November 21, 2014, 07:40:53 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 ... 31
271
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 09, 2012, 01:44:08 PM »
If it's 3000 images, a "little bit of extra time" adds up pretty quickly.   ;)

Can you really name me a circumstance where the need for great IQ (specifically, high levels of detail and low noise), a tight timescale and 3000 images all collide?

It isn't in wedding photography - stellar IQ really isn't a deal-breaker there (I suppose it might be if two photographers were getting married!) and it isn't photojournalism, so what Real World situations exist where my kind of workflow isn't an option?

Bear in mind that at low ISOs, and depending on the intended use of the files, none of that "extra" work might actually be necessary.

750 triathletes each swimming, biking, running, and crossing the finish line.   :D

You could argue the need/definition for great IQ, but as you yourself said, if it's worth doing, do it right.  So if there are options that are comparable without PP, that's a big time saver for a better result.   ;)

272
1Dx MkII doesnt follow the new scheme.

Its got to be the 1DxX!


(beaten enough?)


I hate the specs on the 1DXX, I'm switching to the Nikon D5!

273
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 09, 2012, 01:30:16 PM »

But perhaps I'm missing part of what you mean?

I'm saying that - with just a little bit of care and effort on a user's part - it's possible to make images that match the D700 in terms of IQ: perhaps with a D700 it might be easier (although as I suggest, that depends on things like what you're shooting and whether you're focal-length limited), but it's still easy with the 7D.

If the little bit of extra time my PP involves is too much trouble for some people, that's their problem. I take the view that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly - I realise that I may be a minority voice there...

If it's 3000 images, a "little bit of extra time" adds up pretty quickly.   ;)

274
EOS Bodies / Re: Latest Canon disappoints wants me to switch over to Nikon.
« on: February 09, 2012, 01:25:21 PM »
My first post in these forums will be in the form of a rant. Apologies ahead of time :)

This "I'm going to switch because so and so created a better camera..." line frustrates me every time I read it. Do you really have a need for a 36 megapixel camera, or is that just for bragging rights? I think the majority of people who say things like this have invested very little into photography, lenses and learning their current system. My 5DII & 7D have more than enough megapixels, excellent low light capabilities,are easy to use cameras that help me get the photos I want. Hell, I still use a 6 megapixel Pentax K110D which produces great results. And get this, I often shoot with a 50 year old Voigtlander which also does a great job. And complaining that there is no IS on the 24-70 is ridiculous. Why do you need it at a relatively short zoom range? It is not needed in my opinion. I've also read from so many that Canon should put IS on all primes! That is laughable.

Granted, there are plenty of people with knee jerk reactions and too much $ to spend.  However, I get really frustrated by people who use the logic of "my camera works great for me, so why should you need anything different?"

I was reading up on the D800 this morning and have to admit I'm tempted.  I think it would show a concrete improvement to my (albiet limited) photography income.  But this is due to my style, my subjects, and my clients.  I don't expect everyone (or anyone, for that matter) to have the same needs as me, so if other bodies or lenses are what they need, great, I'm not going to put them down or question their intellect.

Of course switching to "the dark side" would mean I no longer have use of my wife's $10k lens collection, so I'm going to have to consider pretty carefully!   >:(

275
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 09, 2012, 01:08:20 PM »
Quote
it would seem to favor the D700: press button="good picture", vs. press button, download to <software>, make x+y+z manipulations="good picture". 

Unbelievable this kind of comments.
And this is a photography forum....sure...

Not quite sure what you're saying.  I'm talking about comparing outputs, not "set up lighting, adjust exposure compensation, set focus, set aperature, set WB, get subjects to smile...etc, etc."  Yes there is a lot that goes into taking a decent picture, but it didn't seem too much of a stretch that if you're comparing 2 bodies that the same effort in setting up and actually taking the photo would be applied to both.

Maybe you would prefer that I name specific software packages and highlight all of the thousands of PP tweaks that can be made?  And how exactly is your comment contributing to the conversation??

276
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 09, 2012, 12:57:43 PM »
My friend has 2 D700's and I can tell you that they knock the socks of the 7D
That's not remotely true if you're cropping, if you have a well-sorted 7D conversion/pp workflow sorted out (I have) and if you appreciate/want/need lots of detail.

I've done umpteen IQ comparisons between my 7D and D700 files, and - at the image level - the 7D lacks for very little, if anything, assuming an effective workflow.

I'm afraid that I have little time in any walk of life for people who assume that because they can't do something, it can't be done - the 7D seems to attract a lot of folk like that.

Trying to understand exactly what you're saying.  Does "effective workflow" mean that there are certain "pre-set" post-processing things that need to be done to illicit this result?  If indeed that's what you're saying, it would seem to favor the D700: press button="good picture", vs. press button, download to <software>, make x+y+z manipulations="good picture".  But perhaps I'm missing part of what you mean?   ???

277
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 08, 2012, 03:39:53 PM »
I know many folks are disappointed at the 24-70 II which does not have IS... but got me thinking.

This is a beast of a lens... and looking at the MTF graphs... looks to be a huge performer.

Does the lens come before the cart so to speak...

Would make sense to me, especially if Canon has a beast of a MP body on the forefront that there will need to be better glass to really take advantage of a more dense sensor.
...
Something tells me Canon is fine with what is going on and a flanking maneuver may be under foot

When you consider the 24 and 28 that just came out, I think this is sound logic. 

Let's think of it a different way--how many of you pros out there are going to make MORE money because you have the mk II of this lens?  (This is an honest question, not rhetorical.)  I think iff the answer is "not very many" that leads credence to the argument that there is a body coming that can better use the capabilities of the new lens(es).

278
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 - Sample Photos
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:10:08 PM »
I think there is a lot of lighting help in making those photos look good.  Great lighting can make even poor photographers look skilled. 

lol given that photography is all about lighting your comment makes no sense.

what makes a photographer really good if not his lighting skills?
choosing the right iso, gently pressing the button?

Yeah, sure.  Go shoot some sports and let me know how much time you spend working on the lighting.   ???

279
Canon General / Re: Truth in photography
« on: February 02, 2012, 03:35:54 PM »
I have no problem with someone who drives a Ferrari body on a Fiero chasis and engine.  Many people will ooh and aah and let it go--that's fine.  However, if the driver in question tells people it is an actual Ferrari or worse yet tries to sell it as such it's called fraud.  And there's a reason we have laws against that.

280
EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: February 02, 2012, 03:21:21 PM »
If this is what one goes through to get an exceptional photo, I can only guess how Moses' post-climb writeup would have read, after he had seen the burning bush and heard the voice of God.

Yeah, but can you imagine if he'd gotten a picture??   ;D

281
Macro / Re: Water macro
« on: February 02, 2012, 10:58:33 AM »
Is this image inverted?  It looks to my highly untrained eye like the pencil is actually underwater and the surface is at the bottom of the image.

No. The image is not inverted. Below is just the reflection.

Here are two more I took recently.

BTW, I love your work!  I guess the reason that my eye seems to think the one with the pencil is inverted is that coloring and lighting on the pencil has an underwater look to it.  Do you add the color in post, or is your lighting set up that way?

282
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.

283
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.

284
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:


285
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.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 31