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.
I then quickly turned with my 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L I IS lens, and with bad framing, still caught the other Malone hurdler at the absolute very last moment. I posted it because of how quickly the AF worked to lock on the new hurdler:
Just upgraded to the 1Dx from the 5D3, I am just learning how to use it. On the plus side I am getter bigger biceps too. Here are a couple of images that I shot the other morning with the f1.2 50L and the 600EX-RT for fill, the surfer at the shower was @ 2.8/1250/iso 400 and the girls were at f5.6/2000/iso 400
Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.
You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal. Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ. There are a lot of different points to consider. What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.
Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog. It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.
Please explain what you mean by this statement.
A couple of natalia the 1st with 3x 600 ex-rt's.
i think i speak for most here when i say..."bornshooter, don't stop posting!"
nice shots!
Some of mine. Went to the local zoo. Just testing my recently acquired Canon 2x teleconverter III with my EF 70-200 f/2.8L II. Gotta give you all a heads up that my shots do not come anywhere close to Gary Samples' and eml58's shots...composition and capture...theirs are just brilliant, jaw-dropping, and most importantly to me, inspiring. Thank you both for sharing your images with everyone here.
Not taking away from everyone else's images...just that these two gents' images are what keeps me coming back to this thread.
I have had both cameras for a bit now and have collected lots of RAW from both cameras and as I get time I process them and put them in correct folders.
I NEVER COME TO KNOW WHICH CAMERA TOOK WHICH PHOTO unless I check metadata.
My opinion: There is no difference in IQ. I may be wrong, but I would not pick either camera just for IQ. While shooting, it is a different story altogether.
Would love for someone to post photos and educate me. Not challenging, I want to learn.
1Dx 300f/2.8, Shot @ f/6.3 1/320th ISO1600
The choice on the day was Leopards, or, A pack of Wild Dog had come into the area, no choice, these Animals are not only Beautiful but severely endangered, so we looked for these Guys all day, finally found them hunting just on Sunset. The tall Grass made them, for me, exceptionally hard to shoot in the fading light, so every shot I tried with the Pack Running I blew, but everything stands still sometime.
Larger pixel "wells"? Just a guess.
Yes, I knew they had larger pixel wells. How does this make a RAW file better? Do you know? Thanks Northstar.
1Dx 85f/1.2 L II, Shot @ f/4.5 & 1/160th ISO320
Love this Lens
Photo at a friend's wedding. Reception was incredibly dark. Shot with 600ex-rt on camera.
More car show fun.
1949 Chevy Fleetline hood ornament by SauceyJack, on Flickr
2010 Chief Vintage bike by SauceyJack, on Flickr
Ethereal - HMM! by SauceyJack, on Flickr
1Dx
85f1.2L II shot @ 1.2 1/5000 iso 200 with just a little bit of window light off hand
Buy now. It's technology halfway through the product cycle and people like you provide the funding for future product improvements whether you know how to use them or not. You'll help the economy, maybe get a few
decent snapshots and provide some struggling photographer a good deal when you sell it to upgrade.
