hawkman

<p>I have observed this issue as well. It seems that disabling "moire' reduction" somehow tricks the software not to apply what appears to be a heavy luminance NR to the 5D3 CR2 files to make them appear cleaner. <br>

However even with disabling the moire reduction, slightest change even in the chroma NR slider will push the software to default back to the heavy NR which smears the details.<br>

I have notified my contact at Canon about this. At the mean time please take some time to report this issue so they can fix it-thanks. </p>

 

<p>Richard,<br>

100-400 is a good lens for perched brids but not for flight, if you are interested in flight shots get the 400 f/5.6L instead which is a lot faster to focus and track. Also forget about using a TC with 100-400 and taping the pins, it will not work well, there is a reason Canon disabled AF at first place. of course 500 f/4 IS is the bread and butter of birding, offers highest image quality and fastest focus but does need experience hand holding and panning. In either case you need a lot of practice getting razor sharp flight shots is not something everybody can do, you need to practice to improve your reflexes and consistency between eye, brain and mussels, it will improve over time, to start use shutter speed of 1/1600sec or faster, crank up the ISO if necessary.<br>

Here is the method I have devised for microadjusting my lenses :<br>

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=58042<br>

Good luck<br>

P.S. for specific advice regarding BIF shots also checkout BPN forums http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/index.php lots of tips and tricks about how to improve your photos.</p>

<p>It is the ambient light sensor, turn it off.</p>

<p>Is there a way to download all photos in a folder at once?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>I have a 1D MkIV here in my hands for testing for a photo.net review. I will only have it until the end of the week.<br>

Basically I agree with Scott. I don't think I'm qualified to measure AF performance. I can say it's as good as or better than any other EOS DSLR I've ever used, but I can't think of any way to definitively nail down how good it is and under what conditions is not quite as good as it could be. I'm not really sure if anyone can. Nothing is ever going to be 100% under all conditions. I'm pretty sure that photo.net will not be flying me to the Winter Olympics and giving me a 600/4L IS USM so that I can do some serious field testing...<br>

So I probably won't even attempt any serious AF testing. I think only time and reports from users who are shooting professionally with the camera day-in day-out will tell. If your income depends on getting the shot you can bet we will hear if there are any serious complaints from anyone other than RG. I suspect that mere mortals will be delighted with the AF capabilities of the 1d MkIV.<br>

My impression so far is that the 1D MkIV is an incredible camera. A precision tool. It's priced out of my range and it's big and heavy so I doubt I'll be buying one, but if someone was to give me one as a gift, I'd certainly hold onto it!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Good points Bob, nothing is 100%. So far all are saying good things which is great, will have the camera soon, looking forward to flight shots! But you got to consider the fact that this camera is indeed made for pros who have the 500, 600 and 800 teles and at times, their entire career can well depend on a single photograph. So their concerns are quite different from an average shooter or a wealthy hobbyist. I don't think we will ever hear too many negative comments about MKIV, majority of pros who were complaining about MKIII have already switched to the dark side and those who were happy with MKIII will be even more happy with MK IV! <br>

Any ways, good points and so far seen many great action shots! looking forward to mine!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is normal, as the sensor goes through charge/recharge cycles some pixels may not discharge correctly and remain "stuck" for a while. sudden changes in temperature may aggregate this issue. Nikon will map the pixels but additional hot pixels will appear in future. My 700 has this issue too, it would be nice if Nikon provides automatic hot pixel mapping in camera firmware.</p>

<p>Good tripods have already been mentioned, but try out the mopods as well. I use a Gitzo 3551 CF monopod+ RRS RH1 head with my 500 f/4. It depends on your shooting style, I prefer to be light and mobile in the field so I don't carry a tripod.</p>

<p>Hi surya,<br>

My impression is your lens/camera is slightly back-focus. I find the 24-70 AF to be pretty accurate although I have a D700 which makes a difference in this case. The newer cameras have AF fine tune feature which lets you calibrate the slight back and front focus issues, unfortunately with the older cameras you have to send them to Nikon for adjustment.<br>

Here is a more accurate focus test method which uses moire interference pattern as opposed to simple separated lines, with this method you can check/calibrate AF down to single pixel limit but don't get too much occupied with it :)<br>

Please follow the directions in this link http://www.komar.org/faq/camera/auto-focus-test/</p>

<p>Arvind,<br>

The samples you posted are absolutely normal for a 5min exposure, my 5DMKII has hot pixels too for long exposures. You can turn ON long exposure NR to get rid of these.</p>

<p>I have also seen this when CfnIII-4 is set to off, the camera will not attempt to search in extreme defocus cases, either rotate the MF ring a bit or set this function to ON.</p>

<p> </p>

If you have any samples taken in similar conditions I would be interested to see them. Thanks

<p>Thanks Dan you are right the DR in the scene is quite high and I am actually happy with MKII's handling in this regard it has good highlight detail and it has also rendered the clouds. My only objection is this pattern noise in the cloud area, the problem is human eye and brain are very sensitive to patterns as opposed to random noise. In the original image I haven't done any adjustments no EC, high light shadow and the ALO feature was also turned off so it's pretty much straight out of the camera. <br /> I agree it would be better to blend several exposures one for shadows one for mid-tones and one for highlights and then blend them. But at the same time I would also like to learn about the limitations of my gear so I can make the best decision in terms of exposure in a given situation. So from what you say this amount of banding is pretty much expected, that's what I wanted to confirm-Thanks.<br /> The other issue was the increase in noise with enabling long exposure NR, have you notices this also?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dan,<br /> Thanks I already made a test print and banding/noise is visible in the sky in the form of grains and patches, print size was 24X16 on true matte paper. It would even be more visible in larger prints. But all this wasn't my question, my question was whether other owners of 5DMKII see this issue or not so I know whether to send my camera for service. Also as I mentioned I tried with other cameras including a 7D and they did not exhibit his issue.<br /> Thanks.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Erm…you <em>do</em> realize that that’s one of the textbook examples of what <strong>not</strong> to do if you don’t like noise?<br /> May I suggest? Do your normal post-processing routine, including appropriate noise reduction, sharpening, and the like. Then make a test print. I’d be quite surprised if there’s anything to be seen in the print.<br /> In other words, I strongly suspect that you have Pixel Peeping Syndrome, the cure for which is to make prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ben please read the post carefully before responding, the original image has no exposure compensation, the later example was to demonstrate the effects of long exposure NR.</p>

<p>After looking at my photos more closely I went back and did a controlled test with long exposure noise reduction set to OFF and then ON. Then I raised the exposure in post by 1.5 EV to magnify the noise and to my surprise the image with dark frame subtraction shows more noise than the one without it. Here is the example, this shows there is a bug in the camera's dark frame subtraction algorithm that it accentuates fixed pattern noise. The photos with long exposure NR disabled still show the vertical banding but it is better than the shots I got with this option enabled.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi Bill,<br>

I am using DPP 3.7.2, fixed pattern noise is usually in the form of vertical or horizontal bands consistent with the sensor readout electronics which reads signal in parallel rows or columns. I think the arches are more of a posterization issue than sensor banding noise. Nevertheless when I scroll up to the sky area away from the rooftop I can clearly see grain and some vertical strips, sometimes if the screen is too contrasty you may not see them but on my calibrated screen which usually matches the prints I get it shows up very clearly.</p>

<p>Thanks Roger, I agree in general it is not difficult to fix but I want to confirm this is normal behavior for the camera. The reason I am concerned is that I did the same scene with the 7D and a different brand camera and none of them exhibited the pattern noise I am seeing here.<br>

What is more interesting is that when you turn on the long exposure NR it actually gets worse, you would expect that fix pattern noise would be eliminated by performing dark frame subtraction which is what long exposure NR does. Ironically my camera has firmware 1.2.4, among the list of things this firmware was supposed to fix is<br>

<em><strong>This firmware update corrects a phenomenon that if the [C.Fn II-1 Long exposure noise reduction] setting is set to [2: On], noise may appear in images that are captured while the previous image is still being generated.</strong> </em></p>

<p>So do you guys see the same thing with your 5D MKII?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Interesting Dieter,<br /> Are you sure you don't see anything in the sky areas (monitor contrast maybe too high?).<br /> Can you indicate what kind of monitor you are using, whether it is calibrated and if you have a Mac or PC?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

<p>yes the horizontal bands in that area and the sky.</p>

<p>I am doing some night photography with 5DMKII, I will be printing large (24" or wider) posters and some of these photos will be displayed on 4 (2X2) 40" full HD screens. I am seeing some noise and banding in the low contrast areas of the sky even at ISO100, this will appear in the prints. Has anyone noticed this?<br /> firmware is 1.2.4 lens Canon 24-105L IS (on tripod IS OFF) Canon DPP 3.7.2 for processing RAW files. <br /> <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/examples/IMG_6457.JPG">Here is a link to the full size photo with no compression</a><br>

noise is in the cloud area. Image is copyrighted and for inspection only.</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From the DxOMark <em>Beta</em> website:<br /> <br /> <strong>DxOMark Sensor measures only the RAW image quality of a digital camera; therefore, DxOMark Sensor is not an evaluation of overall camera image quality or performance.</strong></p>

<p>Paul,<br>

Are you contacting regular Canon technical support or CPS?<br>

Try 1-877-CPS-8122. Mention your business and use of Canon gear and ask for a replacement camera. Do mention that if camera is not fixed/replaced you will switch to Nikon and share your experience with your colleagues.</p>

<p>I just wanted to add that I returned the 50 lens and got a 24-105L instead to use it for general purpose situations. AF is much better than the 50, even in low light I can track subjects in AI-servo mode, here is one example, peripheral points aren't bad either as long as you give them enough contrast... Time for Canon to make a proper 50mm with good AF and low distortion.<br /> Focus point was on the umbrella.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Another one</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Samples from 7D</p>

<p> </p><div></div>