lucas_jarvis

<p>Does anyone have any recommendations for a program to lay out proof albums? I would like to send jpg files that it compiles to my own album company of choice.<br>

I'm aware of photoshops contact sheet plugin but I am looking for something a little different. I would prefer random sizes on a page with the ability to switch photos around if the larger images are not the photos of my liking.<br>

If any recommendations require exclusive printing with a certain album company, I live in Australia.</p>

<p>Will it work like the RPG Keyboard? The RPG allows functions that aren't even keyboard shortcuts. If I had a keyboard that had programable macro's it wouldn't matter if lightroom itself didn't have a shortcut for the command. I'm not sure how the RPG keyboard works around this, it must have something to do with the software it comes with. Maybe it alters the program or something. If this 'super feature' you mention is some kind of workaround, then this would be a cheaper solution for sure.</p>

<p>Mark, RPG Keys is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>Does anyone have any links to companies that make Lightroom keyboards?<br>

I'm looking for one that would have sliders much like the slider bars in the software. One for explosure, one for colour balance and so on. I'm aware that you can press <+> and <Shift><+> to quickly change the slider that you currently have selected, but anytime you need to change to another slider you have to toggle through them. I would like to avoid this so if anyone has any ideas that would be great.</p>

<p>I've been using the 5D for three years, and just upgraded to the 5DII and I am not impresses by the image quality upgrade. Everytime I've upgraded in the past I've always had a HUGE jump in image quality, but the 5DII was more of a feature upgrade. The sensor I think is overkill with 21 megapixels and I would only see the difference with studio work or tripod mounted photos. Comparing Raws I found only a small increase in noise performance. It's definitely an improved camera with features that are welcome, but the price difference I don't think makes it justified. If money really is an issue, and image quality is your numero uno, then go for the 5D, because it only gets beat by a small margin when you look at the prints.</p>

<p>Steve, I take it you use M mode exclusively. I find using auto features like Av usefull and wouldn't call the 5D II a big point a shoot when using them would you? For instance, if you're intention was to shoot with minimal depth you might set your camera to M and pick your widest aperture and then dial in your shutter speed accordingly to get the proper exposure. I may set my camera to Av, pick the widest aperture and let the camera pick the shutter speed accordingly to get the proper exposure. I think both methods require a little thought (not much) and both have advantages and dissadvantages over one another. I feel auto iso is another feature that used with a little common knowlege of the camera can be used in a way that would pretty much mimmick how I would shoot anyway if picked manually.</p>

<p>I have a 5D II and noticed that when I'm using auto iso in combo with the flash it defaults to iso 400 and stays there. I'd like to use auto iso and fill flash. Does anyone know a workaround? Can the auto iso be limited like this?</p>

<p>Do the Nikon camera's allow you to use fill flash with their auto iso feature? I've bought a Canon 5D II and unfortunately when you turn on the flash it defaults to iso 400, even if it's clearly to be used as fill (-2).</p>

<p>Do any 3rd party manufacturers make a 24-70 equivalent lens for the 1d MkIII's 1.3 crop? Using a 24-70 doesn't go wide enough, and the 16-35 or 17-40 doesn't go long enough when used on the 1d. I'm thinking of purchasing this camera but I feel like I'd be changing lenses more often than I like while shooting a wedding.</p>

<p>I've actually had problems with my 580exII while shooting in portrait mode. The new way to attach these is with a quick release rather than a time consuming screw like all previous models. It wouldn't fire occasionally, and it would only happen in portrait orientation. My assumption was that it wasn't tight enough with the new quick release.</p>

<p>You're telling me. Our studio can shoot 6-8 wedding a weekend sometimes. And with our files plus out assistants it can sometimes get up to 2000 shots a wedding. It takes a whole day just to back up to dvd's. We are constantly weighing quality benefits to workflow benefits so sRaw was something to get excited about. It's a bit of a letdown.</p>

<p>Xavier, My tests have convinced me that sRaw1 must be using some kind of noise reduction (thought raw meant raw? not anymore!) Because of such a jump in noise compared to a downsized full raw file, plus there is a loss of detail. Both clear signs of software noise reduction.<br>

If you're planning on using the 5D2 and sRaw1, you'll get more resolving power from the old 5D. (Of course the megapixel difference would be an obvious reason for this, but even after downsizing the 5D to match the 5D2's 10 meg file the 5D comes out on top) I was hoping to use sRaw1 for most of the day while shooting weddings, while switching to full Raw for location shots. Panorama pages in albums are usually reserved for location photos and maybe a wide shot in the church.</p>

<p>Below is an interesting article written by the testers over at dpreview. There is an arguement out there that IF the per pixel noise is the same for a 21 megapixel camera to a 12 megapixel then the result of downsampling the 21 megapixel image to match that of the 12 megapixel image will result in roughly half as much noise, equaling a stop better perfomance in noise.<br>

This article disproves this arguement<br>

<a href="http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2008/11/downsampling-to.html">http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2008/11/downsampling-to.html</a><br>

To sum it up, downsampling by half gives you a 10% improvement, and downsampling to a quarter gives you a 20% improvement.<br>

Elliot, I think you're right in how I should make my decision. Are the extra features worth the upgrade? I can't say I will be using the video mode professionaly, but on vacation maybe. The screen is a nice upgrade, along with the highlight clip warning on full screen image view. The body feels more robust, and the larger info panel on the top is welcome. All the extra image tweaking options are useless to me as I shoot raw %99 of the time and these only apply to the jpgs.<br>

One feature that I was excited about was auto iso, but this feature has a crippling flaw that doesn't mix with my style of shooting. That flaw is that you can't use any fill flash. As soon as you're flash is on, it defaults to iso 400 and stays there. I was intending to use this feature in combination with Tv mode. I would be happy setting my camera to a shutter speed around 1/200th and let the camera pick the aperture and iso. It's a predictable feature because 1/200th is a shutterspeed higher than the camera would pick for most low light situations so it will in almost all situations shoot with the lens wide open, something that I want anyway. This would allow me to shoot at the highest sync speed, with fill flash, and the lowest iso for the situation at the widest aperture. I'm affraid auto iso will have to be used only when I'm not using flash.<br>

My first camera was a 300D, and then the 20D, and then the 5D. Each camera had an increase in megapixels and also about a stop of improvement in per pixel noise. I guess I was expecting something the same - a bigger improvement in image quality from a camera that is replacing a three year old camera.<br>

Maybe we are reaching the peak of low noise results from the current technology and the only thing we have now is more megapixels and features. Camera manufacures seem to be fudging the results with processed jpgs, and hidden processing on Raw files even. The new features and megapixels are a welcome impovement of course as the 5D is way behind in terms of features, but it's image quality has only slightly been improved on in the three years since it's release. It's amazing when you think about it.<br>

I'm leaning towards returning the 5D2 at this point and waiting for the 1D4. If the 1D4 is full frame with lower megapixels, great noise performance, and a pro body then it's truly the camera I've been waiting for. It just has to be full frame though, has to.</p>

<p>I stand corrected Ed, you totally got me on that one! Although, as long as you have your tripod mount you'll be ok.</p>

<p>Haha, yeah, kinda like that. But I don't pay for my girlfriends.</p>

<p>I bought a 5D 2 about three weeks ago and I've had a few tech issues with it already. One was communication errors with it and my lens. Another was sync issues with my flash.<br>

I've been fortunate enough that the store is replacing it with a new copy. But, in my short time with it, I've done a round of image tests that has left me a little sick to my stomach because of the money I have invested. The 5D2 is in my mind not a huge upgrade in the image quality department over my original 5D that I've been using for 2 years.<br>

My oppinion is contrary to most reviews I know. But I've been looking closer at most of the reviews out there now, and I've noticed that a lot of the claims of amazing low light ability is based on the camera's jpgs, and not the raws. There is a lot more to a camera then the high iso abilities but this is one area that I was excited about and had high expectations.<br>

Let me describe the tests I have run and the results that I have found. The first test was for resolution. I shot images from both cameras at 100iso, raw, and then upsized the 5D to match the resolution of the 5D2. This test came out as I expected with the winner being the 5D2. That difference wasn't huge though, but clearly the 5d2 wins in ideal shooting situations. On the other hand, I don't normally use a tripod on brightly lit days, so for my shooting style (weddings) I am more likely to get image softness from using wide open apertures and hand holding all my shots that put the extra megapixels of the 5D2 to waist. I'm not too stressed about this though as I didn't buy the camera for the 21 megapixels and extra resolution even though I regularly do 20x30 prints.<br>

My noise tests is what has really bothered me. I shot both camera's using iso 3200 in 3200k temperature lighting. I processed in ACR and again upsized the 5d to match the 5d2. I honestly couldn't see a whole lot of difference! The 5d2 was only slightly better.<br>

Here is something i found very interesting though. I've heard claims that sRaw1 (10 megapixel) shows a lot less noise than the full raw. So I ran a test of 5D2 sRaw1 vs. 5d at iso 3200. There must be some noise reduction at the raw level because the noise from the 5D2's sRaw1 was extremely low and a hell of a lot better than the 5d. But there's more! After upsizing the 5D2's sRaw1 files to match that of the 5D's raw file, the resolution of the 5D's files absolutly kill it! There was no comparison. So much so that I would not ever consider the sRaw1 setting on the 5D2 as there is so much noise reduction that it creates soft images.<br>

Below is the only site I've found that compares the Raw files of the 5D to the 5D2. If anyone knows any more could you please post them. I have a decision to make about returning the 5D2 but I'm affraid I'll regret it if I find my tests were flawed in some way. I could be overlooking something so I'd like to discuss it a little further. I'll have to say that the site below shows more of a difference than my tests but it was done in a more controlled environment and also using pure white lights where I used tungsten. I've never thought using daylight balanced lighting to test noise was very smart but it seems most places use this method of testing.<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx</a><br>

If 5D2 owners could do a few of their own comparisons to the old 5D and share their findings with me it would help me out a lot. Maybe there is something wrong with the circuitry in my camera knowing the other problems that I've experienced with it so far.</p>

 

<p>My 5D II has just been returned as well. I've had two different issues with it. One was a message that there was a communication error between it and my lens. This is a lens that I have had no problems with in the past.<br>

The other was with flash photography. Shooting low light full flash was randomly giving me black frames. I could see that it was firing a strobe but it was like it wasn't syncing. I was shooting at 1/60th and tried using three sets of fully charged batteries.<br>

Sorry I can't help you with your issue but it's worth noting that you're not alone with 5D II tech problems.<br>

For the past three years I've been sadly dissapointed with the quality of my canon gear. I'm constantly taking my equipment in for repairs. My previous 5D had three major issues over it's 2 years of use. I could argue that I'm using a prosumer camera for professional use and it's seeing a lot more wear than most people would put on it but I've also been having issues with brand new equipment as well.<br>

I hope I have no issues with my new copy. I'll be getting it when stock arrives.</p>

It definately has to do with the flash because my 5D went down on a job a few weeks ago and I was having even more problems with it on my backup 20D.

I think it may have to do with the new locking mechanism, but when I put the

camera into portait (verticle) shooting position it doesn't fire all the time.

If I apply a bit of support under the flash it fires away. This doesn't happen

every time I shoot, but on the job it causes me a bit of stress. I thought

maybe I had a lemon, but I was telling another photographer on a job of this

problem and he said he noticed the same thing. His assistant walked into the

conversation and said she had the same problem as well.Canon hasn't issued a

statement regarding it so I'm not sure if it's a case of just a select amount

affected. Is anyone else experiencing this problem, or have any advice?

Thanks Tim, but all of these shots are adjustments on the software level. Regardless of what setting you're using, the same spectrum of light is hitting the sensor. I'm curious to see if actually changing the colour of the light will result in cleaner images since the balance of rgb that the camera performs best on will be restored.

Or would a 'tungsten sensor' have more blue pixels to compensate for the lack of blue light?

My thoughts exactly. My idea was to get the ratio of rgb back to the temperature that the camera performs best on. I had a hunch that this might be a better solution than white balance on the digital front.

 

Now, I don't own a blue filter or gels, so I was wondering if one of you may have the chance to test it out before I spend time and money trying it for myself.

 

I'm also wondering if down the road we may see camera's that have interchangeable sensors with each optimized for a different temp of light. Or maybe a seperate camera with each. Would a 'tungten sensor' have a ratio of more red pixels? Just a thought, but there are some applications where I think it might be usefull.

Shooting with the white balance setting on 'tungsten' just adds gain to the

blue channel which creates noise, so I thought that maybe if I use a blue

filter and balance things out before it hits the sensor it might have an

advantage. I assume it would take a longer exposure to get the same image with

a filter in front that blocks light. Would that longer exposure then add more

noise creating the same level of noise as if I wasn't using the filter?

 

If anyone is an expert on this I'd like to hear what you have to say as I'd

like to improve my low light room shots that are lit by tungsten lights.

 

Thanks

Sorry, yes, you are correct. These were rechargeable alkaline I was looking at.

I've checked google and they do have 1.5V AA rechargeables.

 

How do 1.5V Ni-MH rechargeable batteries compare to 1.2V Ni-MH rechargeable batteries?