5D Mk iii at ISO 12800 and focussing...

<p>A couple of weeks ago I shot a wedding using mostly my new 5D Mk iii. Awesome camera and I absolutely love it. I did find that nailing focus in low light with a 70-200mm F2.8 L IS a little bit tedious at times, as in really slow sometimes. Not so bad that I couldn't get the shot, but not the snappiest. I use the centre focus point with the four (I think) surrounding points enabled. I guess it is a big chunk of glass to shift about and using a smaller and faster focussing lens would help, although certainly not something like the 85mm F1.2 which is very slow to focus. Has anyone had similar experiences using the 5D MK iii and the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS MK i?<br>

<br />The couple portraits were taken at night time and all bar the last one shown in the link below were shot at ISO 12800. The style of some of my images means there is lots of shadow detail so it was vital to nail the exposure in-camera as pulling it up in post would be a killer. Some of the shots were taken with only the available lights and no flash or video light. This camera really pushes the possibilities!</p>

<p>Here is the link to the full set of images:</p>

<p>http://www.bellissimaphoto.co.uk/london-wedding-photography/old-royal-naval-college-wedding-photographer.html</p>

<p>Photographing wedding is about deliverying the best pictures you can, even if you need to deliver proper lighting, and it is not about testing your new camera or pushing the possibilities. Providing lighting that could enhance wedding photos is a must, regardless how sensitive the new camera is.</p>

<p>While pictures are technically correct, something is missing there. There is no "spark", no glow, o excitement, no vividness, and they look a bit dull. Using words from Merriam-Webster: "Lacking zest or vivacity".</p>

<p> </p>

@Frank:

1. I disagree.

2. You didn't answer the question.

 

@David: sorry, I can't answer your question. (different bodies and lenses)

<blockquote>

<p>There is no "spark", no glow, o excitement, no vividness, and they look a bit dull.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't disagree more.</p>

<p>I think the entire set is very well executed and captures some delightful moments. The whole set feels very vivacious to me.</p>

<p>Without access to the full-res high ISO shots, however, it is not possible to knowledgeably comment. However, I would imagine that you are right about shifting all that glass, hence the slower focus. Perhaps try focusing in similar lighting conditions using a fast prime like the 85 f/1.8 or the 135 f/2L. On another (somewhat related) note, I tried out a 5D3 in a shop last week and was blown away by its focusing abilities compared to my 5D2.</p>

<p>Agree. Not sure what Frank is talking about. Very nice!</p>

Beautiful photography. I only own the 5D Km II so no answer from me but you're right "really pushes the possibility".

<p>I can't help you with your question about AF with the 70-200/f2.8 with the MkIII, but I just want to say that Frank is full of it. The shoot looks well lit to me, with some super moments and really showed off a stunning bride. (The groom wasn't so spiffy, but that's not your fault).</p>

<p>Thanks guys for your comments! I too think Frank is way off the mark but we're all entitled to our opinions. I certainly did deliver to the best of my ability with "proper" lighting and in no way was I "testing any of my gear.The lighting was applied exactly to enhance the photos, particularly the night time shots, but maybe Frank just doesn't get them. That's okay. <br>

It's funny when some photographer mates ask to have a go with my Mk iii I warn them not to, because if they do and they see all those focus points and how the camera handles, they will be sucked in and have to buy one. It is fantastic. I'll continue using my Mk ii as a secondary camera for a good while. I paid £3000 for my Mk iii body, which equates to $4800. Gulp. </p>

<p>Wow, I couldn’t disagree more. Those are wonderful pictures. I can't imagine how obstructive a full lighting setup would do those images. Obstructive not to the photographs but to the subjects who don't want to look back at their wedding day as a studio shoot. Great job.<br>

And I don't have an answer for the question. </p>

<p>DB - do you have a 135/2L? If so I'd like to know how it's AF compares in similar light and similar contrast.</p>

<p>To answer your question, co-incidentally like MAK I played with a MkIII last week and I used my 135/2 and my 85/1.8 (inside a camera shop) - and the AF was lightning fast on both lenses (the 135/2 especially) and I was using centre AF focussing in really dark interior corners - but didn't have large areas of white in the shot.<br>

Also another unscientific test would be the same 70 to 200 lens on your MkII in the same (similar) lighting conditions. Whilst not really an A/B test it would give you some idea if your 70 to 200 lens is a big hunk of glass and that’s why it is (a bit) slow(er) to AF. . . and that’s the question you are asking and the answer you are seeking.</p>

<p>In any case and also touching on the other topic which was begun on this thread: it’s my opinion that we Wedding Photographers maybe should take a step BACK every now and again:<br>

Whilst it is great to push the TR&D limits of new cameras to extend our Craft and our own Skills and in this regard the question posted and seeking the answer to it are both interesting and worthwhile . . . but a step back, to what it is all about – capturing the moment – and certainly there were many moments captured in that shoot - Bravo. <br>

And yes the MkIII is quite an awesome piece of machinery – quite the Ant’s Pants for Wedding & Portraiture work, especially Available Light Portraiture as shown in those last few frames in the link - the rim lit Portrait for example.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>WW, great minds, ey? ;-)</p>

<p>David, you have made a good investment. If that is the quality of work it helps you produce, then you have little need to swallow the gulp. Yes, a few months later and it wold have been a bit cheaper, but you now have it. Use it.</p>

<p>My own quagmire will be what to do when I finally get mine. I am torn between using 5D2+5D3 or 5D3+7D. I currently shoot dual format and love the leverage it gives with my lens cache, but just yesterday I did some pretty aggressive cropping on a photo from my 5D2 and still got a pretty good result. Also, the controls on the 5D3 are closer in feel to the 7D's than the 5D2 in my opinion, so I don't want to have such a different feel when I swap from one to the other. It drives me up the wall when switching between my 5D2 and my current APS-C (400D).</p>

<p>Alas, I digress! David, I would love to see a high res shot at ISO 12800... also interested in hearing your feedback on the performance of your 70-7200 on your 5D2 in similar lighting conditions. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"great minds, ey? ;-)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes, Mark - I find life's co-incidences are often so quite amazing.<br /> regards,<br /> William</p>

<p>Thanks chaps for all your comments - much appreciated. William I do own an 85mm F1.8 and have found that to be very snappy on the Mk iii in near dark conditions. It is a very fast focussing lens anyway and relatively small so not much glass to shift about. The 135mm F2 is on my (dream) list. Shooting with the 85mm F1.8 does allow more than twice the amount of light in, versus an F2.8 zoom, so regardless of needing to move less glass about to focus, this must be a massive help in itself.</p>

<p>When I get some time I will run some comparisons between the Mk ii and the Mk iii with the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS lens in dark conditions. I expect to see the obvious, i.e. that the Mk ii struggles - although it probably won't be too bad using only the centre focus point, but the outer points are pretty dire at the best of times.</p>

<p>Mark I will try and post a full res ISO 12800 shot for you and send you a link. But.... the style of the rim lit couple shots means that the majority of the image is heavy shadow detail and that is absolutely intentional, so you will see more noise than an overall brighter image with the histogram concentrated towards the right. Maybe I'll post a couple of high res pictures in both styles. Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice work David ! I photograph weddings weekly and always try to "push the possibilities" of my equipment and me :). I think this is the only way to deliver the best pictures I can...</p>