November 23, 2014, 11:30:40 PM

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 - kirispupis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 03:19:55 PM »
I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.

Yeah...I clicked all the way through to Flickr to make sure I was viewing the original size, flipped between the browser tabs a couple times...and had to come back here to read which was 5D3 and which was 7D2.

I say it all the time even though it offends people and makes me a pariah, but if you expect A to be better then B you will believe it is better and rationalize that it is better even when someone has flipped the labels and you are actually praising B! This is seen in wine tasting, audio equipment testing, photo print comparisons.... Double blind the test and people often can't tell the two apart where they previously thought the difference was huge...JUST HUGE!

That said, I would not normally recommend a 5D3 owner get a 7D2 for extra reach. Too much is made of the difference. You have to be cropping much further then APS-C...and then printing large...to observe the reach advantage of a crop sensor. It comes into play when you're left with 8 MP from the crop sensor, and <3 MP from the FF, and you need to print 16x24. And if you run into that situation it is significant. You can pick it out in a double blind test. But honestly ask yourself how often you run into that situation? If it's very often you might be better served by a new lens any way.

Sorry to disagree but it's not just about reach. Setting aside the debate about the  smaller sensor and the effect that has on image quality, pro's and con's, my 5D3 feels like a lumbering dinosaur after shooting with the 7D2 for two weeks. It really is that much more responsive. I can see how people get hooked on those 1 series bodies.  If you are shooting with a 1DX or 1D4 than it's hard to make the pro 7D2 argument. But the AF and 10/fps are alone worthy of adding this camera to a 6D or 5D3 if you are shooting moving subjects.

In my experience I really did not see that.  Yes, the AF of the 7D2 is a bit quicker and the frame rate is higher, but I did not feel it really blew my 5D3 away.  The AF of the 5D3 has never really prevented me from getting the shot, but I did find that the 7D2 marginally increased the rate of keepers.

The primary improvement I saw in the 7D2 was the customizability.  I really liked being able to set different AF modes to different buttons.  I also felt that the silent shutter was even better.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 12:27:57 PM »
The 7D2 should have an advantage with the crop, but in several cases I am not seeing that.  For example in the coyote shot from earlier I compared it with a similarly posed coyote taken in worse light with my 5D3 but same rough ISO (400) and found that the detail is roughly the same despite the smaller size of the coyote on the 5D3.

http://www.calevphoto.com/p1067692827#h3ad922d8

In terms of the underexposed images that is what the light was at the time.  With my 5D3 normally I would have shot these at ISO 3200, but at the time I was trying to get a good comparison between them.  The point of illustration was the noise and loss of detail - not the quality of the shots.

I looked in LR just now to see the average ISO for my shots and can see:
ISO 3200 and above - 20%
ISO 1600 to 2500 - 25%
ISO 800 to 1250 - 20%

This is of all my shots, so most of the shots at lower ISOs were tripod based landscapes while most of the shots at higher ISOs are of wildlife.

Hey kirispupis, Hope I didn't offend.

I get what you were trying to do. I'm not second guessing either your conclusion or choices about what's best for your work.

My concern is that other folks, who might benefit from a 7D2 for their work, might conclude that it's not possible to get good results with the camera. I'd respectfully disagree with that generalization.

You had to know that if you posted examples that some folks would focus on your methodology rather than the substance of your argument. It's just what they do. My ETR comment is based on my personal experience. I don't have any idea how that reflects on your work. Hope I didn't seem to imply that it did.  Any way, good luck with the 5D3/200-400 combo. I don't think that gear is going to be holding you back  :)  -Brian

No offense taken.  I do believe the 7D2 can be a great tool for those who live in places where the light is better such as Arizona or Florida.  Here in the PNW that just isn't the case - especially this time of year.

My disappointment with the 7D2 was that I expected ISO 1600 to be about the same as the 5D3 at 3200, but from experimentation I found this not to be the case.  I also was disappointed with the amount of noise I found even at lower ISOs.

The big decision factor was last night when I showed my wife the photos from both cameras and offered her the choice.
a) Keep this camera and sell my 6D.  Do not purchase the 1DX when it comes out, but do upgrade my 5D3 to a 5D4.
b) Send this camera back and replace my 6D with a 1DX2 when it is released.  Some time after the 5D4 release upgrade my 5D3.

Obviously choice b is considerably more expensive, but after looking at the results she came to the same conclusion I did and (with regret) gave tentative approval for choice b. :)

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 09:49:11 AM »
The 7D2 should have an advantage with the crop, but in several cases I am not seeing that.  For example in the coyote shot from earlier I compared it with a similarly posed coyote taken in worse light with my 5D3 but same rough ISO (400) and found that the detail is roughly the same despite the smaller size of the coyote on the 5D3.

http://www.calevphoto.com/p1067692827#h3ad922d8

In terms of the underexposed images that is what the light was at the time.  With my 5D3 normally I would have shot these at ISO 3200, but at the time I was trying to get a good comparison between them.  The point of illustration was the noise and loss of detail - not the quality of the shots.

I looked in LR just now to see the average ISO for my shots and can see:
ISO 3200 and above - 20%
ISO 1600 to 2500 - 25%
ISO 800 to 1250 - 20%

This is of all my shots, so most of the shots at lower ISOs were tripod based landscapes while most of the shots at higher ISOs are of wildlife.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 20, 2014, 11:50:08 PM »
Here are some sample images to illustrate my frustration.  Note that these images from an artistic standpoint suck - but were an attempt to take a photo of the same subject under the same realistic lighting conditions with both cameras.  Both images are near 100% crops and have absolutely no noise reduction or PP from the RAW images.

The first one is from the 5D3 at ISO 1600. The lighting was very poor at this time, but the details are fair.  A similar shot of a more interesting subject could probably be salvaged.
6O6C8809.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

The next is of the same subject with the 7D2 at ISO 800. The detail on the faces is much rougher.  The pattern just below the head (the eye is slightly OOF) is less defined than the 5D3 image.
388A0341.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better.  You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.

Here is a mink I took during the same shoot about two minutes after these shots.  I took it with my 5D3 at ISO 1600 and it was still too dark so I had to boost up the exposure quite a bit.  I then did some PP and cleaned up the noise.  The resulting shot still has nice details.  There is no way the 7D2 would have done the same.
6O6C8788-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 20, 2014, 03:56:52 PM »
In response to the replies, yes this is basically my dumb.  I had owned the original 7D and had similar problems with it, but I had too much hope that this was a much better step forward.  I seized on several positive reviews despite my own better initial judgment.

The sample image was mainly intended to show that I do in fact own the camera and am not a troll. :) The problem images will go in the delete pile...

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 20, 2014, 02:23:37 PM »
I received my 7D2 last Thursday and immediately set out for wildlife to photograph.  My primary interest is wildlife photography and I spend one hour in a park every day before going to work.  I currently use a 5D3 with a 200-400/1.4x and a 6D as my backup body (mainly for landscapes).

Going in I expected ISO 1600 on the 7D2 to be roughly the same as ISO 3200 on my 5D3.  On my 5D3 at ISO 1600 I can still count the feathers on a bird, while at ISO 3200 the feather detail begins to break down but the image is still usable for most purposes.

What I found was that on the 7D2 there was still a noticeable lack of detail at ISO 1600 compared to ISO 3200 on my 5D3.  Even worse, when I went down to ISO 800 there was still noticeable noise, though the images were certainly usable.  This morning I spent some time photographing identical subjects with the two, and I came to the conclusion that the 7D2 simply would not work for me.

I am glad I bought it at unique photo - who said they'll take it back as long as the box is in good condition.  I had hoped this would give me a bit more extra reach, but again I found myself learning the painful lesson of cropped sensors. Instead I intend to wait and see what Canon does with the 1Dx2.

Unfortunately my sample images are not up, but you can get an idea from this one (ISO 400).
Predator by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

7
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 06:01:53 PM »
One thing to note is most zoos, wildlife parks, and captive habitats have copyrights on their animals and strictly prohibit commercial photography without their permission.

I photograph at both zoos and in "the wild" and I use them for different reasons.  My zoo shots are just for playing around - to get used to equipment and to practice in a controlled environment.  In the wild I will typically have very little time to react, so it is very wise to be familiar with my equipment ahead of time.

Getting photographs in the wild is difficult, but it's also very rewarding.  I am not a full time wildlife photographer, but I do spend at least an hour a day on it.  Many days I only "get" a few ducks or sparrows, but once in awhile I get something very nice.  Last week (while on my first walk with my 7D2) I found a coyote.  Over the weekend I found a family of river otters.

Animals are very different when in their own element vs. when they depend on people for food and care.  There is a different look to the animal's eyes.

Also keep in mind that a number of famous photographers have had their reputations ruined because they passed off a wild animal park photo as a truly wild one.

The ranches and parks we are talking about are pay per use places... They know you are using them for commercial use...  They typically have more authentic enclosures so they look good photographically...

That gets around the release paperwork, but submitting one of these photos to a wildlife contest is unethical + will have severe repercussions for your reputation if discovered.  Of course, using such a photo for an advertisement for insurance, etc is fine. It all comes down to your use.

8
Photography Technique / Re: Game Ranches for photography
« on: November 19, 2014, 05:31:41 PM »
One thing to note is most zoos, wildlife parks, and captive habitats have copyrights on their animals and strictly prohibit commercial photography without their permission.

I photograph at both zoos and in "the wild" and I use them for different reasons.  My zoo shots are just for playing around - to get used to equipment and to practice in a controlled environment.  In the wild I will typically have very little time to react, so it is very wise to be familiar with my equipment ahead of time.

Getting photographs in the wild is difficult, but it's also very rewarding.  I am not a full time wildlife photographer, but I do spend at least an hour a day on it.  Many days I only "get" a few ducks or sparrows, but once in awhile I get something very nice.  Last week (while on my first walk with my 7D2) I found a coyote.  Over the weekend I found a family of river otters.

Animals are very different when in their own element vs. when they depend on people for food and care.  There is a different look to the animal's eyes.

Also keep in mind that a number of famous photographers have had their reputations ruined because they passed off a wild animal park photo as a truly wild one.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: DPR Adds Studio Samples for EOS 7D Mark II
« on: October 28, 2014, 04:57:01 PM »
I have the 7D2 on preorder and spent some time looking at the crops here.  I had already accepted that the 7D2 at ISO 1600 was the same as the 5D3 at ISO 3200, but after looking at them I came to the conclusion that it is worse. I therefore cancelled my preorder.

I do hope that the 1Dx2 has some improvement, as the lack of progress in sensors is frustrating.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:33:35 PM »
This is a tough one for me.  I would really like something with more range.  I currently shoot with a 5D3 and a 200-400/1.4x and picking up a 600/4 II is really not an option for me.  The thing is my #1 priority is high ISO.  I can trust my 5D3 to shoot at ISO 3200 with a decent amount of cropping available (keep in mind I do a lot of 30" x 20" prints) but I strongly prefer to shoot at ISO 1600.

Given the lighting conditions in the PNW anything with worse high ISO perf than the 5D3 would probably be a no go.  From these specs it looks like the 7D2 is one stop worse than the 5D3, so I would probably pass unless Canon has something new up their sleeves.

Overall if these are the specs, then it is looking like another big disappointment.  I was really hoping that Canon would step up in terms of sensors, but perhaps they are waiting for the 5D4 or 1DX2 for that.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:13:40 AM »
I'm just not buying that Canon is going to reveal its latest sensor technology on a crop camera.  More likely I see this announced on a new 1DX or 5D3.  I think the G1X II is a better model for the 7D2 and so specs like the following are the most likely.

16 MP
1-1.5 stops better than current 7D
new+improved AF system
WIFI + GPS
HDR similar to 5D3
A few other helpful doo-dads

This would hardly be an exciting camera, but I suspect it would sell decently well.  Of course, I would love to be proven wrong. I am basing this off my perceived track record of Canon - that they replace very nice cameras (5D line) with newer very nice cameras and crappy ones (G1X, 7D) with similarly crappy ones.

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 19, 2014, 08:32:06 PM »
There's only one true way to really annoy a photography snob - take better photos with lesser gear.  Most of the photography snobs I know take horrible shots with very expensive gear.  The photographers I know who truly have talent are far friendlier.

13
Photography Technique / Re: technique for hand held larger lens
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:10:47 PM »
I commonly hand hold my 200-400/1.4x - which is considerably heavier than the 300/4 (which I have owned in the past).  I use the following for help

- Attach neck straps to both the camera + lens
- Control my breathing when using low shutter speeds (similar to macro)
- Hold the camera by the lens and stiffen my arm when shooting
- Stick to higher shutter speeds (which are necessary since most of my targets are moving anyways)

Most of my non-Disney photos in this stream were taken with it - https://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto

14
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 09, 2014, 12:04:32 AM »
I would purchase the 200-400 simply because I like the flexibility of zoom. It woul be a wonderful addition on my 70-200

I zoom with my feet. ;-)

I chose the 600 II when I bought a big lens. Would make the same choice today, especially given that it is just as good as the EF 800 f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC attached (840mm f/5.6) and has the option to use the 2x TC for 1200mm f/8.
If I had the money, I'd go with the 600II as well. It seems like you never have a long enough lens....

You can zoom with your feet, but many time you can't because of terrain, water, or common sense (a 24mm lens and a grizzly bear are not a good combination). For those cases you either need a long lens or a bear-proof suit.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/project_grizzly/

Indeed. I zoom with my feet while using one of Canon's longest lenses. The longest, when you factor in the 2x TC. My point was that there is no reason to get the 200-400, the 600 is longer in every case, and still just as flexible because, well, you can "zoom" with your feet. ;)

Absolutely not true.  There are a great many occasions where it is simply not possible to zoom with your feet.
- Most sports events
- Landscape photography where you can only take the shot from one spot
- Wildlife - where moving could scare away the animal, or where you are in a blind
- Closeup photography

The 600/II is a great lens, but which one to buy really depends on whether you are a birder or not.  I absolutely agree that for birders the 600/II is more appropriate (the 600/I has far fewer advantages as the 200-400 is considerably sharper).  However for most other purposes, including those above, the 200-400 wins out.

15
Lenses / Re: Canon 600mm f4 IS II Vs Canon 200-400mm w/1.4x TC
« on: March 07, 2014, 07:01:50 PM »
A few months ago I had to make the same choice and I picked the 200-400/1.4x.  I do not regret this choice.

Ultimately it really boils down to what you like to photograph.  I use this lens for a wide variety or purposes - wildlife, sports, and landscapes.  For these purposes there is no contest - the 200-400 is the best lens that can achieve all three.

If I were only photographing wildlife, or more specifically birds, then the 600/II would be the better choice.  You simply need as much length as possible.  If an 800/4 existed that was actually portable, I would recommend that.  That being said, you can certainly accomplish a lot with 560mm.

For a real world example see this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157641149672084/  Three of these images were taken at 560mm, but three were not.  The versatility of the 200-400 certainly wins out here.

For sports I almost never use the extender.  I also find myself switching a lot between 200mm and 400mm.  It is one case where a zoom is invaluable.

Finally for landscapes I am all over the place.  That was really the deciding factor for me.  I wanted a lens I can use for landscapes to catch the shots many landscape photographers miss.  For these I rarely shoot at 560mm. 

This set illustrates the flexibility - http://www.flickr.com/photos/calevphoto/sets/72157640572094314/  Most of the landscape shots were not taken at 560mm, while most of the close up bird shots were.  A 600/4 would have probably done an even better job, but the 200-400 certainly did a very good job.

Someday I may pick up a 600/II if I have a sudden influx of cash, but it is not a huge priority given the excellent performance of the 200-400 at 560mm already.

BTW, the Tamron is a very nice lens, but the 600/II and 200-400 are in a completely different class.  There are vast differences in AF speed, image quality, and the extras that go into a top end lens.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21