December 18, 2014, 04:11:18 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 - DJD

Pages: [1] 2 3
Canon General / Re: RTFM. Do you?
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:11:47 PM »
The truth is, I usually read the manual before I buy the product. It is part of my pre-purchase research. I like to know what the product really does, rather than relying on what some reviewer (or forum commenter) thinks the product does or should do. 

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: October 10, 2014, 02:35:22 PM »
I like this one because it looks like this little Bushtit has the weight of the world resting on his shoulders...

Canon EOS 7D
Lens   EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Focal Length   400mm
Exposure   1/250
F Number   f/5.6
ISO   1250

I've also had a 7D for several years now and have been very happy with it's performance and image quality. But I have to admit, after reading a lot of the discussions on this board, I've wondered if a 5DMkIII would help me take better bird pictures. Is the noise performance that much better, etc.

After the announcement of the 7D MkII, I decided to rent a 5DMkIII for the weekend and see difference for myself. i was expecting to be blown away by the incredible performance difference in high ISO performance. I was expecting to be left wanting to get a 5D after my testing. But that was not the case.

It just so happened that I found two shots taken from the same spot of a similar bird with the same exposure and processed in Lightroom with the same setting. I've had to crop the 5D image to account for the 1.6 crop factor and below are the shots. These were take with ISO 2500 so if the 7D is so much poorer at high ISO you'd expect to see a difference.  I know this test wasn't done in a controlled environment with test charts. And the lighting is different because they were taken at different times in the day. But these two images look pretty much the same, don't you think.

Now, if the 7D MKII turns out to be much better has high ISO and auto focus I really think there will be no reason for me to think about a 5D MkIII.


Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm

Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 2500
Exposure: 1/250 sec
Aperture: 5.6
Focal Length: 400mm

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 17, 2014, 09:54:21 PM »
Cannon Beach, Oregon...

Canon EOS 7D
Lens: EF-S17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Focal: Length 47mm
Exposure: 1/320
F Number: f/11
ISO: 100


One fleeting moment last Christmas.
Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 1600
Exposure: 1/25 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 55mm

Landscape / Re: Please share your snow/ Ice Photos with us in CR.
« on: February 22, 2014, 11:36:14 PM »

It was so cold my wife had to thaw out the feeder every couple of hours.

Model: Canon EOS 7D
ISO: 800
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: 4.0
Focal Length: 105mm

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM by DxO Mark
« on: February 01, 2014, 11:29:17 PM »
I've had mine for several years and have never been disappointed with it. I shot the America Cup races with it on a monopod using the 1.4 and 2.0 TC together for 1120 mm total. Shooting the Cats at 50 MPH it did great. You can see the images at FM Forums under sports.

Could you include a link to your pics on FM Forum. I'd love to see them but there are so many in the sport corner I gave up searching :(

EOS Bodies / Re: L Lenses for crop bodies
« on: November 24, 2013, 08:15:37 PM »
The following link has been shared before. But as far as I'm concerned, the article is one of the best real world comparisons of a 5DII vs 7D IQ when reach limited. It's worth the read...


Maybe in the future, but I really need a macro right now.

I have to ask the obvious question, your title says "What Canon lens for fashion/portraits???" so why to you need a macro for fashion/portraits?

Do any of you guys ever print your photo for framing? An "8x10" mat covers .25in. on each edge of an 8x10 print. I've found it really helps to have some extra space around your subject to account for that and/or cropping it for different aspect ratios prints ( i.e. 4x6 or 5x7 or 8x10 or ...?).

There is no way to "frame it perfectly in the camera" and account for all these cases.


Canon General / Re: Bad Photography Rant
« on: July 19, 2013, 08:27:30 PM »

The portrait as envisioned by the pigeon when he commissioned the work...

The portrait as delivered by the hipster street photographer claiming to be a portrait artist.  :)

Just a little humor.

Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 03:44:13 PM »
You said "This frame shows the full picture". I have a 7D and I've never seen noise like this using ISO 200 except for extreme crops or if you push the exposure a lot in post proccesing. Taking a close look at the noise it looks more like JPEG artifacts. I can even see what looks like the 8x8 macroblock structure.

If this truly is the full image that was captured I would ask the following.
1. What recording format were you using? Large, Medium, Small, RAW, M-RAW, S-RAW?
2. How was this rendered to the JPEG image shown? In the camera, in post processing. With what tool and setting.


Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?
« on: June 24, 2013, 04:54:11 PM »
Does anyone have some good real world example photos of before and after using FoCal that illustrate the improvement?


Lenses / Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« on: June 19, 2013, 08:37:21 PM »
Here is an example of a "real world" test case where it's pretty easy to tell, without pixel peeping, whether or not you have a issue with front or back focusing.

Canon EOS 7D
Focal Length    400mm
Exposure    1/160
F Number    f/5.6
ISO    3200

Is it?  Its just one image.  Things are not quite so simple.
Please consider the following:
The Canon AF system varies from shot to shot, so a thorough test requires that you take several shots setting the lens to infinity or mfd before each shot.  Then you need to throw out obvious misfires, and average the others.
That one image that appears to be perfect could, in fact be a misfire, and the other nine be OOF.
2. With a wide aperture lens, the depth of field is very shallow, so its difficult to spot the exact focus on a three dimensional object.
3.  You do not "KNOW" exactly where the camera tried to focus, it could have been on the beak, the foot, the tail, or the board the bird is standing on.  A properly designed target will insure that the AF system will try to focus on the same spot every time.

Mt Spokane,
You are absolutely correct. I never intended to imply one photo was enough. It was just to give a real world example for which you should take several to determine if you have a problem or not.

I agree with all the other points you bring up as well which also emphasizes the fact that there are lots of other real world reasons why we don't always get perfect focus where we expect in an image. And they have nothing to do with AFMA.


Lenses / Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« on: June 19, 2013, 04:57:23 PM »
Here is an example of a "real world" test case where it's pretty easy to tell, without pixel peeping, whether or not you have a issue with front or back focusing.

Canon EOS 7D
Focal Length    400mm
Exposure    1/160
F Number    f/5.6
ISO    3200

Pages: [1] 2 3