Canon EOS 5D Mark II

**red00ecstrat** · 08-01-2009, 11:55 PM

3 stops underexposed was just too much cheung. i did a test quite a while ago. the acceptable range of shooting raw files at that time was around +- 1 2/3 stops. beyond that, noise would be quite noticeable!

**ctjcad** · 08-02-2009, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by Cheung

Here's some examples of 5DmarkII coping with user error (i.e. mine

)
...

..may i ask what was the ISO setting used for this particular shot?? was it @ 3200??..

**ae86trueno** · 08-03-2009, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by red00ecstrat

3 stops underexposed was just too much cheung. i did a test quite a while ago. the acceptable range of shooting raw files at that time was around +- 1 2/3 stops. beyond that, noise would be quite noticeable!

yep, thats what amaze me.. even at such 3 stops under, although noise is very visible but very little for a photo that been pulled from 3 under.

***Cheung*** · 08-04-2009, 03:16 AM

The ISO was 800

yep, thats what amaze me.. even at such 3 stops under, although noise is very visible but very little for a photo that been pulled from 3 under.

my sentiments as well. At least I managed to get something back from the RAW file.

**ctjcad** · 08-04-2009, 02:01 PM

..shot @ ISO 800 but with 3 stops under = ISO 1600???...

**Gladius** · 08-04-2009, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by ctjcad

..shot @ ISO 800 but with 3 stops under = ISO 1600???...

At 3 stops EV, it means ISO800 (X 2 X 2 X 2 ) = ~ISO6400

***Cheung*** · 08-04-2009, 10:17 PM

Probably, the noise would be less if I had used RAW rather than sRAW1...

B&W might work better.

**ctjcad** · 08-05-2009, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by Gladius

At 3 stops EV, it means ISO800 (X 2 X 2 X 2 ) = ~ISO6400

..i thought abt that number...If it's @ ISO 6400, then i'm not really surprised, considering the improved technology it has..

Originally Posted by Cheung

Probably, the noise would be less if I had used RAW rather than sRAW1...

B&W might work better.

..you could "cheat" a bit by doing post processing to reduce the noise..

You can download & try this program, if you haven't tried it, Neat Image (download the Windows version, pretty easy to use). I've used it and it's not too bad; though not sure how many EV stops it "fixes" the picture..

***Cheung*** · 11-16-2009, 09:06 AM

Just some thoughts on the 5Dmark2 for badminton. I've been trying it out for the first time on professional badminton. Previously, I used a 30D.

What I notice is the files are very good. I used the sRAW2 file.

Focus is better than the 30D

However, time to taking the photo - shutterlag - is not that great. In fact I would say it is slow. This is a also a function of the speed of AF. I felt it was slower than my 30D

fps -for a proper action shot, it's all about timing unless you shutterlag is so great, you cant time the action. 5D shots at 3.9fps. Can't quite get good sequence shots for the emotions.

I got to try out a 50D for a short time. I think that was pretty good!

**Gladius** · 11-16-2009, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Cheung

Just some thoughts on the 5Dmark2 for badminton. I've been trying it out for the first time on professional badminton. Previously, I used a 30D.

What I notice is the files are very good. I used the sRAW2 file.

Focus is better than the 30D

However, time to taking the photo - shutterlag - is not that great. In fact I would say it is slow. This is a also a function of the speed of AF. I felt it was slower than my 30D

fps -for a proper action shot, it's all about timing unless you shutterlag is so great, you cant time the action. 5D shots at 3.9fps. Can't quite get good sequence shots for the emotions.

I got to try out a 50D for a short time. I think that was pretty good!

I would I share most of the sentiments.

But, its not so much the AF being slow, its pretty fast and snappy. The shutterlag is really quite slow. Anticipation for sports is key here...

Its really not a camera for sequences, but somewhat more deliberate takes and anticipated shots. But I would say, it was a quantum difference in quality compared to the 40D even though it had much slower FPS.

**AChan** · 11-16-2009, 11:26 AM

5DII is just too slow. It's fortunate to have Cheung covered for better shot http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...&postcount=113.

***Cheung*** · 11-18-2009, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Gladius

I would I share most of the sentiments.

But, its not so much the AF being slow, its pretty fast and snappy. The shutterlag is really quite slow. Anticipation for sports is key here...

Its really not a camera for sequences, but somewhat more deliberate takes and anticipated shots. But I would say, it was a quantum difference in quality compared to the 40D even though it had much slower FPS.

Do you mean quantum as in "very,very small"?

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum unit of any physical entity involved in an interaction

Just regarding the AF part, using the 24-70L was quite difficult. I found the lens moves the elements pretty slowly so quite difficult in tracking players when they move. In contrast, the 70-200 2.8L just zips pretty quickly even though physiclaly, it's the bigger lens...

***Cheung*** · 11-18-2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by AChan

5DII is just too slow. It's fortunate to have Cheung covered for better shot http://www.badmintoncentral.com/foru...&postcount=113.

That's why I deliberately choose a different position to AChan.

**Gladius** · 11-18-2009, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Cheung

Do you mean quantum as in "very,very small"?

Quantum as in a big jump...

Just regarding the AF part, using the 24-70L was quite difficult. I found the lens moves the elements pretty slowly so quite difficult in tracking players when they move. In contrast, the 70-200 2.8L just zips pretty quickly even though physiclaly, it's the bigger lens...

Quite the contrary to my experience with the camera and lens. In my experience, my most often used lenses on the camera are the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and in ascending order of focusing speed. (The distance limiter switch on the 70-200 does wonders for its tracking speed.)

Even the "slow" Sigma allowed me to take some extremely fast Ai-servo tracking shots in somewhat trying light conditions. Here's a sample of what I mean:

Those guys were basically going past me at 50-55 km/h. With me literally within 3 feet of the nearest rider. You have to imagine how fast that feels, extremely testing, even for the sharpest AF out there on tracking. It was just after a rain shower, clouds yet to be fully cleared.

**mtakako** · 11-18-2009, 12:09 PM

Nice shot Gladius! Btw.. how do you like the sigma 12-24. I am currently looking at the same lens for my new 5DMK2. Nice lens line up also. Wished I can afford the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

**ctjcad** · 11-18-2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cheung

...Just regarding the AF part, using the 24-70L was quite difficult. I found the lens moves the elements pretty slowly so quite difficult in tracking players when they move. In contrast, the 70-200 2.8L just zips pretty quickly even though physiclaly, it's the bigger lens...

Originally Posted by Gladius

...Quite the contrary to my experience with the camera and lens. In my experience, my most often used lenses on the camera are the Sigma 12-24, Canon 24-70L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and in ascending order of focusing speed. (The distance limiter switch on the 70-200 does wonders for its tracking speed.)
...

..i think Cheung was comparing the AF speed of 24-70L with the 70-200 2.8L. Which you've confirmed w/your experience which puts the AF speed of 70-200 2.8L as faster than the 24-70L.

**Gladius** · 11-18-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by ctjcad

..i think Cheung was comparing the AF speed of 24-70L with the 70-200 2.8L. Which you've confirmed w/your experience which puts the AF speed of 70-200 2.8L as faster than the 24-70L.

What I meant was that the 24-70L was anything but difficult to track focus with. A 'slower' Sigma 12-24 had little problems tracking action, and in comparison, the 24-70L was a much faster lens. No doubt slower than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

But it must be noted that the 24-70L has some undocumented wear and tear issues that plague it like what I had with mine. Basically, I sent my lens to Canon for some AF issues related to OOF pictures. Thought it was a simple calibration issue. Turned out there were some components which were damaged/worn out internally. Cost me SG$170/- to fix it. But the really nice thing about it was the return, it felt like a totally different lens then. Faster focussing and tack sharp images even wide open!