PDA

View Full Version : Owners: ISO reports, please.



Kholi
09-30-2009, 04:31 PM
5D, my threshold was 640 ISO. I find it bordering dangerous on the MKii...


7D - 640 - 1/50 - Zeiss Contax 180/2.8 @ F4 - Tiffen ND 8 + 2
http://www.kholi.net/180MMF4ND8_2_640_ISO.jpg

I forgot I had the ISO up to 640 ( was doing a deep focus shot with the 180 ) and ended up capturing this. I'm quite surprised at how clean it is. I'm going to try some 1250 stuff, but question is if anyone's had a chance to skim through the ISO's to see which increments are cleaner?

I assumed it's the same as the 5D but maybe I'm wrong.

(Sorry, slightly soft focused. Sunlight killed my eyes~)

J Davis
09-30-2009, 05:04 PM
(Sorry, slightly soft focused.

because you were focusing off the LCD that comes with the cam?
How does the LCD compare with the GH1?

Kholi
09-30-2009, 05:08 PM
Yeah. But it's not the lcds fault. It's the sun in my eyes. I can focus off of a 2.5 inch ikan sd LCD fine. This is tons better. Just wasn't in a good spot.

gh1 still wins the LCD battle. Articulating can't be beat. I'll suffer lower resolution for somehing I can actually use without transforming into some sort of gangly bird what's neck can articulate like the arm of a gorilla pod.

My 2.5" ikan needs a new battery pack. Should be good in a few days.

PaPa
09-30-2009, 05:11 PM
is that the cam with saturation adn contrast all the way down?

Michael Olsen
09-30-2009, 05:17 PM
It looks like 640 is a very nice place to pitch a tent.

Kholi
09-30-2009, 05:17 PM
You know it, papa. Plus nds

In neutral.

Quite pleasing. I played footage back on my Sammy 46" and the contrast and saturation
added by the screen made it look quite freaking nice.

bcheong
09-30-2009, 05:47 PM
I just tested ISO's at 100, 200, 400, 500, 800, 1600 and 3200. From my initial tests I found that there wasn't a huge increase in noise from 500 to 800 - it was quite comparable. You definitely start seeing noticeable noise at 1600 to 3200. I'll post results soon.

I also tested Canon's High ISO noise reduction options (tested @ 800, 1600 and 3200) and found they did nothing to improve the situation. Perhaps it only takes effect for stills usage.

Kholi
09-30-2009, 05:50 PM
Yeah, I don't think that noise reduction works for video. That's probably a good thing though.

Sounds like 800 may be fairly reliable, though. Sweet!

bcheong
09-30-2009, 06:09 PM
ISO testing results:

http://www.barrycheong.com/blog/?p=231

Will definitely be testing again with a higher range of contrast and textures. Since I wanted to maintain the same stop on the lens the lighting shifts a little from test to test. I'll try to get my hands on some ND's next time instead of netting and scriming stuff down. Base was T/2.8 1/2 @ 100 ISO.

Luis Caffesse
09-30-2009, 06:11 PM
No hardcore testing here - but from the little bit of shooting I've done so far, I pretty much zeroed in on 800-1000 as my limit as to what I thought was 'acceptable.'

Of course, 'acceptable' is a subject thing... but, for what it's worth it seems like we're all hitting on the same range.

J Davis
09-30-2009, 06:28 PM
I did regular shipping *sigh*

Perry Wilson
09-30-2009, 06:35 PM
I am so excited mine ships from Newegg tomorrow with UPS Guaranteed 3 day shipping

bcheong
09-30-2009, 06:36 PM
Results from the High ISO Noise Reduction options. No apparent improvement from setting to setting. Bummer.

http://www.barrycheong.com/blog/?p=234

jenningsp
09-30-2009, 06:58 PM
considering we're limited to f2.8 - on the wide end atleast - with most lenses... i kinda need ~ ISO 2000-2500 to be usable... i don't mind a bit of grain. like nice film grain. as long as there's no crazy banding or colours or lines that show up etc...

on the 5D i was using 1250 at f2 and that's what i needed for my most extreme lowlight work...

and suprisingly it all works out to be the equivilant to T500 with T1.3 super speeds :) which is kinda good to learn to set your limit at that visualy.

maybe i'll be forced to use a 35mm f1.4 and nothing wider for night shots. then i can get away with ISO 640.

Kholi
09-30-2009, 07:06 PM
Jennings. Use it before you assumeit. LoL

it's QUITE fast, dude. 2.8 @ 640 or 800 ISO is sweet indoors.

jenningsp
09-30-2009, 07:47 PM
kholi. 2.8 at 800 would only be just enough for an interior shoot in most of the houses i know. and that's in a nice house with lamps and brown walls. of course i'm talking about natural lighting. maybe suplimenting it with a chinese lantern here and there.

but i can shoot those locations with proper lighting and my HDcam/adapter kit already.

i just DP'd a 5d shoot with my f2 nikon prime kit. we lit an entire street set with 2 gennies. 1x 2k, 2x redheads, 1x 600w fraynel. it was insane. half the interior scenes were shot with just a 20w CFL in a chinese lantern and a super dimmed 4 bank kino as a fill.

i wanna keep doing that. and be able to shoot at night with no lights in the midle of the city or in a bar and go dogma with a lowprofile multi cam shoot and wireless mics. isn't that the dream? :)

Kholi
09-30-2009, 07:58 PM
kholi. 2.8 at 800 would only be just enough for an interior shoot in most of the houses i know. and that's in a nice house with lamps and brown walls. of course i'm talking about natural lighting. maybe suplimenting it with a chinese lantern here and there.

but i can shoot those locations with proper lighting and my HDcam/adapter kit already.

i just DP'd a 5d shoot with my f2 nikon prime kit. we lit an entire street set with 2 gennies. 1x 2k, 2x redheads, 1x 600w fraynel. it was insane. half the interior scenes were shot with just a 20w CLF in a chinese lantern and a super dimmed 4 bank kino as a fill.

i wanna keep doing that. and be able to shoot at night with no lights in the midle of the city or in a bar and go dogma with a lowprofile multi cam shoot and wireless mics. isn't that the dream? :)

I still think you can, man. I'll find out for ya, though. Everything I shoot's either with 150w HMI's or China Balls. If I couldnt' do that I would be disappointed but so far, with the 7D, I can.

PaPa
10-01-2009, 07:34 AM
You know it, papa. Plus nds

In neutral.

Quite pleasing. I played footage back on my Sammy 46" and the contrast and saturation
added by the screen made it look quite freaking nice.

Fantastic. My camera should be here by noon today!

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 07:54 AM
I did some extensive side by side iso tests between the 5d and 7d yesterday. Been working 18 hour days and not able to post video up.

I will say this.
The 7d and 5d are nearly identical at low isos.
The 5d holds up better when you get into the 1250 ISO and up range, in terms of total noise (assuming you have calibrated or at least are shooting with a neutral picture style).
The 7d does worse with underexposure but also appears to need less light if all settings between the 5d and 7d are the same (possibly because the sensor is smaller?).
Also - the banding I saw with my 5d every so often when I shot high ISO (eg 5000 ISO) doesn't appear on the 7d. The 7d has more total noise at these ISO settings, but I have found them to be more "natural" looking. Obviously this is an opinion. The 7d's noise appears to dance where as the 5d's can be fairly stationary - hopefully that makes sense.
On top of that. With all settings the same, the color rendition out of the 7d appears to be slightly superior, but again that is a critical educated look and nothing explicitly scientific yet.

I am being as critical and cautious of this camera as I was when I got my 5d and my GH1 (sold the GH1 because the codec gave me headaches).

This is an INCREDIBLE camera. Possibly my favorite camera I have ever used (This includes all the $100,000+ big boys).

ydgmdlu
10-01-2009, 08:19 AM
The 7d does worse with underexposure but also appears to need less light if all settings between the 5d and 7d are the same (possibly because the sensor is smaller?).
It probably has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. (Why would it?) The differences between the image of the 7D and that of the 5D seem to suggest differences in sensor design. Different design explains the different brightness levels, noise pattern, color rendition, latitute, etc.

I realize that I might be stating the obvious, but I don't think that we should attribute the differences to anything else without good reason.


The 7d's noise appears to dance where as the 5d's can be fairly stationary - hopefully that makes sense.This jibes with other reports. In other words, good news: The 7D doesn't have so much of a "fixed pattern noise" problem. And it's not just an opinion; we can scientifically determine it just by shooting and analyzing footage.


With all settings the same, the color rendition out of the 7d appears to be slightly superior, but again that is a critical educated look and nothing explicitly scientific yet.Could this also be just an opinion?


This is an INCREDIBLE camera. Possibly my favorite camera I have ever used (This includes all the $100,000+ big boys).Awesome. :D

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 08:25 AM
The reason I wondered about sensor size was that I have the same lens with the same opening for light to get through and less surface area to have to expose. Just curious if that in itself could account for a 1/2 stop difference.

The color rendition comment. I shouldn't have said nothing scientific since my comments are based on looking at color charts. I haven't analyzed the data, simply watched the color chart footage. On a calibrated monitor, the 7d with the same settings looks to be pushing a distinguishably more accurate color.

Obviously more testing must be done.

ydgmdlu
10-01-2009, 08:30 AM
The reason I wondered about sensor size was that I have the same lens with the same opening for light to get through and less surface area to have to expose. Just curious if that in itself could account for a 1/2 stop difference.
You have to think in terms of per-unit area and how much light each photosite is seeing. The crop sensor is capturing less of the overall image circle, not seeing more light per-unit area.


I shouldn't have said nothing scientific since my comments are based on looking at color charts. I have analyzed the data, simply watched the color chart footage. On a calibrated monitor, the 7d with the same settings look to be pushing a more accurate color.
Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense now.

ryansheffer
10-01-2009, 08:35 AM
Cool. Thanks for the explanation.

Mark Harris
10-01-2009, 03:40 PM
Kholi, I think the image at the top of this thread looks pretty incredible. Any chance of a moving clip of the same????

Kholi
10-01-2009, 04:28 PM
Ill vimeo a section of it. One sec.

Kholi
10-01-2009, 04:54 PM
5 minutes til it's viewable on vimeo. Nothing special, just some stuff meant for MOS.

Kholi
10-01-2009, 04:57 PM
6859135

or: http://www.vimeo.com/6859135

Kholi
10-01-2009, 05:15 PM
6859459

http://www.vimeo.com/6859459

squig
10-01-2009, 05:21 PM
Are you noticing an improvement in the compression with the higher bitt-rate and more data per frame @ 24p?

Kholi
10-01-2009, 05:26 PM
Stuff's being colored and cut right now. Was told that it looks like it does hold up slightly better but nothing crazy. Not seeing a lot of noise in darks, as you can see there's dark hair there and it would've shown up I think?

Personally, the MKii's compression was already fine for just about everything under RED jobs, this is slightly better compression with lower framerates...I'm pretty sure it's just fine. =P

Kholi
10-01-2009, 05:37 PM
6859652

http://www.vimeo.com/6859652

Mark Harris
10-01-2009, 05:56 PM
Thanks Kholi.

Michael Olsen
10-01-2009, 05:58 PM
Appreciate it, Kholi. Looks great.

Kholi
10-01-2009, 06:14 PM
No problemos. All stuff uncolored/untouched. Just clipped out of the file and uploaded.

Will post more gradually tonight. Indoors ISO stuff for those wondering.

Michael Olsen
10-01-2009, 06:23 PM
Feel free to show us what happens when you get around to grading it, as well :)

bwwd
10-01-2009, 06:47 PM
This looks very filmic,best examples from 7d so far

squig
10-01-2009, 06:53 PM
No problemos. All stuff uncolored/untouched. Just clipped out of the file and uploaded.

Will post more gradually tonight. Indoors ISO stuff for those wondering.

picture settings?

Kholi
10-01-2009, 06:56 PM
Same on every camera: Neutral, Everything dialed down. =P All contrast is done with, well, lighting! Floppies and Opal are your friends. With a little 150w HMI kick here and there.

NoxNoctus
10-01-2009, 06:56 PM
I'll probably get dogged for this, I sliiiightly color corrected out the orange cast from an off white balance

Shot next to a tungsten light with a half-working 18-55 crappy kit lens at f/3.5 at ISO 2500 in 24P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHXqG4DT-5A

mHXqG4DT-5A

Rakesh Jacob
10-01-2009, 07:56 PM
Shot next to a tungsten light with a half-working 18-55 crappy kit lens at f/3.5 at ISO 2500 in 24P

Zosia looks good at 2500 iso! How is your 18-55 half working, just curious?

NoxNoctus
10-01-2009, 08:12 PM
Zosia looks good at 2500 iso! How is your 18-55 half working, just curious?

Thanks! It's the crummy kit lens they toss in with Rebel XTs and the like. The entire front element shifts in your hands and angles slightly when you manually focus it. This one's old and creaky, focus is jittery and the zoom is as smooth as an unfinished wood slide...

I'm doing some daylight countryside testing tomorrow as well as a little divebar band performance tomorrow night. I wish I had better lenses already, still waiting on my Nikkor adaptor to arrive from china so I can use my purdy glass!

I have to say, with my little livingroom test, so far I'm beyond FLOORED with the high iso quality. I can't wait to see what this beast does with some quality glass

Rakesh Jacob
10-01-2009, 08:19 PM
Yeah I havnt been liking the 18-55 that came with my T1i either. I pretty much just leave the 50mm 1.8 on there the whole time which is awesome especially for the price. Every once in a while I'll stick the kit lens on casue I'm thinking maybe I'm not giving it a fair chance and it's just so crappy looking. I just rather ride with the 50mm and walk my fat butt back and forth for now LOL

NoxNoctus
10-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Quick still snap at ISO 12800!
I did a standard pass of NoiseNinja on the right side to see how well it would clean up....I now have an oil painting of my dog without the hassle ;-p
I'm impressed still. Coming from a D300, which was pretty decent. Unlikely I'll ever produce anything at 12800 but it's nice to know it's there for...for something!...

http://captured-essence.com/photos/667448521_tLcpH-L.jpg

Full 18MP size
Right Click, Save. HUGE file! (http://captured-essence.com/photos/667448521_tLcpH-D.jpg)


100% Crop

http://captured-essence.com/photos/667445076_4FQ8q-O.jpg

jenningsp
10-01-2009, 10:18 PM
Woah kholi…. I don’t know if it’s my work PC’s lcd or vimeo but the blowing out on the skin looks hideous all posterizing and what not. Is that what the original looks like?

Kholi
10-01-2009, 10:24 PM
I think it's your screen. LOL. There's one blow out on the rack focus right beneath the girls eye. Didn't intend on grabbing that rack at all so didn't see it until after I cut.

Should be noticed that there was pretty much a mirror board in her face pressing High Noon sun at her.

The rest is probably just your screen, sadly. What monitor are you using? Between the 46", 37", 24", my 17" notebook and my 10" Wind they all show highlights pretty well. I generally watch stuff on a bunch of different computer LCD's and my two LCD TVs to see how other people might see it.

The 250 dollar MSI Wind looks the worse of all, but still no posterization otuside of that one I mentioned. The 24" Gateway is next in line, the 46" 1080 Sammy looks just shy of incredible showing 7D footage without any work done to it.

jenningsp
10-01-2009, 10:35 PM
glad to hear it's my screen. im on a core duo Dell laptop. i'm locked out of all the settings though... damn admins.

i'll have to check it out on my mac/22" trinitron HD CRT at home :)

Kholi
10-01-2009, 10:38 PM
glad to hear it's my screen. im on a core duo Dell laptop. i'm locked out of all the settings though... damn admins.

i'll have to check it out on my mac/22" trinitron HD CRT at home :)

Definitely the best place to test it. I did gettowatch some straight HDMI out to a 22" SONY HD Production LCD and it looked sick

NoxNoctus
10-01-2009, 10:46 PM
For sheer madness' sake, 24P at ISO 12800.

Shot on a EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIXnl2uLBek

wIXnl2uLBek

ydgmdlu
10-01-2009, 11:01 PM
ISO 12800 doesn't look too bad when footage is down-scaled and recompressed for the Web...

Kholi
10-01-2009, 11:03 PM
It doesn't. If it's just web only and STRICTLY web only you can get away with a lot.

USLatin
10-02-2009, 08:12 AM
12800 looks great considering it might as well be night vision without the green. :)

PaPa
10-02-2009, 02:49 PM
kholi, i did some tests today with the contrast all the way down, but even then my images are very high in contrast. What are you doing to get the flat look?

ydgmdlu
10-02-2009, 02:53 PM
If you choose a different picture profile, it makes a difference. I think that Kholi said that he used "Neutral." The contrast/sharpness/saturation/tone controls are specific to each picture profile.

PaPa
10-02-2009, 03:15 PM
yes. I too chose a custom picture profile, and brough most of the settings down. The contrast and saturation are lowed on mine, but it's still quite heavy in contrast.

Does it have anything to do with my version of the quicktime codec?

ydgmdlu
10-02-2009, 03:19 PM
Does it have anything to do with my version of the quicktime codec?
The only way to know is if you can play Kholi's raw files on your computer.

Try the "Neutral" picture profile and then dial-down the settings. That's what Kholi said that he did.

Isaac_Brody
10-02-2009, 03:20 PM
Try neutral. I shot with that today and dropped the contrast to get a pretty flat picture. It was actually almost too flat for my tastes.

Kholi
10-02-2009, 03:27 PM
It may have to do with your screen. But most assuredly the glass you're using. My zeiss glass isn't super contrasry and add to that i use nds on
nearly everything.

PaPa
10-02-2009, 03:28 PM
why try neutral setting? Am i missing something? These settings have the same level of control as when i do a custom settings. In my custom settings, i brought contrast all the way down with sharpness, so it should be the same no?

squig
10-02-2009, 04:13 PM
yes. I too chose a custom picture profile, and brough most of the settings down. The contrast and saturation are lowed on mine, but it's still quite heavy in contrast.

Does it have anything to do with my version of the quicktime codec?

Are you using quicktime X in snow leopard? I found a bug in it, it's crushing the blacks on the H.264 files out of the MKII and I presume the 7D too. Quicktime 7 can be installed and run in snow leopard and it doesn't crush blacks. I've reported the bug to Matt over at cinema 5D, he's a quicktime beta tester. Prores/fcp still only relies on quicktime 7 so the bug isn't a problem for editing and rendering.

I'll post this as a separate thread as somebody could get caught out if they're on a shoot and they dump some files onto their mac to preview them in quicktime X.

Kholi
10-02-2009, 04:34 PM
why try neutral setting? Am i missing something? These settings have the same level of control as when i do a custom settings. In my custom settings, i brought contrast all the way down with sharpness, so it should be the same no?

Well you asked how I got my image to look
like that.

Neutral profile
contrast down
sharpness down
saturation one marker away from down.

The rest is light and lens.

davetronic
10-02-2009, 08:10 PM
kholi... i too will be using a C/Y prime set for low-light interiors on a shoot next week. which adapter are you using? cameraquest? just received the camera and excited to get the glass on...

Kholi
10-02-2009, 08:32 PM
Roxsen from Ebay. Got a whole mess of adapters in C/Y and NIkon flavors.

PaPa
10-02-2009, 11:29 PM
not using MAc, using PC. But when i go to neutral, my settings for contrast are already down. Hrm.

Isaac_Brody
10-02-2009, 11:45 PM
Roxsen from Ebay. Got a whole mess of adapters in C/Y and NIkon flavors.

I'm using Roxsen C/Y adapters from ebay. They're solid.

USLatin
10-03-2009, 12:26 AM
I've been trying to find those Roxsen adapters on eBay, but I guess I am eBay challenged. Can someone help me pls?

Isaac_Brody
10-03-2009, 12:31 AM
http://cgi.ebay.com/AF-Adapter-for-Contax-YASHICA-LENS-TO-CANON-EOS-MOUNT_W0QQitemZ400060792164QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens _Accessories?hash=item5d257b3d64&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262

USLatin
10-03-2009, 12:59 AM
http://cgi.ebay.com/AF-Adapter-for-Contax-YASHICA-LENS-TO-CANON-EOS-MOUNT_W0QQitemZ400060792164QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLens _Accessories?hash=item5d257b3d64&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1262

There you are u little...

Thanks. :beer:

powervideo
10-03-2009, 05:54 PM
Roxsen from Ebay. Got a whole mess of adapters in C/Y and NIkon flavors.

I'm a Zeiss Contax guy too Kholi. Doesn't that mod the seller says to do with the little bit of paper to jam the Roxsen adaptor cause any issues?

Peter

Kholi
10-03-2009, 05:57 PM
Never read a paper mod. What's wrong with 'em? I know some of them can slip loose but it's just retightening screws or bending the lock pin a little on the adapter itself.

No perfect solution, sadly. Just does what I cans.

P.S. My new favorite C/Y Zeiss Lens is the 180/2.8

powervideo
10-03-2009, 06:16 PM
Hi Kholi,

Yes he has this "special note" about Canon lenses.

http://www.anestore.com/acess/ring/afring/afeos.htm

The actual eBay listing is here;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400060792164&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

180mm is nice. I'm looking for one now. I have a few Contax's

Zeiss 28mm 2.8 (I really want the f2.0)
Zeiss 50mm 1.4
Zeiss 85mm 2.8
Zeiss 135mm 2.8
Zeiss Mutar II 2x
Cosina 20mm 3.8
Yashica 100-300 (very under-rated lens - sharp as)

Really need the 35mm 1.4, 180 and the over-the-top priced 21mm Zeiss. I have the new redesigned Cinevate gears coming next week which should work nicely on the long focus throws of the Zeiss lenses.

Cheers,
Peter

Kholi
10-03-2009, 06:28 PM
Hi Kholi,

Yes he has this "special note" about Canon lenses.

http://www.anestore.com/acess/ring/afring/afeos.htm

The actual eBay listing is here;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400060792164&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

180mm is nice. I'm looking for one now. I have a few Contax's

Zeiss 28mm 2.8 (I really want the f2.0)
Zeiss 50mm 1.4
Zeiss 85mm 2.8
Zeiss 135mm 2.8
Zeiss Mutar II 2x
Cosina 20mm 3.8
Yashica 100-300 (very under-rated lens - sharp as)

Really need the 35mm 1.4, 180 and the over-the-top priced 21mm Zeiss. I have the new redesigned Cinevate gears coming next week which should work nicely on the long focus throws of the Zeiss lenses.

Cheers,
Peter

Ooo~h thanks! I had no idea about that. Will have to do that stat.

Let's see...

Zeiss 28/2.8
Zeiss 35/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4
Zeiss 85/1.4
Zeiss 135/2.8
Zeiss 180/2.8
Zeiss 28-70/3.4~5.4

Those are the Zeiss lenses I has in C/Y mount... and really soon here (working out some details) a matching Zeiss ZF set. REALLY excited about that.

The 21/2.8 is ridiculous... I'm not going to get the C/Y version but will have the ZF version for sure, including the 18mm.

Definitely do pick up the 180/2.8 if you're a fan of shooting long-lensed. Being back 50 feet away from action rawks.

Like, I don't even think I enjoy anything in between 35mm and 135mm Anymore. LoL.. I'm using the 28-70/3.4 up to 35mm at most, and then just switching to a 135mm if I'm allowed to do so and shooting mediums, twos, isos etc on that.

Speaking of: What's the 100-300 Yashica rated at? ?? ? ?

Michael Olsen
10-03-2009, 06:33 PM
Just so you know, Kholi, I envy you. For your lenses and the beautiful pictures you can make with them.

Kholi
10-03-2009, 06:34 PM
Just so you know, Kholi, I envy you. For your lenses and the beautiful pictures you can make with them.

No way, dude! You ought'a see the terrible stills I took today; I feel bad for the actress. X_x; Gear is no substitute for talent.

powervideo
10-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Ooo~h thanks! I had no idea about that. Will have to do that stat.

Let's see...

Zeiss 28/2.8
Zeiss 35/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4
Zeiss 85/1.4
Zeiss 135/2.8
Zeiss 180/2.8
Zeiss 28-70/3.4~5.4

Those are the Zeiss lenses I has in C/Y mount... and really soon here (working out some details) a matching Zeiss ZF set. REALLY excited about that.

The 21/2.8 is ridiculous... I'm not going to get the C/Y version but will have the ZF version for sure, including the 18mm.

Definitely do pick up the 180/2.8 if you're a fan of shooting long-lensed. Being back 50 feet away from action rawks.

Like, I don't even think I enjoy anything in between 35mm and 135mm Anymore. LoL.. I'm using the 28-70/3.4 up to 35mm at most, and then just switching to a 135mm if I'm allowed to do so and shooting mediums, twos, isos etc on that.

Speaking of: What's the 100-300 Yashica rated at? ?? ? ?


The 100-300 is f/5.6 constant. Picked it up for $49. Many of the Yashica lenses are very underated. They make a fine 55mm f/1.2 which is harder to find than a Zeiss 21mm.

I forgot I also have the Zeiss 28-80mm although it is a single zoom/control. A beautifully designed and built lens. I had the 28-70mm but sold it. Wish I hadn't. One lens I want for everyday stills/video use when I don't want to hump a Pelican case of lenses around is the Canon 17-55mm IS. And check out that Cosina. They only cost around $60 - $70.

Peter

powervideo
10-03-2009, 07:16 PM
Ooo~h thanks! I had no idea about that. Will have to do that stat.

If you are using the Roxsen adapators without an issue, maybe the mod the seller says is not needed? I have one of the HappypageHK adaptors but they are a lot dearer ($90). I may order a stack of Roxsens...

squig
10-03-2009, 07:37 PM
Like, I don't even think I enjoy anything in between 35mm and 135mm Anymore. LoL.. I'm using the 28-70/3.4 up to 35mm at most, and then just switching to a 135mm if I'm allowed to do so and shooting mediums, twos, isos etc on that.


My 50's only get used with the isco anamorphic adapters. My 85 is collecting dust. I'm mostly using my nikkor 35 and 105. My nikkor 105 f/2.5 is my favourite lens, I love the slightly compressed image.

mcgeedigital
10-03-2009, 07:57 PM
I'm planning on trying my old "howitzer":

The Nikkor 50-300 f4.0

I think that old war horse will look great on the 7d.

Kholi
10-03-2009, 08:25 PM
I'm planning on trying my old "howitzer":

The Nikkor 50-300 f4.0

I think that old war horse will look great on the 7d.


I still want that 50-300/4!!!

davetronic
10-04-2009, 01:18 PM
Zeiss 28mm 2.8 (I really want the f2.0)



i have the 28mm 2.0 and use it often, but it's worth noting when shooting it open or near, it's got fairly significant fall off and sharpness issues on the edges. of course that's what i like about it at times too...

more info here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1146/cat/98

i've been sticking with this set (all german glass except for the 50mm) and am thinking of adding the 135 f/2, though it's relatively expensive.


28mm f/2.0
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4
100mm f/2.0

we're currently shooting a doc feature with them and are generally really happy with the results, though we're adding a PL mount zoom for the next shoot.

Sttratos
10-04-2009, 02:57 PM
not using MAc, using PC. But when i go to neutral, my settings for contrast are already down. Hrm.


Isn't it supposed to?

PaPa
10-04-2009, 04:01 PM
yes it is. But my question was more the curiosity as to whether or not lowering the contrast in Neutral would yield the same result as doing a custom profile and lowering the contrast. I would assume yes, as these are just quick presets.

marco0782
10-04-2009, 08:46 PM
I find that ISO 800 to 1250 can yield a clean image if you are exposed properly and the frame contains a reasonable amount of highlights. When you underexpose the higher ISO's, that's when things get bad.

Also, I have shot 640 ISO and lifted by one stop in post (Magic Bullet) and the image remained clean. I achieved a better result doing that than shooting 1250 ISO.


Marco

USLatin
10-05-2009, 12:57 PM
I've been getting tons of good info out of Daniel Browning on this REDuser thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34434&page=27

He is knows so much about digital acquisition he puts my head into a spin when he gets going on a rant.

The following seems very useful if you are trying to squeeze every little bit of quality and dynamic range out of the camera with controlled lighting.



If you adjust ISO, but keep brightness the same by changing exposure, then the dynamic range is highest at ISO 100, stays about the same at 200, then starts going down from there. The dynamic range will vary most greatly by the picture profile settings. With low contrast settings, ISO 200 will have more dynamic range than ISO 400. But with high contrast, the difference may not be noticeable.

The "plus 1/3" ISO settings (125, 250, 500, 1000) should be avoided, as explained above. The "minus 1/3" ISO settings are fine, as long as you know that they have 1/3 less highlight headroom.

Highlight tone priority trades one stop of shadow noise for one stop of highlight headroom. I use it a lot. It should always be enabled for ISO 3200 and 6400, since in those cases there is no noise penalty from HTP, so you get the one stop of highlight headroom for free.

The "acceptable level of noise" varies by exposure, light, settings, and personal taste. A high key shot at ISO 1600 can look like ISO 100 because it has so little noise. Shooting in the perfect magenta light can make ISO 6400 look like ISO 800.


Here's a start. Assuming a floating exposure:


100, 200, 400, 800, 1600: normal amount of highlight headroom.
There is little difference from ISO 100 to 200, because most viewers can't tell the difference in photon shot noise, and the read noise drops by almost a full stop in ISO 200.
125, 250, 500, 1000: considered harmful. 1/3 stop less highlight headroom and 1/3 stop more shadow noise.
160, 320, 640, 1250: fine, as long as you are aware of the decreased highlight headroom. (Clips 1/3 highlights to get 1/3 more shadows.)
HTP should *always* be enabled when the ISO is higher than 1600.
There is a careful balance between increasing shadow detail through ISO (which clips highlights) or through HTP, the picture profile (e.g. contrast, tone curve), or Auto Lighting Optimizer. Generally, the higher you go in ISO, the more beneficial it is to use non-ISO methods to increase shadow detail. For example, ISO 3200+HTP (actually ISO 1600) is better than the real ISO 3200. ISO 800+HTP may be better than the real ISO 800, but it depends on how much highlight headroom you need.

Hope that helps.