DSLRUsers.com

Well i picked it up this morning, and finally got to have a play this afternoon.

what a camera! i'm very impressed so far. (now just have to work out canon's controls )

all these are straight off the camera, and up to flickr.

This would have normally been way too dark, 3200iso, f4, 1/10sec, hand held.
it's me, taken by my brother.



here's one of the mirror, lit by just a 60w bulb in the ceiling. 1/15sec, 3200iso, f4


and lastly, here's tom, in the same room 1/13sec, 3200iso, f4

congrats on the new camera and welcome. samples look pretty good.

Horrible white balance in #2 & 3

mickeyjuice wrote:Horrible white balance in #2 & 3

Not really: it's the same as we used to see when using daylight filum indoors, and nothing that can't be fixed in post.

On the subject of post .... what have you done in the third of these? The sharpening that's been applied looks .... strange ... Tom's head looks to be right on the edge in terms of over-sharpened. Just over the edge, actually, and the arm on his glasses seems to suffering from some jpg artifacts because of the resizing. His right hand ... look at the line between the wrist and the thumb: like his head, I think the sharpening is over the edge.

Let's now look at his shirt ... on the chest, the sharpening again is over the edge, and displays some evidence of haloing. And more haloing where the shirt and Tom's neck intersect.

Let's now move the the area where, in the image, the shirt intersects with the chair. This is surely the line of the edge, as we see it, of the chair. And it is located closer to the camera, than Tom, and it appears to be very sharply defined.

But if you now cast your eye up, to where this very same edge (I suspect) of the chair moves up and then becomes the top of the chair, the same edge now softens significantly. Just not right.

Going back to Mickeyjuice's white balance comments, and looking again at these images, the first one, too, isn't right. It's looking a bit like tungsten film shot outdoors. I can see that this is shot with harsh-ish window light, but the highlights are wrong, and significantly (and this is the telltale) so too are the shadow details.

What were the wb settings for these images? Was it left on auto for each of them, or .... ?????

gstark wrote:What were the wb settings for these images? Was it left on auto for each of them, or .... ?????

You got it! auto wb for each of these. they are all straight from the camera in it's default settings out of the box up to flickr.

They were all shot in AP/AE mode aswell if i recall.

photoaffinity wrote:

gstark wrote:What were the wb settings for these images? Was it left on auto for each of them, or .... ?????

You got it! auto wb for each of these. they are all straight from the camera in it's default settings out of the box up to flickr.

They were all shot in AP/AE mode aswell if i recall.

Am I reading you correctly?

I can handle these wb as being the default. But are you saying that these are also the default, in-camera sharpening settings? Were you shooting to raw or jpg?

Regardless, could you please post a full-size crop of the section of where Tom's neck and his shirt meet? It's likely that the artifacts that I'm seeing may be simply due to the resizing, and it would be nice to see what this region of the image really does look like.

Regardless, could you please post a full-size crop of the section of where Tom's neck and his shirt meet? It's likely that the artifacts that I'm seeing may be simply due to the resizing, and it would be nice to see what this region of the image really does look like.

here you go
Yes it's in camera jpeg processing.

You can see the effect that the noise reduction has when you are in this close.

gstark wrote:

mickeyjuice wrote:Horrible white balance in #2 & 3

Not really: it's the same as we used to see when using daylight filum indoors, and nothing that can't be fixed in post.

Thus the smiley face...

Enjoy the new camera you will have fun with the low noise available at high ISO

photoaffinity wrote:Yes it's in camera jpeg processing.

Ta muchly.

Ok, this looks to me to be way better. I'm guessing that something's happened somewhere in the resize and display, and the issues I'm seeing are totally unrelated to the image that the camera has captured and rendered.

No Problem

I'm guessing that something's happened somewhere in the resize and display, and the issues I'm seeing are totally unrelated to the image that the camera has captured and rendered.

I would be worried if it came out of the camera looking like that at full size.

Congrats on the purchase. Let me know if you exhibit the infamous black dot problem. So far its the only thing holding me back from getting this camera

devilla101 wrote:Congrats on the purchase. Let me know if you exhibit the infamous black dot problem. So far its the only thing holding me back from getting this camera

In the images i have shot so far, only one has had the "black dot" problem, and i only picked it up after i went looking for it.



you can see the dots at 100% crop in one section, however keep in mind that it's only noticeable when looking for it at 100%.



that said, i haven't done any long exposure stuff yet with small highlights, such as a night cityscape. That seems to be where it has popped up the most.

Your right, very minute. Thanks for that mate, appreciate it.

photoaffinity wrote:you can see the dots at 100% crop in one section, however keep in mind that it's only noticeable when looking for it at 100%.

And you certainly do need to look. Very closely.

This is certainly not a major issue in terms of how your images will look.