Jump to content

Does the 5D3 has WB problems?


yakim_peled1

Recommended Posts

<p>Wouldn't read to much into it. CFLs have notoriously variable spectrums. Regardless of what the box (or bulb) says - heck, just consider yourself lucky if you've never found one emitting high UV (they don't warn about <em>that</em> on the label!) for this to be anywhere approaching scientific, one would have to evaluate each bulb <em>continuously</em> during the test...<br>

...the author also did not include enough on his methodology. For instance, if he was shooting at ~ 1/80 or faster, the camera could have easily picked up on the low voltage side of the single phase AC curve. @ ISO 400 /f5.6, this could easily be the case. That factor alone would totally skew his results.</p>

<p>That's not to say that AWB is even remotely always right, <em>but that is a key reason we shoot in RAW in the first place. </em></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've used both the 5D1 and 5D3, and I'd say the 5D3 is probably marginally better. It's easily fooled by special circumstances though. For example, fill the frame with a woman in a blue dress against a black background, AWB will balance for florescent even if the light is tungsten.</p>

<p>Since I shoot RAW it doesn't matter to me much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 5D Mark III is as accurate as any camera that I've used in Auto and better than most. Of course, auto white balance

is an I exact science, like auto exposure. Expect it to get close most of the time, but it's not usually right on the money. Think about it. It's impossible for the algorithm to get the colors right, because the camera doesn't know exactly what colors exist in the frame. Is an object blue, or is it lit by a blue light?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You know, even though WB has never in the slightest way, annoyed me (esp. as I shoot RAW 99% of the time), it obviously annoys a lot of people. A simple solution would be to have an 'assign custom WB' function in the menu (or even programmably accessible w/ a button push). The camera would prompt you to point it at something white (or maybe grey) - or that you perceive as white. and when it is you press the button, it evaluates an 'optimal' WB setting for that white thing, and sets your custom WB to that temp. It would take about 2 seconds to do, and you'd have something reasonably reliable to work w/ until the light changed. Seems a pretty straightforward solution to me (and<em> all</em> software - so implementation could be done w/ a firmware update).</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Harry, when you're editing a bunch of photos that are substantially alike, just tweak one of them the way you want in DPP, copy the recipe, and then paste the recipe to all the other photos as a group.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or just select a batch of images, and tweak them all at once.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>AWB is never going to be right on. I find it to be a bit blue/greyish for daylight and have had similar results, a bit too warm, as those I saw in the posted examples with tungsten (1dsmkIII & 5dII).</p>

<p>Some will claim that the WB setting can affect the histogram and such on the camera and give false information regarding exposure. I think this is true, but I don't know that the magnitude of this is so great to actually cause real issue. Unless one is shooting JPEGs, I don't think the setting really matters much between AWB and the setting that matches the light you are shooting in.</p>

<p>Although I have shot in AWB for years, I do find that I use a selected mode from the camera settings most of the time these days. I only use a custom WB when I am in studio and wanting a neutral result. I don't think using (or not) any of these things diminishes one's status as a photographer, that is kind of ridiculous--like the arguments between which camera is better. The most important issue is to find the method that works for you and the way you work. WB is not fixed like it was in film days by the film, it is totally flexible and non destructive to the file (actually, there might be some argument here but it is not related to any settings we are talking about here). Figure out what works for you and use it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>AWB is never going to be right on.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, true - but it's going to be closer than "Daylight" when, just as the bird I've been trying to photograph for the last hour appears from the undergrowth, a big black cloud completely obscures the Sun and kills the light...</p>

<p>And it's another reason why shooting Raw matters.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Of all the auto features on a camera, I would think WB is possibly the one factor for which the photographer should never need any help. Focus assist, sure. Auto exposure, yes, sometimes, when the light is changing frequently/rapidly. But AWB? Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, simply put, there's a focus indicator to tell you when a manually focused lens is in focus, a meter bar to show you an exposure.... All those features a 'real' photographer should <em>never</em> need help with! (j/k of course), but last I check a live spectrometer wasn't a feature... So a photog only has the highly subjective, and continously adapting eyeball to 'judge' an absolute color temp... In a JPEG, exposure is far easier to correct than WB.</p>

<p>As I said, I don't have a horse in this race (since I shoot RAWS and regularly manually correct WB to suite the mood of the pic), but having a 'calibrated custom WB' feature would be kind of nice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Keith, I agree and I think with my editing of my entry here, I left out some key points. One is that regardless of what you use for WB, most will end up making some tweak to it in post--and the WB sliders aren't the only way it can be affected. I don't know that I ever leave the WB on my own images as they were shot. It isn't always that we want "perfect" WB--obviously it could defeat the purpose of shooting in the "golden hour". But even in more routine shots, little nuances in color can convey different effects. Perfect WB can be useful in some cases but it can also sterilize a scene. The goal should be to use, for the initial WB, whatever works best for us so that we can then interpret the scene as we intended most effectively.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Exactly, John - it's just a starting point, and better than others in many respects, especially if you shoot away from easy, comfortable, controlled situations, and where time is an issue.</p>

<p><em>What Nathan says, really...</em></p>

<p>And it's certainly not something simply to dismiss in the condescending way that John T did...</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Does anyone care? It is so easy to correct that it's barely worth thinking about."</em><br />That's if you don't have thousands of pictures to edit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In Lightroom you can edit a thousand photos almost as easily as editing one. Get one looking right and apply the same white balance to the rest. If that's not acceptable, use a gray card or the amazing Expodisc to set the white balance prior to capturing the scene. Or set a Kelvin temperature while reviewing the 5D3's gorgeous LCD screen.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...