November 26, 2014, 07:14:19 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 - Richard8971

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
10 grand for a body? No way. Glass? Yes.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:03:43 AM »
Maybe we are spoiled...however, maybe we are on the cusp of another revolutionary leap forward in IQ again. Ten years from now, we could be looking back at today, and saying the very same thing about noise levels today as we are about noise levels with film.

Yes, we have amazing technology today, and it's allowed for wonderful things. However, counter to "We have it great" is, we could have it better. And, we likely WILL have it better. Most companies are rocketing forward at lightning speed on all camera capability fronts. I know that Samsung doesn't have a great lens selection yet...but, YET. They have a 7D II killer on their hands (well, with the exception that the high speed 15fps rate is 12-bit RAW, which is kind of a Samsung killer :P). All they really need is a great lens selection and a reliable support department. Those things simply need time to accumulate and build up.

Same goes for Sony...they are redefining a lot of the market today, and like Nikon, throwing out a lot of products to see what sticks (although I actually think Sony is doing a better job with product naming and whatnot than Nikon has ever done). It is, again, only a matter of time before Sony's lens lineup bulks up, and they have the benefit of Zeiss behind their glass.

Ten years from now, 14-16 stops of DR (maybe even as much as 20...there are already video sensors that do that with multi-bucket exposures) and ultra, ultra low noise, even at ultra high ISO settings, will be so common that we'll be looking at todays cameras like we look at film. For me, I honestly wonder if Canon will be a big player in that future. They may have lenses and support, but their products, technologically, are being matched or surpassed by even the likes of Samsung....  ???

Good point. :)


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:13:34 PM »
In the good old days of film, I shot a lot of Kodachrome64... When lighting was not good your options were to use artificial lights or stop taking pictures. My second body usually had a roll of "high speed" film in it... ISO400 or ISO800..... same problem.... loose the light and you go home.

My first digital DSLR was unusable at ISO800 and topped out at a very noisy ISO1600. Now there isn't a DSLR (or mirrorless) on the market that does not produce better results at ISO12,800 than film did at ISO800.... and the numbers are slowly creeping upward.

Last night I mounted a laser pointer on the top of my camera and tried taking pictures of the cats chasing the red dot. You could not see the red dot. I turned the lights down low and cranked up the ISO to 12800 and it worked very well. These are shots that were impossible before and I have come to accept this as normal.... so yes, I need high ISO....


+1 again.

This is very true. Good cameras have always been expensive and out of the hands of most people. Now however, we in the digital age have gotten spoiled some with the advances in technology and I think the "noise" comparisons between film and digital are largely being forgotten.

I don't really stop and think about what ISO I need my 7D to be at to get the shot. I use whatever ISO I need to get the shot I want. I have said this in the past that I have shot as high as ISO 3200 with hummingbirds in flight and after processing the images look fantastic, both on screen and in print.

Guys are doing today with digital that could never have been accomplished with film back in the day. I think noise levels today are very acceptable even with crop sensors and you should buy the camera body that you need at the price you can afford and then use the heck out of it.

I also think because of computers too many people have become "pixel peepers" and look way too closely at the images they take. I usually print my photos at 11 x 14 and even at higher ISO's with my 7D they look great. Looking at an image zoomed in at 100% will destroy just about any image and I think any camera would have a hard time holding up to someone who is convinced that viewing them at that large of size is the only way to judge a camera's worth.

The way I look at it is, once I have processed my RAW image (regardless of what ISO I used on my 7D) and converted it to Jpeg and if the image looks good on screen, then make a print to be sure... good to go!
My 2 cents.


EOS Bodies / Re: How excited are you about the new 7D II?
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:34:23 AM »
I think it's a pretty impressive camera, even though it may be a year or two late. But then again, up until the 70D and the Nikon D7100 (and maybe even the D7000) the 7D really didn't have much competition in the APS-C world and still sold very well at the price range over the past couple of years. I have seen the price drop to as low as $1000 for a new body, that's an incredible price for such a capable camera. A lot of my photography friends shoot with the 7D, and I mean ALOT!

Now it looks like the 7D2 will raise the bar yet again. Everything about it looks good. The thing I am waiting for? I need to SEE how good the image quality is at higher ISO's. Do I expect it to be as good as FF? Not at all, but I want it to be better than my current 7D. I think the image quality will be good, or at least I'm hoping it will be.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:16:42 AM »
In daylight shooting, I have gone as high as ISO 3200 for super high shutter speeds (1/4000s ~ 1/8000s) with my 7D to capture hummingbird wings in flight and the photos have been fine with a little post processing. Usually though, I rarely go over ISO 1600.

I have shot indoors with poor lighting and not being able to use a flash and I used a friends 5D mark 2. I shot at ISO 6400 and the photos were VERY usable, very clean. I could have NEVER pulled that off with my 7D.

A professional photography friend of mine showed me some wedding shots she got with her 5D3 at ISO 102400 and they looked amazing in print. I would have never guessed they would have been so good.

It all depends on what you shoot and when. For the most part, I shoot wildlife in decent lighting so my 7D works just fine 99% of the time.


Everyone (including myself) seems to be searching the internet for reviews on the new 7D2. It looks like an impressive camera, kind of like how the 7D looked impressive back in 2009 when it was first introduced.

Well, I find myself wanting a new 7D2, but... my now 3 year old 7D still works perfectly and still takes amazing photos... What's my point?

My point is, I will probably upgrade to the 7D2 eventually, but not today. I love my 7D and it still does today what it has always done for me, take fantastic photos. It's still lighting fast and I love the image quality, even at high ISO's. No it's not a low light camera and it was never designed to be, but with a little post-processing images even taken at ISO 3200 are very nice, especially when they are of a hummingbird's wings frozen in time...

I am forcing myself to remember that it is the photographer that makes the photo, not his or her equipment. Yes tools give a workman more options BUT any camera in the hands of a skilled workman (or woman) is an amazing thing. You can capture a moment in time and share it with your friends, family and even make a living doing so.

I love my 7D. I don't see me getting rid of it anytime soon.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How do you say Nikon
« on: September 14, 2014, 09:10:18 PM »
Hmm, never really thought about this.

I would just say that the general accepted pronunciation is "Ni-kon" just like the vast majority of Americans say it. Maybe it's changed over the decades but does it really matter?

"Kan-won" has changed also... Nobody seems to mind the way we say it today. :)


EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 14, 2014, 06:58:08 PM »
I will say this, the ONE thing I was really hoping for was one or the other in a dual card slot on the 7D2. In other words, either 2 CF slots or 2 SDHC slots. Personally I like the CF cards over the SDHC cards but recently the speeds of the SDHC cards has gotten much better and they are much cheaper than the CF cards of the same speed and size.

My wife's D7000 and D7100 both have dual SDHC card slots and I love it.

I wonder if the 7D2 SDHC slot will be of a lower speed like the 5D3, would be interesting to find out if Canon fixed that or not.


EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:53:39 PM »
If what we see is true it looks like the "logical" step for a replacement for the 7D. It's a couple of years late but still looks reasonable.

I won't rush out and buy one UNLESS it has superior noise control over other crop sensor cameras, which I doubt it will. Being a crop sensor it will have noise that FF lovers will still scoff at.

But in terms of a crop sensor camera it looks like it is separating itself from the field like the 7D did back in 2009 when it was introduced.

Personally I hope the buffer is impressive and that it handles noise well. Until then I will keep using my 7D until it breaks or gets ripped off... LOL


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 10:35:11 PM »
I am very impressed with the Nikon D750. Yes, I believe this is a camera that could trigger a person to switch platforms. The thought ran through my mind for sure.

Positives: FF, Built-In WiFi, Dual SD card slots, Good AF, 24+ MP Sensor, 6.3fps
Negatives: 1/4000 shutter speed limit, Weather Sealing?
Neutral: Articulating Screen, Built-In Flash, ISO

This camera is going to be directly compared with the 5D MKIII as I think they are targeted for the same segment: Great all-around camera. The 7D MKII is a sports-shooter camera and APS-C. No comparison.

The 1/4000 shutter speed limit doesn't bother me. I checked my Lightroom database and found that shooting above 1/4000 represent .3% of all my images. Weather-sealing isn't a huge issue either. I simply don't expose my camera to elements that warrant it.

I did a couple of shoots lately which reminded me of how useful an articulating screen can be. Getting on the ground and using Live View without it is difficult. Using an articulating screen would be an enormous help and is enough for me instead of using a tablet and WiFi.

There are so many ways I can use this camera. I love my Canon 50D for it's speed and weight. I love the 5D MKII for it's FF sensor and color IQ. But they both have bad AF which is useful for events and sports photography I do. The fps equals my 50D which I find sufficient for sports. The sensor should be more than adequate for my fashion and portrait work.  I love similar card dual memory slots. And at big events where there might be WiFi..  Uploading images in real-time and having someone edit and posting images in real-time?

All for under $2300.

The 5D MKIII wasn't enough for me. It's too expensive for what I get over the 5D MKII: AF & ISO No dual CF or SD slots and WiFi was a deal-breaker.

I think most of us would agree that the 5D MKIV is right around the corner. I'm going to wait to see what that looks like. If the MKIV has the features listed, I'm good and will go with that. I love the ergonomics and UI of Canon cameras. Not to mention the lenses and accessories available.

The only reason I really want a 1DX is that it can do everything I want to do. Unfortunately, even that doesn't have built-in WiFi and it's a $400 attachment. And that attachment looks like it may get in the way when shooting in portrait mode.

The Nikon gives me 85% of what I want from the 1DX. Buying a battery grip is a $400 option which then gets me up to 95%. I can certainly live without the crazy ISO and speed of the 1DX. At 40% of the price of the 1DX especially.

With the Nikon D750, it would certainly motivate me to eventually get a Nikon D810. Which is a superior fashion/portrait camera to anything Canon has right now. If the ergonomics are decent, I could live with the lesser UI from Nikon.

I'm going to try not buying any new Canon specific gear until I see the new cameras from Canon. Hopefully that should happen by early 2015.

I can only hope the buffer can handle a decent amount of photos in RAW. I LOVE my wife's D7100 but the buffer is terrible. You only get 7-8 shots max in RAW...

I think Nikon has a winner with this new body though.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon announced D750
« on: September 12, 2014, 09:50:25 PM »
Looks like a pretty sweet camera, especially for the price.

My wife though, won't give up her D7100. She loves that camera WAY too  much to switch. :)


EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:52:45 PM »
The point was, that you can push a crop camera with the much maligned 18Mp sensor to the limits of the camera and still get a decent picture.

I have never put anyone down because of their gear or bragged about mine being better.

No, no, no... I'm very sorry Don, I wasn't meaning YOU personally have put someone down... I just meant it as a general statement. I have met a few so called "professionals" who feel that unless you own the most expensive camera gear you are nothing to them and they treat you like crap.

I honestly wasn't talking about you... I hope you accept my apology.


EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 01:02:33 AM »
I took the identical picture with a 5D2 a couple moments later.... It was definitely a better picture. A better sensor will definitely give you a better picture, but unlike an earlier poster's claim, ISO200 is not the point of no return.

And yes, I hope that they do improve the noise on the 7D2 beyond what we have come to expect from Canon... We should find out in a week :)

I would never try and compare any crop sensor body next to a full frame body of similar resolution. They both have their advantages and disadvantage over each other. The primary advantage of crop is lower cost and usually speed (fps) compared to the FF counterpart.

This really isn't about FF vs crop. It's been proven again and again that FF sensors perform much better.

What does this mean? Well for me it means that I will buy the best camera I can afford for what I need to use it for and use the hell out of it until it breaks.

This is kind of like comparing cars against one another... each model offers something the other lacks and to get both advantages be ready to pay out the nose for it.

Cameras are no different. Not everyone can afford a 5D3 or 1DX. My opinion? Quit putting other people down because YOU own a 5D3 and brag how "superior" it is to a 7D or Rebel. Instead, show them how to use the camera to the best of the bodies ability and let them upgrade later if they feel like it.

Some of my best photos (to date) were taken by my VERY humble XTi and "non-L" 70-300. I still outsell some of those photos over what I have shot with my 7D and with my 5D2...

A true professional does not put others down because they have a "lesser" camera. Instead they teach the "newbie" HOW to learn to use his or her equipment and to learn it well.


EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:07:47 PM »
Now, not to start a war, with price and specs considered (based on Internet reviews) the D7100 is also in the running.

Just FYI, my wife shoots Nikon and she has the D7000 and D7100 and she LOVES her D7100. It is an amazing camera and I love the image quality that it produces. Only three things keep me from switching from Canon to a Nikon D7100.

1) I already have thousands invested in Canon that I can't get a good enough return on...

2) I don't care for Nikon's ergonomics with the D7100, I don't like the way it feels in my hands. The 7D fits my hands perfectly and...

3) The buffer on the D7100 is unfortunately small. You are limited to about 7-8 shots in RAW vs the 23-25 shots I get with my 7D.

But IF I had to decide on image quality alone between the 7D and the D7100, I would choose the D7100 any day.


EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 11, 2014, 10:02:43 PM »
Wait. What? You're shooting sports at 200?  Ok first thing - those dudes are shooting 1600 because no one really cares about noise for sports. Freeze the action, in focus, get a face and a ball and worry about noise some other day. Second, I've shot a lot with a 40D and 7D and yeah they get noisy but not really noticeably bad until 800 at least. I gotta wonder if you might be expecting too much. Also, are you shooting with short lenses and cropping real deep? Because that'll amplify noise like crazy.

+1 I couldn't agree more. I do a lot of wildlife shooting, especially hummingbirds and sometimes I get into the 1600-2000 (even 3200) ISO range with my 7D. I could care less about noise. Once I have processed the RAW file and make a print (even up to 11 x 14) noise is not an issue. The reason I have a camera is to capture a moment in time and to be able to share it with others. My 7D allows me to do that and nobody in the past 5 years of my taking photos have complained about "noise".

Grab your camera and go take some pics...


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26