as professionally and I don't like the bulk of the 1d series.
2. The odd sensor crop. I know a lot of people are very happy with the sensor crop of 1.3, but it's strange to me. I've shot with it before and didn't like it all that much.
yeah i agree i hate the bulky 1 series bodies
and 1.3 can be annoying since what do you use for your stand wider zoom or wide zoom primes? suddenly the 24mm 1.4 and T/S and maybe not quite wide enough nor the 24-70/28-75
brainiac wrote:
...per pixel, which is irrelevant. Best results in low light or high iso arise from shooting full rez raw and applying your best noise reduction algorithms _before_ downrezzing to sraw size. It is a misconception that sraw reduces noise in your image. It will only reduce noise in your pixels, when compared to an equal number of the much more numerous pixels in a full rez file. In other words, sraw seems less noisy because you don't zoom in as far - the age-old error. 'Pixel-binning' makes it harder for NR algorithms to do an accurate job, not easier.
I wanted to emphasize this point again. Do your noise reduction on as big a file as you can, and then downsize for print/final prep. This gives you the absolute best leverage as far as denoising (which kills the high frequency information you're about to downsize away anyhow).
brainiac wrote:
Yes - the non-optional screen in the 7D is not suitable for accurately focussing lenses of f2.8 and wider. Like all Canon stock screens it shows more depth of field than there is, and therefore it is not possible to tell if you have placed the focal plane accurately on the required subject. Since AF often fails in low light, and one often needs to use very wide apertures, this is a major obstacle to using the 7D successfully in very dim shooting conditions.
I also find that manual focus accuracy varies across the screen. It is a far cry from the fairly usable S-type manual focus screens available for all other pro and prosumer Canon DSLR's....Show more →
f/2.8 or wider
the 7D screen is not suitable for manual focus of f/5.6 or maybe even f/6.3 or wider!!
brainiac wrote:
...if you need to shoot in really low and difficult light, notwithstanding the need for manual focus, which the 7D can't do...
jrsforums wrote:
Not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain?
brainiac wrote:
Yes - the non-optional screen in the 7D is not suitable for accurately focussing lenses of f2.8 and wider. Like all Canon stock screens it shows more depth of field than there is, and therefore it is not possible to tell if you have placed the focal plane accurately on the required subject. Since AF often fails in low light, and one often needs to use very wide apertures, this is a major obstacle to using the 7D successfully in very dim shooting conditions.
I also find that manual focus accuracy varies across the screen. It is a far cry from the fairly usable S-type manual focus screens available for all other pro and prosumer Canon DSLR's. ...Show more → skibum5 wrote:
f/2.8 or wider
the 7D screen is not suitable for manual focus of f/5.6 or maybe even f/6.3 or wider!!
I'm sure you're right. I was being conservative so as not to upset 7D fans
thedigitalbean wrote:
Oh and for weddings, seriously consider a 1D3, especially with the current used prices. The 1D3 is probably one of my favourite wedding photography cameras. Great AF and 10mp is good enough (maybe use a 5D2 for the formals and some of the posed bride & groom stuff which might get blown up real big and where the light should be good enough that the peripheral points are useful).
Hi:
Since you used the 1D3 would you consider the 1D4? How about the 1D4 for inside
of old big churches in Europe?
adimage wrote:
I would also look at 1d mk III for the kind of needs you have.
mjmetts wrote:
Yeah, they seem like great cameras, but two things bother me about them:
1. The built-in grip. I shoot with my cameras casually as well as professionally and I don't like the bulk of the 1d series.
2. The odd sensor crop. I know a lot of people are very happy with the sensor crop of 1.3, but it's strange to me. I've shot with it before and didn't like it all that much.
skibum5 wrote:
yeah i agree i hate the bulky 1 series bodies
and 1.3 can be annoying since what do you use for your stand wider zoom or wide zoom primes? suddenly the 24mm 1.4 and T/S and maybe not quite wide enough nor the 24-70/28-75
I completely agree. One other reason I hate the 1 series is that the C mode situation is wofully borked, to the extent of unusable. With 5D/7D I get 4 cameras for the price of one. With 1 series I get 60% of a camera for the cost and weight of two.
brainiac wrote:
I just posted a low light comparison on another thread, but they are relevant here. Note the banding in the 5D2 shadows, which is effectively impossible to remove. The 7D has much more random, and therefore removable noise. As a result, if you need to shoot in really low and difficult light, notwithstanding the need for manual focus, which the 7D can't do, then the 7D actually delivers better results than the 5D2.
You really cleaned this pic up! It seems to need just a tad more dusting to be totally clean?
Cheers Larry. If you mean the low rez version, that's just DPP chroma noise reduction. There are probably better noise reduction algorithms. LR3 looks very promising.
for my professional pj work non-1d is completely useless, because it's much too slow and af sucks. in very low light even af of 1dm3 sucks. gonna try 1dm4 next week ...
hey i didnt say i didnt like those parts of the 1 series!!!!
i just prefer them in a D700/5D2 sized body myself (and i actually prefer certain parts of the UI/controls on the non-series better too), but only nikon, so far, gives that sort of stuff in the smaller package (not that i like the nikon ui/controls at all)
each to their own, i certainly know some sports people who basically use it only for sports an duse portrait so often they'd have the grip on all the time anyway
