October 23, 2014, 12:36:06 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 - Jackson_Bill

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What card(s) will you use for the 7DII?
« on: October 22, 2014, 09:46:58 AM »

As a precaution I shoot in both RAW and JPEG in different card. RAW in Sandisk 32gb 160mb/s UDMA 7 CF Card and JPEG in a Sandisk 16gb 120mb/s SD card. Both formats in high resolution
That is my general intention, shoot raw to the CF and jpeg to the SD.  Not sure of the sizes yet but your method seems good.

Are you actually writing the RAW and jpg both on every shot? It seems that would seriously impact the high speed frames per sec.

Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS on sunny days and white jerseys
« on: October 20, 2014, 02:03:10 PM »
Quick example.  Here's another game that started at 1pm.  I had the AF point locked on her face; this is frame 3.  Notice the ref's face on the far right, so this front-focused.
Something to consider - I'm not so sure I'd conclude that this shot was front focused. If you look at the grass you can see a clear line of sharp focus. I think the kicker's body and the ref's foot are in that line of sharp focus. Is it possible that we're seeing motion blur in the kicker? What was your shutter speed on that one?
As someone else mentioned - that's a thin line of focus, too. On a sunny day you should be able to get away with a higher  f-stop.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 08:31:53 PM »

After about page 3 I thought I´d try to sum up the opinions so far, but I don´t think I´m the right guy for that. But it would be interesting if someone could try to make the comprehensive and objective list of pros and cons FF and crop.

But again, If someone could take on the challenge of making the ultimate objective guide to crop vs. FF ... Thank you in advance :)

Eldar - I've seen the stuff you've posted and the techniques you've described and if you aren't the guy then I know I'm not!
As the discussions in this thread continue, I'm not sure anyone could ever come up with the final word on crop vs FF.
Interesting topic though.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 11:29:28 AM »
Well, in addition to comparing two heavily cropped images, the 5DIII shot at 1/800 f/7.1, ISO 800 (+1) and the 7D at 1/640, f/5.6, ISO 400 (+0.7)...   
Heavily cropped only to show the detail easily in this forum. Comparing on any other crop level would show the same.
Yes, it wasn't exactly the same exposure because I wasn't thinking of performing a rigorous comparison at the time. I had both bodies, changed the 500 from one to the other, and after the fact thought about comparing them.

The images you are comparing should be the situation where the 7D beats the 5DIII because you used the same lens, are "reach limited,"...
That's my situation the majority of the time.

And yet, you are "not seeing that much difference." 
The discussions in many of the FF vs APS-C threads could lead one to believe that the FF is always superior so I'm thinking "not much difference" is pretty good.

The different DoF could have also be a factor.
Not really, and any advantage would go to the FF in this case. The DOF of the 5Diii is about 80 ft while the DOF of the 7D is about 40 ft by my calculations.

The obvious example is high ISO conditions.  Compare shots from ISO 800 on up and tell me which you prefer? 
No argument there - that's why I bought the 5Diii.

Speaking of post, have you seen how much better the 5DIII files respond to PP compared to the 7D files?  It isn't even so much that you can push the files further (although you can), it is that I like the response of the file better.   
Other than the undisputed fact that the FF has lower noise, how does one RAW file perform better than the other?

While both can use Canon's lens lineup, the majority of L lenses are better suited to a FF sensor (possible exception of the super telephotos)
How do you figure that? If anything, I'd say the EF lenses would do better on the APS-C because the APS-C is not using the edges where peformance falls off.

AF is better, especially in low light
We're comparing APS-C vs FF, which shouldn't make any difference to the AF. OTTH, having about the same number of shots on my 7D, I fully understand the AF issue.

But, as you have both cameras, if you could only have one, which would you take?  For me, it is FF and the 5DIII.  Lee Jay picked two 7DIIs. 

At this point (and I have less than 100 shots on the 5D), I'm less impressed by the FF than I thought I'd be. And given the price of the new superteles, stepping up to a 600mm or longer is just not going to happen. I'm thinking that the 7D will still be my main wildlife lens and if I had to choose which to take into the field, I'd take the 7D. If Canon would ever improve the high ISO performance of the small pixels to that of the Exmor, I could easily live with just the APS-C.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 09:57:07 PM »
I have the simple answer to this one.  Hand me a FF camera (6D, 5DIII, 1DX) and tell me that I can never shoot crop again and I will be ok with that.  Give me a crop camera, even one as capable as the 7D/7DII, and take away my 5DIII and tell me I can never shoot FF again and I will beat your %$#^@   *&%$#.  That is the difference.  How many here feel differently? 

Granted, they're both cropped heavily but tell me what I'm doing wrong with my new 5Diii, please, 'cause I'm not seeing that much difference.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 07:30:12 PM »

I have been involved in a number of crop vs. FF discussions lately. I thought I had the arguments for and against well set. But, based on these discussions, I´m not so sure anymore.

What I´d like your views on are what you see as the key arguments for and against the two sensor formats are from your perspective.

PS! I know DR is one, but please avoid turning this into a for/against more DR thread.

All I have to say is looking at the 1DX and 600 f/4 II vs the 7D and 500 f/4 IS USM - in most, if not all cases, the 1DX combination wins, with the exception, as Neuro has mentioned, of affordability - the 7D and 500 costs much less.

Photography Technique / Re: Yellowstone in Winter - what to take?
« on: October 13, 2014, 02:01:32 PM »
If the snowcats that you are using have a heated cabin, beware of humidity! People go outside, snap a picture, track snow back inside, and it becomes humidity.... as well you have breath and perspiration... it could be very humid inside.... might be time to invest in a pelican case....
Don's right - this is a major factor. Heated or not, there will be plenty of bodies in the vehicle to fog up the windows. Garbage bags for the camera and lenses, for sure. And put it in the bag BEFORE you get in (or back in) the snowcat.

Assuming your trip is the standard from West Yellowstone to Old Faithful:
1. The cabins of the snow cats are crowded - most of that gear list would have to go on the outside (roof) or back platform with the skis.
2. Unless you're on a special trip, not everyone is a photographer so the time for photography will be limited on the trip in / out. Probably not a lot of time to set up tripods, etc.
3. After you get into Old Faithful, you can certainly spend quite a bit of time around Old Faithful and Biscuit Basin by ski or snowshoe. The various geysers are always interesting. There's also a must-do trail from Old Faithful that takes you up a ridge overlooking OF and the lodges.
4. The snow cats will also be available for group day trips. They'll take the group out to various destinations and you ski back. That way, you can spend more time on the photography.

For gear, I'd say your list is much too long.
1. The 24-70 f2.8 II is mandatory.
2. Pick either the 300 or the 70-200. I think I'd lean towards the 70-200 for the convenience of the zoom. Maybe bring the teleconverters but changing lenses and converters in the wind, snow, and cold is tough.
3. Its nice to have a backup camera but you might consider just the 5Diii

The thing is, winter is a different environment and you'll be carrying a lot of other stuff - so plan on lighter rather than heavier. A good pack is important.
Canon specifies the low working temperature of the 5 D (and I assume the 1Dx) as 0 C. It can certainly get much colder than that in Yellowstone during Feb. I've used my 7D in near 0 F temperatures but YMMV.

Yes, my earlier shots would have been improved with better gear, but short of getting a Delorean, a flux capacitor, and 1.21 GigaWatts of power, you can't go back and change things.... so it really does not matter.

LOL - Great humor, as usual.

I, like others here have mentinoed, moved from several years of film to the digital world, with an old 7Mp Sony. If I had today's cameras instead of the Sony, there's no doubt I would have gotten at least a few better shots - faster response time, better AF, better sensor.
For the more general question of should a newbie buy a high end camera or not, I'd say that depends.
If you don't know for sure that you'll turn into an avid amateur or pro then buying something less expensive would be smart. Also, there's plenty to learn that can be learned on a Rebel as opposed to a 1Dx.
OTTH, if you can afford it, why not buy the high end camera?

Lenses / Re: Which prime lens for nature fotography?
« on: October 10, 2014, 10:09:05 AM »
Your primary body is probably going to be the 7D because of the AF.
Having used a 7D since they came out, I would not pick the 7D based on AF performance. And, the high ISO performance is poor. However, the reach, high frame rate, and construction are all very good.

The optical performance of all those lenses are great. My experience with the 1.4x II teleconverter and the old 500 f/4 is that I can clearly tell the difference (reduction) in the resolution when I put the converter on, and I I've stopped using it. However, others on this forum routinely use the 600 and a 1.4x. I believe the 2x is even worse.
If by "carrying it around all day" you mean stalking in the woods, then one of the shorter lengths would be the answer. If you are in a situation where you are set up some distance away from large animals or you are photographing birds, you need one of the longer lenses.

My opinion is "when in doubt, go long".

I hate to say this, but it's not about equipment, no matter how expensive. If you have a subject that you like, photograph it, to the best of your ability. You make the best pictures that you can, just as was done in the days of film. At any given time, the images that you can make are subject to the limitations of the equipment that you have. Nowadays, we are subject to considerably fewer limitations that in the days of press cameras. None the less, if you look at the best images from that period, they stand on their own, as relevant today as they were when made and the judgment of that quality is unencumbered by equipment limitations. No one gets to judge in their own time what is quality, what is ART, what stands the test of time and what is not. This is the human condition. You have to just make the best images that you can and not worry about such things. They are out of your hands.

Yeah, but a long sharp lens helps :-)

Technology will continue to improve and change to allow photographers to take even more incredible images in the future.

50 or 100 years from now, you'll probably be able to guide a completely silent, flying, remote controlled 100MP camera the size of a hero go pro right up to ...

Now that's a scary thought. Imagine dozens of photographers all flying drones around the same scene? Sheesh! With the stupid human tricks I've seen in our national parks I can't conceive of what might happen!

Technology is NOT always a good thing!

Interesting topic - there are a lot of questions, when you start thinking about it. Gear, processing, sales, when will video displace stills,...

How does one distinguish oneself?
As far as the photo is concerned, I think it comes down to the right gear, used in the right way, with the right composition, and with that little added "something" that you only get by being in the right place at the right time. For instance, I think jrista posted a photo of a couple of doves looking like they were cuddling with their eyes closed. That's the "something".

Camera: The right gear is important but only in so far as you need to have the right resolution, DR, and lack of noise to be able to print your photos at the desired size. For the most part, I'd say 16 x 20 is about the biggest.
Lens: I think the older set of big whites (like my 500 f4 IS USM) is as good as it needs to be. I also [this will raise some hackles] think the old 100-400 was too soft. The new set of supertele primes are as good as lenses need to get and 600 is probably long enough.

Composition: There is something to the "what's left" question. I saw a photo in one of the recent threads that shows that even Tom Manglesen's classic salmon jumping into the bear's mouth has been duplicated (probably many more times than I know). However, composition has to be the key. Photos of a critter standing in a field aren't going to cut it, unless there's a lot more to it - color of the sky, background , etc. 

Along with composition is something I'm a believer in - luck! There's a lot to being in the right place at the right time.

So, once you have the right photo, how do you sell it?  The bigger question that I can't answer is how do you distinguish yourself from all the other photographers. I've got no opinion and no experience on that one. Not only is the heap of data increasing, as you've mentioned, the number of people taking photos is increasing, too. Fifteen or twenty years ago there weren't nearly as many people with cameras in the national parks (maybe not as many people, period). These days, "Everybody is a wildlife photographer". I wish I had a photo of the time I was in Yellowstone. A fox family had denned near the road and the Rangers had a series of poles set out 25 yds from the den. There was a solid line of 20 or 30 photographers along the poles, all with long lenses (mostly big whites), from countries all around the world.
And part of that "everybody is a wildlife photographer" is (for me at least ) the thought that "I could do that". To be honest, I wouldn't buy someone else's wildlife photo.

Finally, I'm not taking wildlife photos to get rich -actually, it kind of goes the other way :-)
My wife (I'm fortunate in having a wife who enjoys wildlife, too) and I have learned a lot about animal behavior over the years by watching. Selling photos would be nice (but I really haven't pushed myself on that yet) but watching the critters speaks to something in the human psyche, I think. Also, having good photos to give to friends and family is nice.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 09:41:12 PM »

Start with this:

Sharpening 40, Radius 1, Detail 25, Masking 40
Luminance NR 40, Detail 90, Contrast 0
Color NR 25, Detail 50, Smoothness 50

Messing around:  For more detail, try increasing the first two detail sliders (say, 30 and 100) and sharpening (say, 50-60).  For more NR, try increasing L-NR without decreasing detail first.


EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:36:52 PM »

Yes, I do realize this thread is about IQ and noise, but that shouldn't be the main reason to buy or not but the 7d2. But you take a fantastic shot with perfect focus in a ridicolous fast pace situation and that epic moment, or would you like a miss focused shot that is superclean with 14 stops of DR? Then buy another camera.

I don't care how accurate the focus is if the RAW file is noisy at 1600 ISO and higher. Cleaning the noise will reduce the sharpness, so what good is it?


And if you think a properly focused image gets as soft as a OOF shot with less noise, well then I don't what to say, other than you're doing it wrong.


I don't care how accurate the focus is if the RAW file is noisy at 1600 ISO and higher. Cleaning the noise will reduce the sharpness, so what good is it?

Baloney.  It would take a hell of a lot of noise reduction to reduce real resolution as much as a tiny bit of missed focus does.

Well,  I can always "spray and pray" - in other words, I have a chance of getting an in-focus shot. At ISO 1600 or higher with my 7D, it doesn't matter how many shots I take because it will always be noisy.

[No sarcasm] It could well be that I'm doing NR wrong and if you have any suggestions, I would appreciate them. Generally, I always see a reduction in sharpness when I apply NR in Lightroom.

If you look at the closeups of the 400 ISO and 1600 ISO with NR you can see a difference in the level of detail.

Believe me, If the 7Dii has better performance at 1600 and above than the 70D, I'll be very happy. We'll just have to wait for the RAW files.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 07:08:27 PM »
...This camera is a sports/bif dream if you ask me....

And the anti-flickering mode for fluorecent light? Are you kidding me? That is a game changer...

A "game changer" for bif and wildlife? - I've taken tens of thousands of shots with my 7D and NONE of them were under fluorescent lights.

Do you think all people shoot the same as you, or do you think perhaps there are asport shooters that shoot exclusively in fluorecent environment? Cus I know a few of them, and I know what they feel about the flickering.

I never said game changer for bif and wildlife. I said it was superb if you're not in the high end 1d market. I said the anti flickering mode is a game changer, and it is.
Sorry, I was coming from the perspective of the 7D as a wildlife and (outside) sports still shooting. And, to me, the anti-flicker is not something I have ever thought about.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18