October 24, 2014, 03:07:43 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Maui5150

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: clown* photographer
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:28:40 PM »

LOL - Love part of this - "I was shooting running horses and maybe 3 out of 300 images were out of focus"

Now can't wait to see the Tony Northrup review...

"to test the sports AF capabilities, we will shoot my GF walking towards me... The 7D MK II only performed so so getting 6 out of 10 images in focus" 


That AF test still bothers the hell out of me.  I have no trouble believing that the D810 can track better than the 5D3 in that scenario as Nikon seems to have gone all out with the AF on the D810 and now D750, but that the 5D3 was only hitting 60% makes no sense.

Too me it comes down to one of two things - Incompetence or dishonesty.

He either did not know how to use the camera or he was dishonest.  40% OOF is really bad especially for the type of shooting he was doing. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: October 23, 2014, 02:19:02 PM »
Any thoughts/insights?

You have a 1D X, so I wouldn't worry about it.  The 1D X uses a different analog amplifier setup, note the 'jagged' plot of noise vs. ISO for the 7D and 5DIII (with troughs at 160 multiples), vs. the 'smooth' (and overall lower) plot for the 1D X.

Is the 1Dx native 200 ISO?  From the charts it looks like 200 is slightly better

2)  Her major gripe - no Audio tagging of images.  How many cameras do this?  1Dx, D3?  A nice feature but seriously

There are two very good reasons why there is no audio tagging.... (1) It isn't a phone, and (2) at 10FPS you can't keep up to the camera.

LOL.  Not disagreeing.  I think it is an "interesting featured" I know the 1Dx and some of the flagship Nikons can do this, but seriously, is there another sub $2K DSLR with similar features that includes this?

I am actually surprised she didn't complain it didn't come in a lot of pretty colors. 

And yes.  I do have to laugh...  I like shooting with my 1Dx better.

Gee... Might as well say, I really enjoy driving an Audi A8 compared to the Toyota Corolla....

I know... SHOCKER. 

In the end... I know it is hard to believe... the $1700 Crop 7D MK II is not as good as the $6800 FF 1Dx

I wonder how the Canon T4i compares to the 5D MK III...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: October 23, 2014, 10:46:42 AM »
Not sure I have it right:

Also have seen this.


In the tests like I posted, the noise seems to be called pattern read noise so more an artifact that appears when doing this kind of lens cap on test.

I think when all is said and done, if you shoot 100, 200, etc you get the most information in your image.
If you shoot 160, 320, etc, you are shooting at 200, 400, etc, but then stopped down 20% and this appears to "clean" some of the pattern noise.

The test I haven't seen and what might be interesting to try is looking at long exposures at night and sensor noise from the sensor heating up.  i.e. shooting 640 for 3 seconds versus for 400 for 5 seconds 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ISO 160 vs. 100
« on: October 23, 2014, 10:33:48 AM »
You can seer here:


Or here:


I did similar tests and found the same at the lower end. 

My understanding that the 1/3rd stops are pushed and the 1/3rd stops pulled.  the ISO 160, 320, 640 seem to be slightly underexposed, but a lot less noise.  This may mean you do trade some DR.

For the video example, I would have liked to see them have done 2/3rd jumps i.e. 100, 160, 200, 320, 400, 640.

No question from what I have seen and what the video shows 125 is more noisy than 160, 250 more noisy than 320, and 500 more noisy than 640.

Whether you see 160 as less noise?  that remains to be seen, but to my eyes (and some of the charts posted in another thread, 160 looks a little less noisy than 100 

LOL - Love part of this - "I was shooting running horses and maybe 3 out of 300 images were out of focus"

Now can't wait to see the Tony Northrup review...

"to test the sports AF capabilities, we will shoot my GF walking towards me... The 7D MK II only performed so so getting 6 out of 10 images in focus" 


I do have to say looking at some of the humming bird images, not sure how much noise reduction was done but for 1600 - 6400??? Images look strong for a crop sensor camera

Yet another thing that makes me scratch my head on how some people get / keep jobs.

First and Foremost - Again my biggest gripe with reviews - Understanding the target audience - who is the camera designed / aimed for and does it meet those needs.

To me at least, the 7D MK II is aimed at sports photographers and wildlife - this means a little reach (crop) decent ISO (It is APS-C), Sick Autofocus

1)  Her first gripe is the AF Mode lever on the back - WHAT??? I used Expanded AF Area a lot as well, but am constantly switching zones and modes when shooting sports.  It is about control and sometimes I want the focus on a subject in a specific area and am creatively using DOF to the picture.   I cannot understand how a sports photographer does not want more control, especially in a sport like football where a player may break in front of you and take away the focus you want.

To me at least, this lever is a GOD SEND and in a place that will not bother me.  If Anything, I think the placement is genius.

2)  Her major gripe - no Audio tagging of images.  How many cameras do this?  1Dx, D3?  A nice feature but seriously

3)  Love the Duplicity - Crop sensor a plus for reach - crop sensor a negative for image feel.  Who is the target audience?  Seriously.  People by crop sensors (at least my opinion) for a price break, both in the sensors appear cheaper and they gain more reaches with their lenses.  Comparing the 7D to the 1Dx again... I would take the 1Dx in a heartbeat.

4)  Lack of analysis on the AF.  Then again, not surprised given she only shoots in one mode and does not switch.  The 7D MK II seems to be up their with the 1Dx in terms of AF features and capabilities.  The fact that limited tracking analysis was done as well as little digging into the modes immediately shows her naivety.

And seriously.  If you time some of the holiday sales right, you could wind up with a Sigma 150-600 and a 7D MK II for the price a little more than a 5D MKIII

That is in essence a 240-960 with Crazy AF performance.

One thing I would be interested in is if Sigma will be upgrading their TeleConverters as well.  A 1.4X or 2X with this combo will likely be MF only, but that is then a 480 - 1920mm

To try and compare the 7D MK II to a 1Dx is folly. 

Then again, if you want to bring dollars into the equation and spend $7500 of lenses and bodies, which will give you more? 

Don't forget this also has a built in 1.5x converter, in essence a 75 - 1500mm lens.

That is quite a bit of ZOOOOOOOOMMMMM

I sort of thought this was a given.

150K is a general guideline.  Can be frustrating if it fails early, but no idea how camera has been treated or cared for.  Shock and drops, even if the camera is protected in a padded case/bag can play havoc on the insides. 

Send it in to CPS and send a note with it.  Maybe you will have to pay for it, maybe you won't.  Also depends what Canon finds, like if their is some metal debris that has been kicking around then they may change you.  Depends on what is considered wear, or what is abuse. 

My car may have a 100K mile warranty, but if I never change the oil and drive it until it is dry, something tells me I am paying for the new engine. 

Reviews / Re: Gizmodo reviews the Canon 7D Mark II
« on: October 21, 2014, 11:57:02 AM »
I think when you look at some of these reviews and reviewers, you have to understand what the PURPOSE and Audience of a camera is.   It is evident that while many people can general judge something, whether those judgements have any real value remains to be seen.

The 7D MK II is targeted as a Prosumer / Pro Crop camera. 

If I am shooting sports, I want the 1Dx... well now with the 7D MK II, The pros may want this as a backup, just as for the Prosumer level a few years ago the 5D MK II and the 7D was a solid combo for the more economically minded.

While Nikon has raised the bar as of late in some of their FF offerings, their crop offerings are MEH!   Comparing the 7D MK II to the 7100, only think Nikon has is a few extra MP, other than that, the Canon has twice the FPS and probably 10x with buffer.  AF?  Canon.  Low-Light?  Canon.  Weather sealing and construction?  Canon. 

I like the video of my 5D MK III but will probably wind up using the 7D MK II more for the AF feature, especially with the customizable rack focus features.

I think there may be some nice video capable P&S and Camera phones out there, but having watched the Canon "Cello" one thing became apparent, just how nice using a ton of lenses is.  Not as helpful if you are doing single-camera continuous shooting like some events, etc, but in terms of producing a "film"  the number of quality lenses and their contribution to a NLE environment can't be understated.

The 7D MK II appears to be well on its way to being the King of the Crops.  Does make me excited because I do have a feeling the Canon has 3 other beasts in the wings, a high MP, and upgrades to the 1Dx and the 5D MK III.  I think these will be substantial improvements and also highlighting a trend of more deliberate products.  With Nikon there seems to be faster turnover and more of what the hell did I just buy.  D800 was quickly replaced with the D810, I would have been pissed to have my camera mothballed in just over a year.  The D750 seems solid, and only took Nikon 2+ years to compete with the 5D MK III, but I have a feeling it is about to be upstaged.

The 7D MK II seems to be a serious beast when it comes to not only AF, but the serious amount of not only fow fast it shoots, but how long it shoots... Seriously... Grind up some Viagra, Crystal Meth and swirl that concoction and go on a serious romp.  This is a hard pounding, gear-jamming, balls-to-the-wall buffer.

That also tells me Canon has been taking a serious look at bottle necks and some of their core architecture is being improved. 

I expect in the next 3 Canon releases we will be seeing similarly improved buffers as well.  I am expecting RAW bursts to be over 5sec, and looking at the JPG burst on the 7D MK II... a minute and a half?  That is insane

Lighting / Re: Yongnuo YN600EX-RT at Photokina?
« on: October 21, 2014, 07:46:15 AM »
These are available now and are around $180 a piece. 

I did pick up their YN-E3-RT last year and have been waiting on these for a year.  Definitely please with the price.  Seems like from what I heard, results are mixed with the YN-E3-RT.  While it has focus beam assist, seems like the alignment is slightly off so only upper focus points work, and on crop sensor, you are pretty much SOL, though with the 7D MK II and wider spread, may not be as bad.  Then again, while the Yongnuo's implementation is shoddy, it is 100% better than Canon's lack of implementation, so I guess this is one of those, if it works for you and your situation, it is a bonus. 

My guess is that Yongnuo took a lot of heat for issues with the YN-E3-RT and have been working on improving the 600-EX-Rt... Though it is not surprising this long fabled gun finally shows up to market, there is a 3rd player in the market who has another 600 clone coming out so still waiting on hearing if Yongnuo got their act together on this, or if they rushed to market to try and fight off the competition. 

Canon General / Re: Does "Banding" exist
« on: October 20, 2014, 01:06:09 PM »
On my 15'' Retina display I see bending on the "picture" above. Anyone else too?

Of course you will.  Macs I believe are only capable of producting sRGB or less for colors.  The image posted is has 10-bit color.  You need a display and graphics card capable of 1.07 Billion colors

OSX only supports 24-bit color (8-bit per channel)

This is why the display is a POS. 

If you look at some of the Samsung, ASUS and even Dell which I dislike, they may be 4K displays, but they will display 1 Billion plus colors.

So what will be a more accurate picture?

A 5K display (more pixels) that only has 16.7 Million colors (less colors) or a 4K display that has 1 Billion plus colors. 

To my original point.  I am sure banding does occur, but how much of the "perceived" banding is because the monitors and screens being used are not capable of properly displaying the colors captured in the raw file?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Yongnuo YN600EX-RT now available for $186
« on: October 17, 2014, 09:25:51 PM »
I seriously have to consider this if the quality is semi-decent.  I know it took Yongnuo a year to release so hopefully they realized they were rushing products to market like the YN-e3-Rt and that was hurting them and they really have made improvements. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28