August 01, 2014, 06:34:35 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 - thepancakeman

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 30
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D for studio work
« on: February 01, 2012, 03:42:14 PM »
My friend who shoots for GQ and FHM and other magazines uses a 7D and a 24-70mm. I used a 40D last year and got some work published in 944 magazine as well. But, like some of the previous posters have said, lighting is more important for studio work than the camera.

I can post some studio work I've done later and you can judge for yourself if you think the 7D is good enough.

I understood the OP to be asking about upgrading from the 40D to the 7D, which is different than "is the 7D good enough."  I knew the issues with the 7D IQ before I bought it and for my non-studio uses it was still a worthwhile purchase, aka "good enough".  But IMHO a 40D to 7D "upgrade" for the studio is probably not a good investment unless there are other non IQ features that are needed.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D for studio work
« on: February 01, 2012, 01:14:54 PM »
Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required...  Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness?  Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras...  As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.

Shutter speeds on these shots are typically in the 1/800+ range, so I don't think that's the issue.

To be honest I have not spent much time with the MA on the 7D, but if that were the issue there would be SOME shots that have that clarity, but I have not seen them.  For this given race series I shoot about 500 of these shots per race, so I've got a pretty good sample size.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D for studio work
« on: February 01, 2012, 12:53:25 PM »
But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)

I've run acorss this sort of statement several times.  I think there's a technical issue at the root of this - the 7D has a higher-resolution sensor and a stronger AA filter to go with it, and thus the resulting images require a bit more sharpening in post. 

But I also think that technical issue is not the source of most of these types of comments, rather, it depends on how you're viewing the images.  The 7D is 18 MP, the 40D only 10 MP.  If you view a shot of the same subject/same lens with both cameras at 100% on your screen, the 40D will appear sharper...but the subject the subject will be much smaller.  If you downsample the 7D image to the 10 MP equivalent of the 40D file (or upsample the 40D image to 18 MP), the 7D should give the sharper result.

My "test" is quite simple: with the 40D I can make out the hairs on the arm and the time on the wristwatches of cyclists taken at 70mm from the other side of the street.  With the 7D the hairs look more like fuzz, and the watch is often unreadable.  If I were at home I'd post zoomed in examples, but alas no can do from work.  This is a sample of the shots that I'm talking about:

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D for studio work
« on: February 01, 2012, 12:36:36 PM »
I cannot comment on "studio use" becuase I don't use a studio.  But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)  I love my 7D for the feel, the AF, and the FPS, and high ISO images, but if I accidentally wandered into a studio I would prefer to have my 40D.

For reference I shoot primarily with a 70-200L 2.8 IS mark I and the 24-105L 4.0.

Canon General / Re: Is it just me, or....
« on: February 01, 2012, 12:08:50 PM »
It seems like a lot of them have never used the "search" function, I've been seeing a lot of reposts recently.

Hey, wait...I just that thread showing pictures of the 'new 5DIII' on Safari in Africa, there seem to be two different cameras there.  Has anyone else noticed that?   ::)

Thanks for the gut busting laugh!  +1   ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Deciding on an upgrade
« on: January 31, 2012, 03:40:01 PM »
As far as lenses go, I do plan to upgrade that supply as well.  I rarely use my kit 18-55 lens because it is so slow to focus, it drives me crazy.  I've rented the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which I actually like and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 (which is obviously great) but it is a bit heavy for me to use as an every day lens, imo.

Since you are planning to upgrade both bodies and lenses, might I suggest that the budget go to lens(es) first?  A good lens never goes out of style or usefulness, and it has been mentioned elsewhere that they can actually provide a better investment than the stock market.  Then by the time you've saved up the next chunk of money the new bodies may be out and you can decide then whether they are worth the expense.

FWIW, I find my 7D to be adequate, but not great.  The AF (which IS great) is the primary reason that I have it, but in pure IQ terms I actually prefer my (wife's) 40D.  I knew that I had "issues" with the 7D before I bought it, but its good enough for the moment and my plan is to shift it to my backup camera once the new options come out.

Lenses / Re: 24, 35 or 70-200
« on: January 31, 2012, 03:28:44 PM »
When wandering Rome, you are correct the 70-200 isn't going to cut it.   :-\

Personally I almost never take that lens off (and yes, I'm using a crop body, not FF), but I neither could I shoot a landscape or architecture to save my life so I don't usally even try.  But even with my strict focus on people and sports there have been a few instances that I couldn't back far enough away to get the shot with the 70mm minimum.  I love the lens and use it 95% of the time, but it is not going to have a ton of flexibility if you want to move beyond head-shot portraits and sports (and maybe street?  Dunno, never tried...)

When I need to go shorter, the 24-105L produces great images, so if you don't need the speed or short DOF, I can easily recommend it.  For my uses either I or my target seem to always be on the move, so a zoom is almost indespensible for me and as much as I love the IQ of primes they rarely make it onto my camera. 

Look at the EXIF of the photos you've shot and figure out if you zoom a lot or kinda keep it at one spot, and shop accordingly.

Lighting / Re: Softbox vs Diffuser
« on: January 31, 2012, 12:41:56 PM »
Diffusion, in my opinion, is great if you want to soften light in an ambient fashion and setting...  If the room/scene as a whole is dark and you want to universally brighten, diffusion is the way to go.  If you want to light the subject, softbox is the way to go.

Simple, succinct, informative.  +1!

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: January 31, 2012, 12:19:26 PM »
I think a young person who sees his photograph could be inspired. Unlike the technically astute here, that young person will have no knowledge of what it takes to create such an image -- but they may be inspired to try. Hence, they may buy a good camera and get busy trying to emulate what he's done. As such, they'll learn a lot about photography; they may even create some images that other people find pleasing. I don't think there's a downside to that.

Until after years of trying and not even getting close to replicating this image, they give up on photography in utter frustration.  Shortly thereafter, they find this thread, realized they've been duped and wasted the best years of their life pursuing the impossible and in their rage and depression shoot the nearest photographer they can find.   :-\

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Flip out displays -- why the resentment?
« on: January 31, 2012, 11:22:11 AM »
:( :( :( :( :(   Sorry - was a grumpy old man this morning  :( :( :( :(
Perhaps I was too critical yesterday on choice of words in a few posts.

What???  Okay, where am I and what did you guys do with the real internet??  Everyone knows that people don't actually apologize and try to be civil on the internet!   ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Flip out displays -- why the resentment?
« on: January 30, 2012, 03:26:05 PM »
Simplicity is important.  For me personally, an articulated screen is going the wrong direction and I'm not going to buy a dSLR with one. 

So you would prefer no LCD?  It would be simpler...   ???

Sports / Indoor cycling
« on: January 30, 2012, 11:30:31 AM »
Finally got a chance to take out my new 7D last night and play.  Lens was the 70-200 2.8 IS I, and for the record I think these were the worst lighting conditions I have ever seen.

Oh, and FWIW, the first and third images were shot at ISO 3200, with some Lightroom 3 noise reduction applied.

Anyhow, here's a few I liked:

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Brief Specs? [CR1]
« on: January 27, 2012, 06:22:22 PM »
People trying to sort out major hints given on one forum where one member has seen and held the new camera, one possible guess for specs is apparently:

roughly 30MP, 6fps, AF better than 7D and worse than 1DX, video without moire

If so, those would be some nice specs (assuming everything works) and, on paper at least, make the D800 seem worse.

Now that is a camera I'd buy!  (It's only $899, right?   ::) )

EOS Bodies / Re: Poll - What is the Mystery Canon Body?
« on: January 27, 2012, 02:47:38 PM »
If the 3d comes to the market (praying that it does) I would think that Canon would create the 3d as a digital still camera (no video, high fps) and a new 5d (video, slow fps). 

What is this insistence on Canon creating a camera without video? I can understand stills photographers frustration at R&D effort into DSLR video that could be spent on other features (but don't forget the extra revenue that Canon makes from video users), but to not have a feature in one camera in the range that is in all the others seems a bit daft.  Video is not a feature that I use, but why would I object to something that is free? Does an extra switch/button that you don't use really bother you that much? You must seriously have a grudge against the almighty about the male nipple thing!  :)

There have been lots of arguments over whether there is a "sacrifice" to have video on DSLRs and I've always been in the "don't use it if you don't want it" camp that has also been saying there's no impact on the stills performance.

However, that's not the case with the mystery cam--the LCD is clearly NOT a 3x2 ratio but is 16x9 or so, and this obviously is a direct video feature that is at odds with a stills dedicated camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Canon 5D line and AF...
« on: January 26, 2012, 02:59:25 PM »
For such individuals, wouldn't just buying a 1D IV or a 1D X give them everything they need in a single package...and one that is likely to have a much longer lifespan, for $6000-$6800?

Except for a backup camera,  ;)  which IMHO is not a minor consideration for most shooting ops outside of landscape and chasing the kids around the house.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 30